Avagance

24/09/2026

Your morning review prep takes an hour. It should take five minutes.

Picture this instead.

You say to Ava: open the Fletcher file and start a review.

It pulls the last review. The ISA allowance. The vulnerability note from January that you'd have spent ten minutes digging for.

Then it drafts the pack.

You watch it happen. You check it. You sign.

That's one adviser hour back before lunch.

When I sat next to advisers and traced where the hours actually went, the drafting wasn't the problem. It was the gathering. Opening five systems, re-reading old notes, re-explaining the same client to yourself because nothing holds the context between meetings.

The system should already know the client. Your job is the judgment and the signature, because that part can't be automated and honestly shouldn't be.

The rest is assembly work. Machines are good at assembly work.

We built Avagance so the file arrives ready and you stay the one who owns the decision.

If you got that hour back every morning, what would you actually do with it?

24/09/2026

Count how many places your firm keys a client's date of birth.

That number tells you more about your operational health than your tool count does.

Every second entry of the same fact carries two costs. A chance for the copies to disagree, and time spent typing something the firm already knew.

The error is the loud cost. Someone catches it at review, fixes it, complains about it.

The time is the silent one. It leaks quietly, client by client, review cycle by review cycle, and it never shows up on any invoice.

A fact that lives in one place costs nothing to keep correct.

A fact that lives in five places has to be defended in five places. Forever.

When we designed Avagance I refused any workflow where a value gets entered twice. Capture once, verify once, reuse everywhere.

Actually, the technical part of that was the easy bit. The hard part was refusing to treat re-keying as normal when an entire industry had already accepted it.

So I'm curious. How many entry points is your firm defending right now?

23/09/2026

AI won't replace your advisors. It's coming for the copy-paste.

I keep thinking about how a qualified paraplanner spends a chunk of their week retyping valuations, fund breakdowns, and fee structures from provider PDFs into the back office. By hand.

Four fields at a time.

The margin pressure is the loud cost. Burning out trained planners on data entry is the slow one, and that's the part that pulls at me more.

So that's what we built Avagance to take. Drop the raw provider PDF in and the extraction engine pulls every figure into structured fields in seconds.

The planner re-enters nothing. They click to verify, and each figure sits next to the highlighted line in the source document it came from.

A human still signs off before anything moves. In this industry a figure has to be exactly right, so that step stays.

Traceability happens at the moment of review instead of getting chased down months later for the audit.

Turnaround drops from three weeks to three minutes. LOA volume doubles without another hire.

Your planners get back to actual planning.

If your paraplanners got that time back tomorrow, where would you point it?

Reserve your founding partner slot today: avagance.com/ifa-waitlist

21/09/2026

Rekeying one LOA takes about 25 minutes. Not because advisers are slow. Because the same figures have to go into the back office, then the client letter, then each provider form, all separately, all by hand.

That's four windows open for a single client. And if one number is off, the whole file is wrong, and you probably won't find it until something downstream breaks.

We built the LOA scanner because that 25 minutes is just the cost people stopped questioning.

You upload the letter once. It pulls the figures out and links each one back to the exact page it came from. You check, confirm, and it pushes into Intelliflo, the client letter, and the provider forms ready for e-signature.

Nothing hits the file until you say so.

This is video 1 in our founding-partner series, built for directly authorised UK firms on Intelliflo. Founding partners get a week in a sandbox, then a week of controlled beta before general availability on 15 October. We're opening it to 25 firms.

Next: everything about your client on one screen.

20/09/2026

HMRC just signed off on what we're building.

The letter landed today. SEIS and EIS Advance Assurance for Avagance, approved.

If you're outside UK startup land, it means investors who back us early qualify for real tax relief. It also means a government body read our plans for rebuilding wealth management infrastructure and said yes.

We stared at the reference for a while. WMBC. That's the entire header. Years of work and it fits in four letters.

When we filed, we expected a list of questions back. Regulated industry, AI models on our own servers, a founder who came from outside. It came back clean.

Thank you to everyone who read the drafts, checked share classes, and answered our questions at odd hours. This letter has your fingerprints on it too.

It's a massive step in a very plain envelope.

Now we prove the math.

