Once a client completes the MRI™ assessment, a Comfort with Risk Score is estimated. The client's financial professional receives a report showing:

• The MRI™ Comfort with Risk score
• The MRI™ Comfort with Risk score mapped to a portfolio classification
• Information about the portfolio classification
• A report describing the alignment of the client's comfort with taking risk and their ability to take risk and their past investing behavior

EXAMPLE

Your Client's MRI™ Comfort with Risk Score Is: 65               

MRI™ Comfort with Risk Classification: Your client would be comfortable investing in a   moderate growth portfolio.   

This Type of Portfolio Typically Holds Growth Assets in the Range of:  52% to 65%   

Characteristics of this Type of Portfolio: These portfolios include stable fixed-income assets as well as more growth assets for diversification   and potential gains.    

Feedback on Your Client's MRI™ Comfort with Risk Score: Your client's comfort with taking investment risk aligns with their past risk-taking behavior and their ability to tolerate large investment losses.     

Model Definitions

Comfort with Risk: A composite measure of a client's risk tolerance, risk preference and perceptions, knowledge, and experience.
Ability to Take Investment Risk: Represents a client's capacity to sustain a significant investment loss.
Past Behavior when Taking Investment Risk: Describes how a client has acted in the past when faced with an investment loss. 

MRI™ Comfort with Risk sets a new benchmark in financial risk tolerance assessment by combining a research-backed methodology, behavioral insights, and unbeatable value — all in one intuitive platform.

✔ Validated Scoring System

✔ Statistically Reliable Results

✔ Multiple Risk Dimensions (e.g., Tolerance, Capacity, Composure)

✔ Behavioral Insights & Real-Time Feedback

✔ Consistency Checks to Ensure Validity

✔ Client-Friendly, Mobile-Ready Interface

✔ CRM & Portfolio Software Integration

✔ Data Export & API Access

✔ White-Labeling and Branding

✔ Regulatory Compliance and Data Security

Leading Competitor: $250–$450/month
Other Market Tools: $90–$250/month

MRI™ Comfort with Risk: $59 per month per advisor

Only MRI™ Comfort with Risk delivers advanced analytics, dynamic portfolio mapping, and full advisor support at a fraction of the cost. It’s the perfect solution for advisors who demand performance and precision — without overpaying for it.

 CONTACT DR. CHARLES CHAFFIN TO LEARN MORE ABOUT MRI™ AND GAIN ACCESS TO MRI™ COMFORT WITH RISK:
DrCharles@moneyandriskinventory.com  

The MRI™ Comfort with Risk model is the result of 25 years of academic research, purpose-built to give financial professionals deeper, more actionable insights into a client’s true comfort with investment risk.

Powered by proprietary dynamic algorithms, the model evaluates key dimensions of a client's financial mindset, including:

• Willingness to take risk 
• Risk preference 
• Risk perception 
• Financial knowledge 
• Investing experience 
• Risk-taking ability 
• Financial composure
   

Now in beta testing: a new version designed specifically for couples. This household-level assessment will deliver the same rich insights as the individual report—empowering advisors to better guide couples through joint investment decisions with confidence and clarity.

Q: How long does it take complete the MRI™  Comfort with Risk questionnaire?

• The items comprising the MRI™ Comfort with Risk model are embedded in the larger MRI™ Inventory. It will take no more than 7 to 10 minutes to complete the entire MRI. Feedback is available as soon as a client completes the Inventory.

Q: What factors did the development team take into account when building the MRI™ Comfort with Risk model?

• The MRI™  Comfort with Risk model was built with the following factors in mind: 
• The Quickly Evolving Financial Landscape: Financial markets and products are continually evolving as are the needs of financial advisors and their clients. Economic conditions and investor behavior change over time, requiring tools that can adapt to new realities. 
• Client Psychology Insights: Advances in client psychology and behavioral finance continue to reveal more about how investors' emotions and cognitive biases impact their investment decisions. Few existing questionnaires or tests incorporate these insights. Furthermore, there's a growing recognition that each person’s comfort with taking investment risk is deeply personal and influenced by a variety of factors, including preferences, perceptions, ability, composure, and experience. Few of the existing assessment tools in the marketplace capture this complexity.
• Technological Advancements: Improved data collection and analysis techniques can facilitate more complex and nuanced insights into an investor’s comfort with taking investment risk. Rather than rely on a static modeling process, the MRI™ Comfort with Risk model provides a more personalized and dynamic insight into an investor's comfort with taking risk.
• User Experience and Accessibility: The MRI™ Comfort with Risk model aims to enhance the user experience by being more intuitive and easier to complete, which can lead to more accurate responses. The MRI™ Comfort with Risk model was designed to be inclusive, taking into account diverse populations, making the test accessible to a broader audience.
• Holistic Financial Planning: As a component of the larger MRI™ set of questions, the MRI™ Comfort with Risk approach offers a comprehensive assessment that considers a wider range of factors, including someone’s ability to withstand investment losses, past investing experience, previous investing behavior, and investment preferences. 
• Globalization: As financial advising becomes more global, there's a need for risk assessment questionnaires that account for cultural differences in risk perception and investment behavior. The MRI™ Comfort with Risk model was designed specifically for worldwide use. 

