This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here.
X
MM+cover+small+180914

David Ferguson: Don't lose control over tempting platform deals

  • Print
  • Comments (6)

I first encountered the word democratisation in Chris Anderson’s seminal The Long Tail a few years ago. Essentially a narrative about the economics of abundant supply, the book looks at the impact of the internet on markets where purchasing bias may be rife. The essential hypothesis is that we can now buy what we like and should not allow ourselves to be manipulated by retailers or other distributors.

Whatever else the RDR has achieved, it has catalysed the rapidly developing trend for advisers to be economically aligned to their clients rather than providers.

The product is now your advice. That is a pretty seismic shift and one which has the very positive side effect of putting you in control. The client solution is now yours to build and rather than be remunerated as a life company, a fund manager or a legacy platform may decree for distributing their stuff, you and your client can now agree the fair price for assembling the components that will deliver their financial objectives. After 30 years or so of arrogant encouragement to sell one company’s products over those of another, you and your clients are now calling the shots. Every single one.

Unless that is, you are using a platform which seeks to introduce bias into your advice by offering so-called special terms on the funds of certain “preferred” asset management groups. Whether dressed up as having “conducted extensive research” or “scale allows us to negotiate better terms”, the clear objective is to entice you to direct your clients’ assets in such a way that the platform makes additional margin on those assets. Whether that is due to a higher platform charge or a kickback from the fund manager seems barely relevant.

In the most absurd example, one rapidly emerging wrap is offering the platform for free if you invest the underlying assets in the funds of the platform operator’s parent company. The story appears to be that you can have the platform for free if you are willing to cast aside your own fund views. A cynical observer might consider this a ploy to gather assets ahead of the RDR, secure in the knowledge that whatever the re-registration project delivers, it will some years before moving clients en masse between platforms will be straightforward.

On a similar theme, I have always had a huge issue with long-time broker consultants morphing into business consultants and telling IFAs how to run their businesses. While some have operated on the “other side”, there are many more who have enjoyed the fruits of your labour and given little in return. Surely it is far better to seek guidance from your peers who have lived it, than from salaried, reconstituted product salespeople?

You are finally in control. Don’t dilute your opportunity by supporting platforms which aim to manipulate you. Love democratisation. Fear the honeytrap.

David Ferguson is the chief executive of Nucleus

  • Print
  • Comments (6)

Daily Email Updates
If you enjoyed this article, sign up to receive the latest news and analysis from Money Marketing.

The Money Marketing CPD Centre
Build your annual CPD - you can log and plan your CPD hours for free with The Money Marketing CPD Centre.

Taxbriefs Advantage
Advantage is a digital reference source giving unbiased, independent, answers to your technical queries. Subscribe to Taxbriefs Advantage.

Readers' comments (6)

  • so having distributors as shareholders isn't part of the same ...you've got to laugh at the front

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If Nucleus had the AUA it would be able to negotiate said deals while they still could to benefit their investors, isnt that what it is all about?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Think you need to expand your library David!

    I think a lot of this comes down to accepting what a platform is designed to do which is where product providers sort of fall down. To them it is simply a replacement gadget to create profit where once sat onshore bonds etc.

    The more serious is the accusation, totally justified, on contiuing to support artifically low pricing models through cross-subsidy. Hardly aligned with a world of transparency and where you are paid a fair price for a fair service.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I understand what you're saying. But if, after due research, some of the funds being offered fit the bill, take advantage. It's bit like any other special offer. You don't have to buy. It's still your choice.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @keh - 'distributor' - you'll need to explain that language to me

    @Bored - we check this constantly and we're not out of line at all. If we had a fund management group and enticed money into its funds on the back of a free-platform deal that would be different. But then again we don't and we wouldn't.

    @Richard - agree with that but also bear in mind the potential pain/cost of moving platform if the funds don't work out as promised and the platform is no longer the right one (generically not a rare scenario)

    Key point for me is that once advice is accepted to be the 'product', advisers must take control/ownership of assembling the various components and then exercise adequate oversight on an ongoing basis.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • We have been offered "free platform" if we will move our clients assets in such a way as David describes.
    We were offered a "business consultant" at no extra cost, who would show us how this could be done with the minimum of fuss.In other words we would no longer be independent nor would we be in control of our own business. We will, of course, be liable when/if it all goes wrong. The only possible loser in this scenario would be me. Thanks but no thanks.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your sayEdit my profile/screen name

You must sign in to make a comment

Fund Data

Editor's Pick



Poll

Is Labour right to be concerned about the unintended consequences of the Budget pension reforms?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments