Standard Life acquires threesixty
Share
Standard Life has announced it has purchased outright the intermediary support services business, threesixty, from its former partners.
The firm peviously held a 25 per cent stake in the business, which comprises threesixty Services LLP, threesixty Support LLP and threesixty IFA LLP, since May 2007.
The 75 per cent stake was shared among partners Laura Chuck, Russell Facer, David Ingram, Ross McArthur, David Bratessani, Phil Young and Martyn Weaver.
All of threesixty’s partners will remain with the business although Weaver will provide consultancy services only.
The support services firm has 575 IFA clients firms who are responsible for 5,160 regulated financial advisers.
Standard Life says further investment in threesixty demonstrates its “continuing belief and long-term commitment” to the IFA sector.
Standard Life chief executive David Nish says: “We firmly believe that a thriving independent sector that gives consumers valuable access to professional financial planning is key to meeting the long-term savings and investment needs of consumers in the UK.
“The market is about to undergo significant transformation which will present many opportunities and challenges to advisers. Standard Life has a long and successful association with the IFA sector and we want to continue to support advisers through this period of change.
“Threesixty has the skills and capabilities to support IFAs, and with Standard Life’s backing, will continue to play a leading role in supporting the transformation of the IFA market. Consistent with our successful acquisition of flexible benefit specialist Vebnet in 2008, this acquisition will add further depth to our propositions in the intermediary market and our long-term distribution capability.”
Threesixty partner David Ingram says: “The levels of support which threesixty’s client firms will require in the run up to the RDR and beyond will require expansion and enhancement of our services. With the backing of Standard Life, we can look forward to working together, along with our other strategic partners, to develop the business further and deliver increased value to our client firms.
“Standard Life has been a major investor in threesixty for some years now and has always supported our enthusiasm for providing unbiased support to independent intermediaries. We view this as key to our ability to continue to be a trusted adviser to our clients.”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (16)
Anonymous | 15 Mar 2010 12:59 pm
Is 'Independant' and 'largely/wholely owned by an insurance company' not a contradiction....?! I have never understood that! Perhaps someone can explain it too me......?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Lee Clarke | 15 Mar 2010 1:46 pm
What a crying shame. An absolutev travesty that Standard Life should now owns this good business. Life Offices heavily influence the regulatory regime (in their favour) and the gradual demise of the independent sector is now gaining pace. I personally suspect they think RDR will cause the loss of a significant number of IFAs and so they want to gain market share before that happens.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15 Mar 2010 2:06 pm
I could not agree more with the above comments. Independent should mean independent of product providers having a vested interest in an IFA firm. A product provider needing an IFA distribution channel of its own smacks of self interest and not wanting a level playing field.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15 Mar 2010 2:55 pm
The FSA talks about "managing conflicts of interest" when it should be eradicating them when possible.
Allianz owns HNW insurance wholesaler Home & Legacy, Standard Life now owns 360 outright and so it goes on.
Running with the hare and hunting with the hounds; it's not right!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15 Mar 2010 3:34 pm
How 'independent' is the 360 process now? Will their buy list still be viewed as independent, and their other investment systems?
Shame, a fine business ruined, although I'm sure the ex partners will be toasting their sucesss with champers tonight.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15 Mar 2010 3:34 pm
Friends Prov own Sesame/Bankhall, haven't seen anybody jumping up and down about that have we? Sesame includes an authorised firm, a network, what value is there in threesixty? Or more to the point how much did Standard Life pay for "25%" in 2007 and how much did it now pay for the remaining "75%"?
If it is a token sum, say £1, as I believe Bankhall went for then what is in this for a life office which has already blown £millions on it? The FSA has told life offices that they must only invest in IFA businesses on "a commercial basis" and rightly so, I have even poked the Leviathan when these 'investments', 'takeovers' and 'mergers' are announced but heard not a peep out of the regulators. Now if threesixty was likely to cause problems for the FSCS (IFAs) then I can see how things work behind closed doors, LAUTRO is a classic example as was the Barclays/Lehmans debacle.
Did not Standard Life also "invest" in Simply Biz? Why? And why does it need more of the same? 2Plan, Tenet er...all sorts of "investments".
This industry (not profession) is a bewilderment to us mere mortals.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
David Brattesani, Partner, threesixty | 15 Mar 2010 3:40 pm
I’ve read these comments with interest. I don’t believe that the authors are threesixty clients. If they were, they would be aware that since Standard Life acquired a stake in threesixty in 2007, they have never sought to influence the advice and support which we deliver to our clients. Our clients are professional and astute, and they place value on the fact that threesixty consistently delivers independent and robust support to our clients. The relationship that threesixty will maintain with both Standard Life and our clients will remain as it has over the last 7 years, with our sole objective remaining the delivery of a professional service to our clients.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15 Mar 2010 4:18 pm
Mr Brattesani, I was aware of Standard Life's 25% stake. It's the main reason your company wasn't considered as a supplier when we were looking at the possibility of buying in expertise.
And it isn't only whether you provide a good service. It's about the possibility that the owner may seek to exert undue influence. Whilst it may not do that now, or even ever, it doesn't look good.
There is no doubt a conflict of interest which would in many people's view be better avoided.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dennis Hall | 15 Mar 2010 4:54 pm
I was reading through these comments and was about to add my own when I read david Brattesani, who has somewhat stolen my thunder. However, let me endorse what he has said.
I am a client firm of threesixty, and for what it's worth have never had an approach from Standard Life on the basis of their 25% stake in 2007, and do not expect to receive one now, if I do they will get short shrift.
ThreeSixty have various panels for investment etc, but I choose to have my own independent investment panel, this has never caused a problem with Threesixty, and why should it, I am directly authorised after all. I take from them only the services and support material that I want - this is not a network but a support provider, and the moment it stops supporting me andwants a different type of relationship, well I'll take whatever action I need to at the time. I am not expecting it happen to be fair.
I think that the demands being applied by the regulator going forward will require service providers and networks to find parents with deeper pockets or charge members more. I'm not in favour of increasing my overheads and if that means I might receive an unsolicited approach from SL ever so often, that's not a bad trade in my book.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15 Mar 2010 6:28 pm
Well done, Dennis - some balance in opinion.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment