View more on these topics

Vertical integration: It’s about fund flows, stupid

Natalie Holt, journalist with Money Marketing Photo by Michael Walter/Troika

Who wants to become the new St James’s Place? According to industry analyst Ned Cazalet, Old Mutual Wealth does, as does Standard Life, as do all the other traditional life companies making a bid to reinvent themselves.

Cazalet’s insightful reports (or “provocations” as I have alternatively heard them called) have form in making providers and the wider financial services industry sit up and take notice. Cazalet is well versed in knowing what buttons to press to challenge the status quo.

In his latest analysis of the life and platforms market, he is sceptical about whether vertical integration really is the golden goose providers are making it out to be.

One of the arguments centres around profitability – if major advice firms have failed to turn a profit up to now, what makes providers and fund groups convinced they will do so as part of their stable?

The obvious rebuttal is vertical integration is not about profits at all. It’s about fund flows, stupid.

As has been pointed out to me, for an asset manager to be concerned about the money flowing into their investment solutions is hardly a crime. And it is also worth noting some of the investment solutions to emerge as part of this wave of vertical integration may actually be broader in scope than the investment offerings of some IFAs.

But the question is how the in house advice, platform and investment management process is packaged up. Who is the ultimate beneficiary of cost efficiencies and better margins – the shareholders or the client?

Money Marketing understands the FCA has already started to sniff around this part of the market, and asked to see business plans which may include stated quotas on fund flows as part of adviser acquisition deals.

The shift to vertical integration has been pitched as a solution to the dilemma of serving mass market clients in the most cost efficient way possible. That may be true.

But with the best will in the world, the vertical integration trend leaves me with a slightly sour taste. Despite everything firms have gone through with the RDR, the emphasis on professionalism, the move away from providers owning stakes in distribution, we now seem to have come full circle with providers owning advisers outright. The difference is, now they own the platform and the investment management parts of the value chain too.

Natalie Holt is editor of Money Marketing – follow her on Twitter here

Recommended

4

Creating a monster: The race to become the new SJP

A major industry report examining the future of UK financial services has warned the race to become the new St James’s Place has created weak business models which are unlikely to drive long-term profit. Money Marketing has exclusively obtained a copy of the latest report from influential industry analyst Ned Cazalet, whose explosive Polly Put […]

FCA interior logo 620x430

FCA raises fund disclosure and distribution concerns

The FCA has raised concerns over closet trackers, unclear disclosure and distribution controls following a thematic review of asset management firms. The first results from the review show a number of asset managers have failed to disclose closet tracker funds, while others did not have clear descriptions of funds. The FCA says asset managers need to ensure product […]

Thumbnail

Neptune video: Abenomics: the impetus for Japan’s fast-track recovery?

The remarkable performance of the TOPIX over the past year has caused many sceptical equity investors to look again at the Japanese market. These returns have come despite very significant problems facing the Japanese economy. Chris Taylor, manager of the Neptune Japan Opportunities Fund, discusses these problems and whether Abenomics will be able to overcome them, enabling the market to continue to rise.

In the video, Taylor addresses the following:

• The size and speed of Japan’s unprecedented monetary policy
• Abenomics and the implications should it fail
• Corporate Japan and beneficiaries of government policy

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. Peter Robertson 2nd June 2016 at 1:34 pm

    Sorry, but if vertical integration is to be done properly it’s about capturing the advice charges not the fund flows and having a blend of face to face to robo advice that means cost to income ratios are much better than, say, Towry or SJP.

    Chasing fund flows or platform assets is what the “stupid” would think/do.

Leave a comment