View more on these topics

Too big to fail: Is platform tech about to crumble?


The limited number of technology providers dominating the platform market have raised difficult questions over whether the firms powering platforms are becoming “too big to fail”.

Figures from Platforum show 84 per cent of platform assets are expected to be held on platforms backed by just four technology firms by the end of 2018.

Last week saw Standard Life agree a deal to acquire Axa’s Elevate platform, a move set to bring even more business under tech supplier FNZ.

This came just weeks after the firm was bolstered by Aviva’s decision to move its own advised platform onto FNZ, bringing it in line with its non-advised offering, as well as those of its 2015 purchase, Friends Life.

Experts say the consolidation of the market is a result of the increasing complexity of regulatory compliance, and a sign of just how much platforms have become a commodity.

The Lang Cat principal Mark Polson says: “The driver behind this is the same as anything – can someone else do it cheaper and better?

“There’s an emerging understanding that the platform is more and more of a commodity. Whether it is proprietary or from another firm, it all has to do the same stuff, and most of them do that in different flavours.

“At the same time, firms have had to keep up with the pace of regulatory change. There’s a number of really big pieces that you have to do just to stay in the game.

“But the nature of that stuff makes some firms say they just don’t want to have to think about it any more, and they start to ask if they can find a place where any big regulatory changes that come in will be dealt with for them.”

But will the low number of technology providers put the platform market at risk?

Do advisers understand those dangers when choosing their platforms? And could there be a sting in the tail from the latest deal to hit the market?

Lowest common denominator
While the FCA does not directly regulate technology providers, it says the infrastructure supporting the platform market is a “perennial consideration”.

The regulator considers the reliability of platforms as part of its authorisation process, but says it the responsibility of the firm to ensure that technology is fit for purpose, whether it is outsourced or not.

An FCA spokesman says: “Firms should have technological systems that are appropriate for their business, including continuity plans to ensure they can continue to serve clients if things go wrong.

“When firms outsource they should take reasonable steps to minimise the risks involved. As part of our normal supervisory work we have a continuing dialogue with firms about their technology and its reliability. As part of our ongoing supervision we also look at wider sector risks. We will continue to review the effectiveness of the technology used in the sector.”

Finalytiq founder Abraham Okusanya suggests it might be time for the regulator to become more actively involved in the market beyond asking platforms to put contingency plans in place.

He says requirements to have processes to wind down their operations when going out of business are the lowest common denominator as a necessity of regulation.


Note: The pie charts represents the assets of UK adviser platforms that are predominantly powered by proprietary or third party technology providers, for example: FNZ currently powers Axa Elevate, Standard Life & Zurich and the total asset on these platforms make up 15 per cent of adviser platform assets

He says: “The challenge here is the underlying technology providers aren’t regulated for the most part.

“Parts of them might be, but for the most part, they’re not. So most of those questions platforms are required to answer aren’t there for tech providers.”

Okusanya notes a cyber attack on a technology provider could, at present, affect three or four platforms at the same time, and questions who should be investigating the risks.

He says: “Certainly this is an area that needs more attention, but I don’t know who should be doing this work. I’m not sure it’s for the advisers to have to ask about the tech providers behind the platforms as well as the platforms themselves.

“There’s a responsibility on the platform to do that, and they will argue they are doing that, but I don’t know whether that’s something advisers can bank on.”

Polson agrees: “It’s really important the industry starts to look at the health of the underlying things that make it function.

“If you have all this money sitting on these systems, why shouldn’t the regulator be treating them as a risk of potential detriment as well and shouldn’t those tech firms be starting to feel some of that pain?

“It’s not just communications hardware at this point, they are an integral part of what is going on.”

However, Altus director Kevin Okell says: “This is the same as any industry. There probably aren’t that many software providers that run nuclear power stations either.

“It’s a logical consequence of specialisation. That also keeps costs down and it improves quality.

“The quality of these things and reliance on them needs to get better, and you can debate whether they are ready right now.

“But the stuff where there is a concentration risk, and a stability risk to the market, are actually the more solid parts of the model in the back end that these firms have been doing for years, like aggregated trading.”


Aviva told Money Marketing it maintains “robust” contingency plans for a range of scenarios, and Standard Life head of adviser and wealth manager propositions David Tiller adds his firm maintains a close relationship with FNZ for exactly this reason.

Tiller says: “Developments are a collaboration between our proposition experts, Standard Life IT and FNZ with thorough testing taking place in both FNZ and Standard Life. In many ways, the way we operate allows us to get the best of both worlds, bringing internal and external expertise to bear as appropriate.

“We conduct thorough ongoing reviews and diligence on FNZ, including financial accounting information, and monitor platform performance closely. This includes building a deep understanding of FNZ’s disaster recovery protocols, so we can be confident that service will be maintained in extreme circumstances.

“In the worst case scenario this includes ‘step in rights’ where Standard Life would take direct control of all FNZ-run Standard Life platform services. However, I am confident we would get early visibility of any emerging issues at FNZ and therefore could take action to resolve these issues well before this became a necessity.”

Musical chairs

Advisers remain concerned about what the Elevate deal might mean for them.

Wingate Financial Planning director Alistair Cunningham says he has clients on both Standard Life and Elevate, but is concerned the deal will see previously distinct offerings lose their individual merits.

Cunningham is also cynical about Standard Life saying no decision has been made on whether the two platforms will continue to run as distinct offerings.

He says: “If Standard Life decides to make Elevate look exactly like Standard Life in terms of costs or anything else, then that would be a mistake.

“We use both for very clear reasons. I like Standard Life’s approach to customer service, and Elevate seems more integrated in terms of technology. Those things are priorities for different customers, so if they get thrown out then we will have to think again.

