View more on these topics

Graham Bentley: Why advisers should worry about the FCA’s platform market study

Platform gurus have recently been opining on the FCA’s deluge of market studies; in particular questioning the point of the Investment Platforms Market Study.

As Lang Cat consulting director Mike Barrett saw it: “You can’t help wondering whether the more detailed areas of focus are structured to prove (or disprove) a problem the FCA is not entirely sure exists.” Perhaps. But there does not have to be an obvious problem for the FCA to conduct a study. Study is not a pejorative term. As I have said before, the regulator is not an investment or distribution expert. If the industry pleads “no problem here, nothing to see, move along”, the FCA would be failing in its duty to customers and the wider industry good if it took that at face value.

Being “non-expert” allows it to ask questions industry-biased specialists might regard as naïve, yet a customer would ask if he or she was informed, motivated and better resourced to do so.

The Asset Management Market Study was seen as entirely warranted by those rather less-than-partisan in their support for the fund management industry. It seemed obvious something must be done, and the report finally paves the way for a healthier fund management industry with better outcomes for customers. That said, the asset management landscape has a wider vista than fund management per se.

Platforms’ best buy lists favour funds that pay more commission

During the initial study consultation process, the FCA came to recognise that, despite its habit and history of conflating financial planning and investment advice, the two were distinct disciplines. Furthermore, financial planning could operate completely separately from the investment value chain.

Indeed, that chain might be better designated as a pipe, with an investor at one end and an investment opportunity at the other. The regulator knows that investment pipe has a variety of outlets in between. Their naive question is whether these irrigate the client’s portfolio or are simply drainage into the plumber’s garden.

The study is about the entire pipe – platforms, certainly, but also the related impacts of investment advice, research and other ancillary services that purport to add value.

Opportunities to access the provision of a retail investment portfolio are almost exclusively via a platform. Those opportunities are significantly constrained in many (but not all) cases; for example, where Sicavs, investment trusts, ETFs, structured products and direct shareholdings might be suitable.

Adviser-focused (B2B) platforms are particularly uncompetitive in this area, the excuse often being there is no demand from their adviser base. Direct-to-consumer platforms, on the other hand, have more to lose by constraining opportunity, as there is no intermediary acting as filter. This mismatch is worthy of investigation.

Investment advice depends on B2B platforms. Not only is investment vehicle availability constrained accordingly but the proliferation of model portfolios can be directly attributed to platforms’ hosting capabilities.  The regulator may question to what degree these models act as channels to cross-subsidise advisers’ fees rather than adding investment value, but whether they actually constitute any value to investors.

As an adviser service, the B2B platform will probably offer a risk profiler, a risk-focused asset allocation model, free qualitative fund research data from an indep-endent researcher and a fund filtering tool, portfolio X-ray, reporting and monitoring. Mifid II requirements on reporting will almost certainly be handled by the platform from January. Very handy for the adviser but only indirectly for the investor.

Advisers, who may have limited investment knowledge but are utilising all these support tools, charge their customer on average 70 basis points per annum, plus the platform fee. To all intents and purposes, they are replicating the activity of the underlying fund managers’ multi-asset offerings. The only valid explanation for doing this via a non-bespoke model portfolio is if the adviser believes they offer better value than the thousands of managers and products from which they select portfolio constituents.

That is difficult to ascertain. While a unitised fund is easily compared with another, and tools to do this are freely available to investors online, this is not the case with model portfolios. Clients would find it difficult to compare model portfolios with funds, let alone compare various advisers’ portfolios with one another. As a competition and transparency issue, this may feature significantly in the report.

In the final analysis, those purporting to offer investment advice and managing portfolios may find themselves subject to the same regulatory oversight any other asset manager has to operate under and hold the same level of technical qualifications. Indeed, under the FCA’s gold-plating of Mifid II, all portfolio managers will bear the same responsibilities as recognised fund managers, including those relating to research payments (research will have a cost attached, otherwise it is deemed an inducement). This may have a significant impact on those research business models that charge for licences while distributing the underlying research for free – and on those advisers using it.

Most crucially for advisers, I expect the study to demonstrate that the value in financial advice is in financial planning rather more than investment portfolio management. The criticisms aimed at fund managers are likely to be similarly aimed at portfolio managers, both discretionary and advisory.

I would argue these model portfolios are easily built using platforms’ tools and are likely to proliferate via (cheaper) guidance models than advisory. In turn, that will present significant opportunities for anyone willing to develop guidance solutions – particularly fund managers looking to obviate investors’ reliance on intermediated investment advice.

Graham Bentley is managing director of gbi2


Spotlight on charges 700x450.jpg

FCA mulls asset management charges template as new panel formed

The FCA has appointed transparency campaigner Dr Chris Sier to chair a working group trying to create a template for disclosure of asset management costs and charges. Sier, who is currently managing director of consultancy Stonefish and Professor of Practice at Newcastle University Business School, has been a vocal critic of practices in the industry in […]

Curtis Banks profits up 85% after Suffolk Life buy

Sipp provider Curtis Banks has seen its pre-tax profit soar by 85 per cent to £5m in the first six months of the year after acquiring rival Suffolk Life. In its latest results, published today, Curtis Banks, which now offers nearly 75,000 Sipps and holds £23.1bn assets under administration, has almost doubled its revenue to […]


FCA set to bring back retirement interest-only mortgages

Advisers could soon have a new product to advise retirees on as the FCA is set to bring back retirement interest-only mortgages to help older borrowers. The regulator says in a consultation paper that it has found a regulatory barrier to helping older borrowers with maturing interest-only mortgages and those wanting to release equity from homes […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 5 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. I suspect the FCA’s main focus will be much more fundamental – does a service that costs the customer 30bps, and yet almost exclusively benefits the adviser, represent good value? It is not obvious that platforms have taken 30bps of cost out of the value chain, so I suspect the simple answer is ‘no’. I also think (hope?) they will look closely at platforms that are essentially ‘smoke and mirrors’, taking a cut without actually doing very much. Ultimately, I suspect it will speed up the demise of bps charging

    • What if client buys retail fund direct from fund manager? AMC will typically be c.1.5% yet buying clean fund through platform will cost fund AMC 0.75% plus platform fee 0.35% total 1.1%. Where is the client losing out? And that’s after any bid/offer spread charged on the retail fund.

    • @Robert Wood

      Presumably you don’t use platforms for the reasons you have given and your clients are better off as a result?

      The irony in all of this is that platforms only exist because advisers choose to use them. How many clients ask/insist that their adviser use one?

  2. Nicholas Pleasure 8th September 2017 at 11:19 am

    What benefits the adviser ALSO benefits the client because if the adviser has to do extra work the client will pay.

    How much would you need to charge a client to do a re-balance of a 20 fund investment portfolio, all held with different managers. My guess is that you would need to charge more than 0.3% to do that twice a year.

  3. I really couldn’t give a toss. I charge what I charge and the clients either agree it or go elsewhere. As long as I do what I say I will do then it is of no concern to the FCA what my fee is. it really has nothing to do with them. It is purely between me and my clients and if the client are happy to continually do business with me then that is all I care about. I really don’t give a stuff what attitude the regulator has.

Leave a comment