What is a record of advice? A plain-language FAIS guide

A record of advice is the written account of an advice interaction that every South African financial services provider must keep under section 9 of the FAIS General Code of Conduct. It is not marketing, not a quote, and not the application form: it is the document that proves, years later, what was advised, why, and what the client decided. This guide is general information for practices, not legal or compliance advice; your compliance officer has the final word.

What section 9 actually requires

A record of advice must reflect, at minimum:

• The basis for the advice: a brief summary of the information and material the advice was based on: the client's circumstances, objectives, risk profile and financial situation as disclosed (the section 8 suitability analysis).
• The products considered: which financial products were evaluated, not just the one chosen.
• The recommendation and the why: the product or products recommended, with an explanation of why they are likely to satisfy the client's identified needs and objectives.

In practice a defensible record also captures the risks that were disclosed, the fees and charges discussed, replacement disclosures where one product replaces another (the Code requires the comparison and the client's acknowledgement), and the client's decision, including where the client departed from the recommendation.

The gaps that trip practices up

When records of advice fail an audit or a complaint at the FAIS Ombud, it is rarely because the advice was bad. It is because the record cannot prove the advice was suitable. The recurring gaps:

• The record was written weeks later from memory, so it reads like a template rather than the meeting that happened.
• Products considered but rejected are missing, which makes the recommendation look pre-decided.
• Fees and risks were discussed but never recorded.
• Replacement disclosures are thin, which is the single most scrutinised area.
• The client's decision is not distinguished from the recommendation, especially where the client chose differently.

Every one of these is an admin failure, not an advice failure. The adviser did the work in the meeting; the paperwork did not keep up.

Where AI fits, and where it must not

The right division of labour is strict. The adviser gives the advice, judges suitability and signs the record. AI is good at the part that fails audits: turning the adviser's contemporaneous notes into a complete, structured record on the same day as the meeting, and checking it against the section 9 checklist before anyone relies on it.

That is how our Advice Recorder works: the adviser WhatsApps a photo of their handwritten meeting notes, the agent transcribes them faithfully, drafts the record of advice in the practice's house format, and runs a compliance gap check. Anything the notes do not evidence is flagged as a gap for the adviser to complete, never filled in with plausible text. A record that says less but is true beats a record that reads well and invents.

The global research supports this division: planners overwhelmingly adopt AI for admin and communications, not for the advice itself. See what 6,000 planners told the FPSB.

A practical checklist

• Write (or generate) the record on the day of the meeting, from notes made in the meeting.
• Name the products considered, including the rejected ones and why.
• Record fees, risks and replacement comparisons explicitly.
• Separate the recommendation from the client's decision.
• Flag gaps honestly rather than papering over them.
• File against the client record with a reference you can retrieve in minutes, not days.