“Our main issue worry is whether Standard Life has got preconceptions of what clients and advisers want.”

In February, the FCA highlighted poor practice examples as part of its due diligence review where firms were “retro-fitting” due diligence documents to justify decisions on platform selection.

Octagon Financial Services director Adrian Hill says the deal will require more work for advisers to be able to maintain the suitability of their platform recommendations.

Octagon is part of the Personal Touch network, which uses a platform panel of Aviva, Old Mutual Wealth, FundsNetwork and Elevate.

Hill says: “In time it might work out better for us as a business, but it does put a lot more work on the adviser market.

“We have got to explain to all our clients what is going on, what is going to happen to their money, what is going to change and how it will affect them.

“Then you have the issue of the changeover, I don’t know how that will work but I’m hoping that there will be strong communication that will help support that change.”

Thomas and Thomas director Darren Lloyd Thomas says advisers are right to ask questions, particularly in the context of Standard Life’s recent efforts to build up its own restricted advice arm through 1825.

The advice firm has acquired Almary Green, Baigrie Davies and Munro Partnership all in the last two months.

Lloyd Thomas says: “Eventually, any life company will notice they have all these clients, and on a platform it’s very unclear as to who legally owns them because the platform could have just as much right as the intermediary.

“So it is just a matter of time before they say ‘there is X number of clients that haven’t been seen by an adviser for two years, let’s directly market to them.’

“And you can bet your bottom dollar that 1825 will be a hell of a good salesforce.”

Lloyd Thomas adds the collective result of the Elevate deal, Aviva’s replatforming and the ongoing saga over the acquisition of Cofunds will be an advice market increasingly wary of change.

He says: “For financial planning firms at the moment adopting a platform is a little bit like a game of musical chairs. You just don’t know when your’s is going to be hit. And a lot of advisers are quite nervous about it.

“To be honest, I don’t think anywhere is safe from that.”



What does Standard Life’s Elevate deal mean for advisers?

Standard Life is to consult with Elevate users before deciding whether to merge the services with its own platform, according to head of adviser and wealth manager propositions David Tiller. Speaking to Money Marketing in the aftermath of a deal to acquire Axa Wealth’s Elevate, Tiller says while the firm will seek to gain from […]


Standard Life acquires Elevate

Standard Life has completed a deal to acquire Axa Elevate for an undisclosed sum. The deal will almost double Standard Life’s customer base, bringing over 160,000 to the business, and raising total customers to 350,000. The combined business will also hold assets under administration of £36.4bn, 350,000 customers and net asset inflows of £5.7bn in […]


‘Vultures are circling’ as Standard Life eyes Elevate deal

Advisers will face uncertainty and the prospect of being targeted by rivals if Standard Life completes a mammoth takeover of Axa Wealth’s platform Elevate. Last week, Bloomberg reported Standard Life was in high level talks to acquire the French insurer’s platform after Money Marketing revealed in September Axa Wealth was up for sale. Standard Life […]

What exactly is product innovation?

By Fiona Tait, Pensions Specialist Ros Altmann reportedly hoped for more product innovation following pension freedom¹ and, according to one poll, 66 per cent of advisers also believe that providers should be doing more². This article considers whether there is a real client need for new products, or whether we should be focusing our attention on efficient delivery […]

Artemis Global Income: favouring Europe over the US

With a 10 per cent return from his Global Income Fund in the first three months of 2015, Jacob de Tusch-Lec talks to journalist Alexis Xydias about the drivers and why he favours Europe and Asia over the US. Jacob believes European companies remain cheap and is still finding opportunities amid value stocks – in contrast […]


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. Any IFA that relies on Platform technology is at risk and cannot control that technology. Most of the things that platforms “do” from a technical point of view should be done by your back office software – risk profiling, asset allocations, fund stats, portfolio creating etc. It makes sense to use platforms to hold clients’ assets and trade but that’s about it. Moving clients from one platform to another (whilst difficult!) should not have any impact on your procedures or client output. All you should have to do in your back office system is change the provider name!

  2. Quite simply – the technology must not be allowed to fail.

    Ken has the nub of the matter. Platforms have put on too much fat. A platform is (or should be) a utility on which assets are held and traded. If there are links to research that’s fine – any more than that is over egging the proposition. If advisers need spoon feeding then perhaps they shouldn’t be in this sphere.

    Perhaps we need to look at the software used my stockbrokers and asset managers if they are different from the big 4.

    • This may or may not surprise you, but many of the big asset managers still use 20+ year old software than runs on Windows 95 computers. Probably not much use looking at their software!

  3. This is a good article which, carries a very valid and important point.

    Personally I run a very separate document and info library, aside from the the ones I get from my providers and back office system, this does mean duplication of everything, however its worth it if things do go wrong !.
    Many years ago when I first went independent, I joined (for a very short time) a company that was part of a network, I left to go solo after about 8 months, said network was very reluctant and unwilling to pass on information (data protection) on any of my clients so I had to start, from scratch which was a monumental task, that mistake I will never make again (network included)

    My top tip is…… copy/duplicate everything to your own client files that you are in sole control of, then if something should go wrong you can continue with your own information without reliance on any third party !
    It is easier now, with safe, secure, and daily backed up electronic document storage, with a off site IT support provider, so you don’t have to have a office full of filing cabinets !

  4. We have always run your clients through ACT and just like DH this means duplication. That said all the funds SHOULD be ring-fenced and therefore clients investments should be safe if a platform fails? Standard Life effectively purchased a client bank, what they do from this point will be interesting to follow. They will have to ingrate their processes, how will this be achieved and what control will the advisers have? I would suggest very little.

Leave a comment


Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers. Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm