Does your advice still work if only one half of a couple understands the plan?

Sharing a home, bills and possibly several decades together doesn’t necessarily mean sharing a financial plan.

Sharing a mortgage while keeping the retirement plan on a need-to-know basis is an interesting interpretation of partnership.

Research from Quilter found that almost half of couples don’t take an equal role in planning their finances. That can leave one partner dangerously detached from decisions affecting their own future.

Some 46 per cent of couples don’t share financial planning equally. In 11 per cent of relationships, one partner handles it entirely.

This separation persists even when couples have combined the practical parts of their financial lives. Among those who have been together for more than three years, 87 per cent have partially or completely merged their finances. Yet fewer than two in five, 38 per cent, have sought financial advice together.

They may share the mortgage, current account and grocery bill, but not an agreed plan for retirement, protection or what happens if life takes an unpleasant turn.

That’s quite a gap.

Women face the greater risk

The imbalance is particularly concerning for women.

Quilter found that 76 per cent of women in long-term relationships had a good understanding of their overall household finances, compared with 84 per cent of men.

More troublingly, 17 per cent of women said they wouldn’t feel confident managing their finances independently if the relationship ended. Among men, the figure was 6 per cent.

Financial independence within a couple is perfectly sensible. Financial ignorance is a less convincing lifestyle choice.

This isn’t simply about who pays the bills or remembers the online banking password. The less-involved partner may know little about the household’s pensions, investments, protection policies, debts or retirement assumptions.

If the relationship ends through separation or bereavement, they may be left trying to understand everything at precisely the moment they are least equipped to do it.

There’s also a relationship benefit to planning together. Two in five people in long-term relationships, 42 per cent, said managing money jointly could make their relationship feel stronger.

It may not be quite as romantic as dinner for two, but at least a joint cashflow plan won’t object to your choice of restaurant.

Get both partners into the conversation

Advisers have been making this point for years: when you advise one half of a couple, make a serious effort to involve the other.

The research suggests the financially engaged partner is more likely to be the man, so another review meeting directed almost entirely at him may reinforce the very imbalance that needs fixing.

That doesn’t mean every asset must be combined or every decision made jointly. Some couples prefer financial independence, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. The important point is that both partners understand the household position and can manage their own affairs if circumstances change.

A joint review can establish who owns what, whether both partners understand the plan and where confidence or knowledge is missing. It also gives the less-engaged partner a relationship with the adviser before they urgently need one.

Of course, two clients in a meeting often means more preparation, more questions and more follow-up work.

That’s where The Timebank can help. Our paraplanners can handle the analysis and suitability work behind the scenes, giving you more time to involve both partners properly.

Because a couple can choose separate bank accounts. Separate financial futures are rather harder to justify.

Get both partners into the conversation before one of them has to learn the entire plan during a crisis.