View more on these topics

Editor’s note: Platforms need to make sure they can cash the IPO cheque

Which relationships matter most for platforms? Those with fund managers? Technology providers? Advisers? Thanks to its decision to float last week, Transact now has a fiduciary duty to care about its share price above any of those.

It is not the first advised platform to have thought about a public listing, and it certainly won’t be the last. With advised inflows dominating those in the direct-to-consumer space, the battle really is on to capture as much adviser business as possible.

Focusing on the positive, an injection of capital could give users of Transact, AJ Bell, Nucleus and others a much-needed leg up in terms of service levels, functionality and even pricing. Given the financial difficulties of some platforms, it does make sense for advisers to bear profitability and sustainability of ownership in mind when conducting their due diligence.

Platform pressure: Will stock market floats breed adviser conflicts?

Yet there remains a concern that such heightened levels of investment could be anti-competitive. The FCA is in the midst of a review of whether competition is in fact working in the platform space. While there has been some consolidation, there are still a decent number of advised platforms out there to choose from, both provider-owned and independent. But if platforms really are a scale game now, a sudden flood of investment into one of them could give them the resource they need to perfectly execute a land-grab from some of the smaller players in the market.

Could fund groups with products held by those same platforms use this as an opportunity to up their stakes, exerting greater influence over discount deals as significant shareholders? Could they use the threat of shorting to their advantage?

At the end of the day though, will clients really care that Transact, which they had never heard of before anyway, is now publicly listed? You’d first have to explain to them what a platform even is. They would have to be pretty clued in to ask tough questions on exactly why their money was being held on the same platform as their adviser had an equity stake in.

The client’s gut response might be to say it sounds good from a stability point of view. Tens of millions-worth of investment can’t all be wrong. But what Transact gains in reputation and esteem from listing, it loses in falling under far greater scrutiny from investors and the public. Listed companies are no less immune to failure than small ones, as the investment industry knows all too well.

At least we’re a bit closer on knowing what on earth a platform should be valued at these days. The market has decided they’re worth quite a lot. If it gets it wrong, there could be a lot of unhappy investors, and a lot of unhappy advisers.

Recommended

1

Old Mutual contacts advisers for replatforming advice

Old Mutual Wealth has contacted advisers who use the Aviva platform to learn how it might prevent similar issues experienced by that provider happening in its own replatforming exercise. Aviva moved client assets onto its new platform in January. The platform went through a five-day blackout period and advisers complained of issues with client payments, […]

Money-Cash-20-Note-Currency-UK-700x450.jpg
8

FSCS pays out £3.4m over advice firm amid fraud charges

The Financial Services Compensation Scheme has paid out more than £3m in compensation claims against a Norwich advice firm currently in court over alleged fraud offences. Taylor and Taylor Associates has been the subject of 119 successful claims on the lifeboat fund to date, which has awarded a total of £3.4m in compensation. The figures […]

Europe outlook: Greek gridlock and Italian banks

By Rob Burnett, Investment Director, Head of European Equities As investors await a resolution of Greece’s repayment difficulties, we anticipate a period of consolidation in the European market over the next few weeks. Our base case is that the Greek government and the European Central Bank (ECB) will come to a solution, particularly given the […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 2 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. What utter tripe. Transact didn’t and didn’t need to raise any money. Transact has floated at a high PE. It is unusual in the platform world in that it has a good history of a relatively high, stable and growing ‘E’. If you take the ‘E’ of most competitors and multiply it by the Transact PE you get a far lower value. Good example Nucleus. A bit less than half the assets of Transact but speculated at a value of £100 million or less compared with Transact £850 million. Reason, relative lack of ‘E’. The Transact IPO should make the shareholders of competitors ask hard questions about how well their money has been spent.

  2. Robin Marshall 9th March 2018 at 8:53 pm

    Re: Transact [Integrafin] now has a fiduciary duty to care about its share price.

    Can you please point me to where it states a company, or its directors has a fiduciary duty to care about its share price?

    Whilst I agree directors have an inherent responsibility to manage the company on behalf and in the interest of its shareholders, they have also have a responsibility to their clients and staff.

    The directors of IntegraFin have made these responsibilities very clear, and this was in place well before the IPO and remains exactly the same post listing.

    To infer that they have a responsibility to technology providers or fund managers, even if those fund managers are also shareholders, is inaccurate and quite frankly defamatory.

    As such, it seems to me like you are simply trying to highlight some conflict of interest that simply doesn’t exist.

    Whilst I appreciate this may be an issue where a platform is vertically integrated, as is the case with a fair few of its competitors, it is unfair to sling mud so blindly and further consideration should have been taken in future.

Leave a comment