View more on these topics

Danby Bloch: Price trumps service as advisers’ top platform must-have

New research reveals an interesting change in advisers’ top criteria.

Advisers are becoming a lot more price sensitive when it comes to choosing platforms, according to recent research. One might also guess this is extending into other areas. Some important changes are taking place under the surface.

Earlier this month, as part of a survey for its new UK Adviser Platform Guide, Platforum asked advisers what their five “musts” of the perfect platform are.

Platforum has been tracking this theme for some time. The same question was asked last March and at intervals between, so it is possible to observe how the trends have developed. The findings look pretty robust (see chart).

Low charges turn out to be the single most important factor for 22 per cent of advisers. That is seven percentage points ahead of the next most important single factor, which is usability. After that comes the financial stability of the platform, and only then service, which comes just ahead of investment choice and functionality.

Ben Cocks: Switching conundrum shows holes in platform competition

If you lump together the top five factors advisers focus on in selecting their perfect platform, low charges also comes out top. A high 70 per cent of advisers put the criteria in the top five must haves. Investment choice is next at nine percentage points less, followed by service, with just 52 per cent putting this is in their top five must haves.

So why is that news? After all, advisers have been seeking out good value for money for their clients for years. It is what they do.

The answer is that the situation has switched round in the last year. What is more, two intervening surveys show the change taking place incrementally over the course of the last 12 months.

Indeed, in March 2017, the top must have was service, as measured by the number of inclusions in the top five factors, with 67 per cent of the advisers surveyed putting it there. Only 60 per cent of advisers placed low charges in the top five factors a year ago. It would seem advisers are becoming more charges-conscious.

Obviously, that is not true of all of them. There remain a remarkable 30 per cent that do not place low charges in the top five factors at all. For them, investment choice, service, usability, functionality and tax wrapper choice trump charges.

Platform pressure: Will stock market floats breed adviser conflicts?

This is, of course, a significant proportion and shows there could still be a decent living to be made by some reassuringly expensive platforms. But if the trend continues and perhaps even accelerates, the prospects for such platforms could start to look less reassuring.

And the trend towards seeking lower charges does seem to be gathering pace.

One point to ponder is that Mifid ll charges disclosure has only just started to kick in. As the year goes on, adviser and client focus on overall charges is bound to increase.

One can overemphasise the likely impact of this development but it seems certain to have some effect. Advisers will not want to cut their charges, at least until they have seen how they can reduce clients’ costs in other areas, which will mean looking at the charges of fund managers, DFMs and, of course, platforms.

Platform Health Check: What does each platform really cost?

It is true that advisers have been generally reluctant to switch clients from one platform to another on the basis of price. Many say the cost and effort has typically still been too high in relation to the savings for clients.

But that could be changing: platform charges are dropping, opening up real pricing differentials. At the same time, advisers need to be able to justify their ever more salient fees and transfers between platforms are possibly getting easier (at least one would like to think so).

Reassuringly expensive platforms and other providers should watch out. The times they are a’changing.

Danby Bloch is chairman of Helm Godfrey and consultant at Platforum


The pain of replatforming: Inside Aviva’s tumultuous tech upgrade

Advisers disillusioned by ongoing issues with Aviva’s replatforming project say they are reconsidering recommending the platform to clients. Aviva moved clients to its new FNZ-backed platform in January, but the project has been beset with problems and advisers are still being frustrated by not being able to carry out key jobs for their clients. Money […]

Justin Cash, Editor of Money Marketing

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 […]

Phil Bray: Top tips for the perfect first client meeting

Advisers who go the extra mile to impress will be rewarded many times over Marketing types are fond of talking about the “client journey”. That usually means the journey an individual takes from being a suspect, to prospect, to client. Here, however, I want to talk about an entirely different client journey: to and within your […]

The future of active management is now

Fees under pressure. Regulatory moves against closet indexers. Rapid advances in financial technology. Shifting sentiment among investors. Such mounting challenges have led to widespread speculation about active management’s shrinking future. But a closer look inside intelligent portfolio construction today tells a story of expanding roles, added value, and innovative risk-adjusted, lower-cost solutions. Four investment experts […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 6 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. I cant comment for others Danby, but I suspect you might be mis-interpreting your own survey.

    Of course price is important, but I suspect you will find that if you dug deeper, then the price being “low” is the criteria. Not it being the cheapest, or really cheap.

    I suspect that you’d find fundamentally what people mean is “is the price good for what you get”.

  2. Robert Milligan 4th April 2018 at 3:56 pm

    What is really going on here is a fundamental change from product providers providing a product plus policy administration, to only providing the product, the administration is being dumped down onto the IFA firm and its administration costs, we charge for giving advice, it is a given that certain costs, PI, FSA, ect will come out of this Advice Fee, however more than ever we are told by product providers “Look on Our Webb sit, do your own illustration, get your own applications, and the review pack, well again,, look online, So really it is about SERVICE, as the Product Providers with draw from IFA relationships, they need to look inwards at the SERVICE, they provide, as one web site
    looks like another!!!

  3. So cost and value? There’s a high profile but useless platform out there that is cheap but why would you want to put your own, never mind a clients money on their platform as it stands? I’m absolutely not saying that high charges can be justified but there’s a balance to be struck.

    Apart from students, who eats economy mince out of choice? Bernard Matthews had it right, he never ate is own turkey. Bootiful!

  4. Hmmm, it occurs to me that one of the cheapest is now also the one that features most often in articles with words like ‘nightmare’ in the headline – once again due to ‘replatforming’. You get what you pay for!

  5. There is a good reason we do not all drive around in a Dacia Sandero.
    That said, award winning wrap Wealthtime (zero errors for us in 3 years) charge fixed fee wrap circa 0.06%pa on £2.6mn (asssumes a level of dealing costing £900 a year so 180 trades assumed) yet others up over 0.25% of AUM or £6,500 a year.
    Then, ATS even cheaper fixed fee but reports of major service issues and complaints to FOS.
    Functionaity has to be high up there but if you put up £6,500 a year for wrap fees versus £1,500 for, let’s face it, very similar and at times better serviuce/technology, how do you justify that to the client?

  6. It is also interesting to look at things things advisers say they don’t value but the platform providers try to use to justify their value. They spend huge amounts of time and resource building client portals, reporting tools and other tools but actually we, the advisers, don’t want them. I, and I suspect most others, source those things away from the platform.

Leave a comment