What was the first official letter that made your company feel real?

20/09/2026

I asked an adviser why he stopped taking on new clients.

He didn't blame fees or markets. He said fair value reviews.

Consumer Duty asks him to evidence fair value for every client, every year. He has 300 clients.

So every year he pulls the same facts out of the back office, the platform, the fact find, and old suitability letters, and re-types them into a document his compliance consultant then checks.

The facts didn't change. Where they live did, five times over.

Those were his prospecting hours. That's the actual cost. Not the rule itself, the rule is reasonable, clients should get fair value.

Actually I'd go further. The rule is one of the better ones.

What I work on is keeping every client fact in one record, so the fair value evidence falls out of work he's already doing. Sign-off stays with him. I won't build a version where it doesn't.

He figures he'd get back about a day a week. A day a week is a growing firm again.

If your annual reviews took a day instead of a month, what would you do with the rest?

17/09/2026

The same client fact gets typed three times a year.

Once in Tuesday's meeting note. Once in Thursday's suitability letter. Again when the annual review pack comes around next year.

Same client. Same thinking. Rebuilt from scratch each time.

And every re-entry is a chance for the numbers to drift. What got modeled in the meeting stops matching what got reported twelve months later, and nobody can say exactly when it slipped.

We built Avagance around one loop. The meeting note becomes the suitability letter becomes the review pack, all on the same client record.

The thinking gets captured once. Everything downstream inherits it.

That's the whole test for what goes on the platform. If a feature doesn't feed that record, it doesn't ship. Doesn't matter how nice it looks in a demo.

The judgment in that meeting is the part clients actually pay for. The retyping just eats the week.

How many times does one piece of your thinking get rebuilt before it reaches the client?

16/09/2026

200 VC funds. One room. Free to apply.

Onstage runs a demo day for ambitious European startups. You pitch live, they watch, and the application costs nothing.

Raising the normal way means months of chasing intros one at a time. This compresses that into a single room.

If you know a founder who's raising right now, pass this along. It takes two minutes to fill out and the upside is pretty insane.

Your name on it turns a forwarded link into a vouch. Founders remember who handed them the room.

Who in your network needs this right now?

https://form.typeform.com/to/aIwEnMcH?utm_source=formreferral

Onstage is where the most ambitious and talented founders pitch their startups to leading VC funds.

16/09/2026

We could have built Avagance to replace Intelliflo. We chose not to.

Almost every early conversation we had pushed us the other way. Own the whole stack, become the system of record, that's where the value sits.

Then we did the math on what a migration actually costs a small firm.

Months of data mapping. Advisers double-keying while two systems run side by side. One field mapped wrong and your review dates are off for 400 clients and you find out from the client, not the system.

We spoke to a firm that started a back office move two years ago. Still not done. Two of five advisers were spending half their week on it. That's not a software project, that's the business on pause.

Actually it's worse than pause, because compliance doesn't wait for your migration to finish.

So Avagance sits on top instead. It reads from Intelliflo and writes back to it. Your data stays where it already lives, where the audit trail already lives, where twenty years of trust already lives.

The pitch is smaller than "new platform." Fewer logins, less rekeying, no migration.

We think smaller is right here.

If you've been through a back office migration, how long did it actually take?

16/09/2026

£36. That is what we want serving a client to cost.

Right now the average for a UK firm sits around £800 per client. That number quietly decides who gets financial advice in this country. About 9% of people, mostly the ones who already have money.

Last night at 10:04pm we filed the trademark application for Avagance with the UK Intellectual Property Office.

UK00004444551. I keep re-reading it.

A filing is just paperwork, I know. Nobody's cost structure changed because we submitted a form on a Saturday night.

But there's something about putting the name on record that made this feel less like a project and more like a commitment. The whole point of building Avagance has been that £800 to £36 math. Because when serving a client costs a tenth of what it does today, an industry that reaches 9% of people can reach 25%.

We didn't build this to make wealthy clients slightly cheaper to serve. We built it so advisors can afford to say yes to the people they currently have to turn away.

The paperwork is filed. The harder part is proving the math holds at scale.

If you run a small advisory firm, what's your actual cost per client? I'm curious how far off £800 you are.