Q: How does the scoring system work?

• The model uses a dynamic scoring process built across the MRI™  Comfort with Risk domains. Each client's score is standardized on a scale ranging from 5 to 95. Someone who is very risk averse will score low on the scale, whereas someone who seeks out risk will score higher.
  

Q: What are the portfolio classifications used in the model?

• The model maps MRI™ Comfort with Risk scores to one of the following six portfolio classifications:
• Conservative: A portfolio holding 5% to 15% growth assets
• Moderately Conservative: A portfolio holding 19% to 34% growth assets
• Balanced: A portfolio holding 37% to 49% growth assets
• Moderate Growth: A portfolio holding 52% TO 65% growth assets
• Growth: A portfolio holding 67% to 82% growth assets
• Aggressive Growth: A portfolio holding 85% to 95% growth assets
• Note: individualized firm/advisor maps can also be used.
  

Q: How can I be sure the MRI™ Comfort with Risk model is robust?

• The MRI™ Comfort with Risk model was developed using classical test theory as a guide. Items and scores were (and continue to be) tested with diverse groups of household financial decision-makers. The base model's reliability estimate is quite robust (Cronbach's alpha = .79), with scores being predictive of the cash, fixed-income, and growth asset holdings of investors.
  

Q: I've already assessed my client's willingness to take risk. In fact, the client's portfolio is established. Why would I need a measure of my client's household comfort with risk?

• Many financial objectives do relate back specifically to one person in a household; however, there are numerous financial planning situations where goal achievement is based on partners in a household working together. Saving for retirement, purchasing a second home, and saving for a grandchild's education costs are examples of household level financial goals. It is possible that without a valid measure of a household's comfort with taking investment risk, recommendations may cause one or both partners concern, stress, and/or discomfort.
  

Q: What should a financial professional do when tasked with providing guidance on funding a shared goal?

• Financial professionals deal with this dilemma in numerous ways, including averaging scores from both partners, using the risk score from the more aggressive partner, and basing recommendations on the risk score of the most dominant partner. These approaches are somewhat problematic. The MRI™ Household Comfort with Risk score, which is being beta tested, will provide a more robust indication of the risk level that would be appropriate when dealing with household-level goals.
  

Q: How often should a client complete the MRI™ Comfort with Risk assessment?

• Unlike other assessment tools that require frequent reassessment, the MRI™ approach was built on the assumption that an investor's comfort with taking risk is a trait-like factor. This means that the MRI™ Comfort with Risk score should be relatively stable. While scores may vary slightly based on when a client completes the assessment, a financial professional should not observe wide fluctuations in a client's comfort with taking risk over time. If a client does exhibit behavior that conflicts with the initial MRI™ Comfort with Risk score, or they express concern over the performance of their portfolio, they should retake the assessment. At that point, the financial professional should reconcile the two scores. 

Q: Why doesn't the MRI™ Comfort with Risk model account for a client's time horizon, age, income, and similar factors? 

•  A risk tolerance assessment tool should not include factors such as age, time horizon, or income because these elements pertain to a person’s financial situation rather than their psychological comfort with risk. Risk tolerance is fundamentally a psychological trait reflecting an individual’s willingness to accept uncertainty and potential loss, whereas factors like age, income, and time horizon determine a person’s risk capacity, or their objective ability to withstand risk based on financial circumstances. Blending these two distinct concepts within a single assessment can lead to confusion, as it becomes unclear whether a high tolerance score results from actual comfort with risk or simply from financial advantages. Keeping financial factors out of risk tolerance assessments ensures that the measurement purely reflects an individual’s behavioral tendencies toward risk. This separation is critical for sound financial planning, as it allows advisors to evaluate risk tolerance and capacity independently and then reconcile any differences. For example, a young investor with a high capacity for risk might still be highly risk-averse, and combining the two measures could obscure this reality. Moreover, including financial factors can introduce biases and assumptions, such as the belief that older individuals are inherently more risk-averse, which is not always the case. The MRI™ Comfort with Risk model intentionally excludes time, age, and financial factors to maintain the validity and reliability of the assessment.