View more on these topics

Editor’s note: More competition will limit replatforming pain

Justin Cash, Editor of Money MarketingA few months ago, I glibly tweeted asking for examples of replatforming projects that advisers believed had gone well.

I wasn’t exactly inundated with positive responses.

Even some of the most astute market watchers failed to predict the phenomenal growth of advised assets held on platforms over the past decade. With the added volume and complexity of platform operations, it was inevitable that they would have to modernise their technology infrastructure or risk the money going into a black hole.

The unfortunate corollary of this is that traditional life companies have been forced into running highly technical digital projects they are uniquely unsuited to managing.

Aviva has become the latest casualty of this process. We have received a great number of letters, emails and phone calls from understandably frustrated IFAs trying to facilitate some pretty basic transactions for clients and struggling. Add to this the frequent passing mentions of feeling in the dark that filter into my everyday conversations with advisers and the picture for Aviva could look pretty bleak.

Cover story: Inside Aviva’s tumultuous tech upgrade

I have plenty of sympathy for Aviva here. It, and advisers, are not well served at all by an oligopolistic market in underlying technology support for retail investment platforms. The market is dominated by just four major players: Bravura, IFDS, FNZ and GBST. Aviva happens to be moving from Bravura to FNZ.

Neither has any incentive to make the transition a smooth one; the longer it takes, the more they can earn in fees and the more they can irritate their rivals. Not even the likes of Old Mutual and St James’s Place have been able to keep their partners to budget.

Aviva will certainly take a reputational hit from this experience, but it is unlikely that it will trigger a mass exodus of assets.

Firstly, it has a decent track record of adviser and client service. It is also reasonably priced in an environment where value savings for end investors should be coming from all parts of the chain.

But, more importantly, Aviva is fortunate that it isn’t easier to simply lift and shift off the platform and on to a competitor. If platform switches really were that easy, we would have seen flight from all of the other players in the market that have had replatforming glitches or expressed concerns about how much everything is going to cost them.

Though painful, all of these technology upgrades really need to happen now, not later. What would help minimise the pain for advisers and their clients in future would be if the FCA really takes its work on platform competition seriously, and ensured that both providers and technology companies were really pushing themselves to make the best of a painful situation.

Justin Cash is editor of Money Marketing – follow him on Twitter @Justin_Cash_1

Recommended

Royal Court of Justice High Court 480
6

Court allows FCA to submit evidence in Sipp claims case

A High Court judge says the FCA can submit evidence in a case that could shape how Sipp misselling claims are handled in the future. In the case, which started today, lorry driver Russell Adams alleges Carey Pensions missold him a self-invested personal pension. Carey Pensions is accused of using unregulated introducers to invest Adams’s […]

2

FCA wins case against £16m unauthorised investment scheme

The FCA has won a key court case over the promotion of unauthorised investment schemes. The High Court has found that Capital Alternatives, which ran investment schemes involving rice farm harvests in Sierra Leone and carbon credits across Brazil and Australia, must pay back nearly £17m to investors after the FCA alleged the ventures were […]

File image of broken piggy bank
7

Standard Life cuts free TVAS reports after FCA guidance

Standard Life has decided to cut free transfer value analysis reports for advisers after the FCA expressed concerns they could act as an inducement. In a flagship policy paper on defined benefit transfers on Monday, the regulator noted many market participants had argued free TVAS software offered by providers presented a conflict, given it is […]

Champagne-Celebration-Celebrate-700x450.jpg
1

Champagne fraudster gets another 16 months in jail for contempt

An investment fraudster who lied to the courts has been given an additional 16-month prison sentence for perverting the course of justice. Alex Hope, dubbed a ‘champagne fraudster’ after spending investors’s money on a lavish lifestyle, took more than £5.5m from savers through an unauthorised collective investment scheme. In February 2016, Hope was given three […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There is one comment at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. For a number of years now I have had a growing sense that life companies are being sold a pup by all four of the tech firms that sit behind these platforms. The Aviva example merely adds to this. Platforms that run their own tech seem to avoid multi, multi million pound costs, projects that never get completed in the initial timescales quoted, not to mention the huge cock-ups that ALWAYS seem to occur on re-platforming. The life companies obviously see a benefit to outsourcing the tech, but it seems to me that it actually adds risk to your business. Their lives are in the hands of someone else. If you insource you have a real incentive to keep costs down and get projects done on time; if you outsource it appears that you are writing a blank cheque.

    It seems to me that advisers now really need to question whether any of the platforms that outsource are actually a good long term bet for their clients. I certainly am.

    Hopefully advisers and clients will see benefits once all this re-platforming completes, but I currently remain unconvinced. I am waiting for my pudding and proof.

Leave a comment