View more on these topics

Transact chief Taylor: Advisers shouldn’t pay for platforms

Transact chief hits out at argument all platforms are the same and the market’s focus on price

heather-hopkins-half-width

Though usually unflappable, there are several things currently bothering Transact chief executive Ian Taylor.

One is the fact the term “platform” is not well defined, especially because
not all platforms are the same.

This is of particular note with regards to the recently announced FCA investment platform market study.

Taylor says: “If you lump all these businesses together it will cause problems for some of us.”

One criticism levied at platforms is that they should use their buying power to negotiate better deals with fund groups. But Taylor counters that notion.

He says: “Do platforms encourage competition by negotiating terms with fund companies? I tend not to. I’m a custodian – I can’t promise how people will invest this money; it’s not mine. Others with guided architecture may find it easier to negotiate because they can drive assets to particular funds. Not Transact.”

Ian Taylor Transact chief 700x450.jpg

Another thing concerning the chief executive is the “GoCompare mentality” in platform comparison.

“It’s as if the only thing that’s different is price. There are lots of different business models,” he says.

Some have suggested platform charging would drop precipitously if the adviser were paying the platform fee. But Taylor is adamant the investor should pay, as it is the investor that benefits.

He uses the example of the provision of the tax wrapper. “Should the adviser pay for Mrs Miggins’ tax wrapper?”

This is a point of difference. Transact can be the platform for both direct and advised assets. Adviser charging can be done by tax wrapper. If Mrs Miggins has direct equities and the adviser does not want to advise on those, she can still keep those equities on Transact. And Mrs Miggins gets full access to the platform, as she pays for it.

Taylor says: “Imagine me as an NCP car park manager. I am not distributing the cars. I have BMWs, Mercedes and the rest on the lot. I don’t care which one you park as long as you pay me. But the regulator says because I have all these cars in my car park I am a car distributor.”

Read more: Head to head – Should all platforms charge flat fees?

From Charles Dickens to client custody

Such reflections on technology, finance (and car parking) are a long way from those he made on the likes of Milton, Chaucer and Brontë while studying English literature at Cambridge University. He graduated with dreams of writing the next great novel.

Marrying straight out of university, Taylor and his wife moved to Lincolnshire, near her family. After a futile year with plume and parchment, he realised he was less creative and more analytical, and gave up his dreams of being the next Charles Dickens.

He “fished around for a job” and in 1987 joined Royal Life. He spent five years there before moving to the City to be marketing director of a small asset management company, John Govett.

In 1998 he met “some guys from Australia”, including Transact chairman Mike Howard. They owned a software company and saw an opportunity in the market. April 1999 saw Taylor’s first foray into the platform industry.

“My career in platforms is now old enough to buy a drink,” he says.

The longest serving platform, Transact’s first case was written in March 2000. “It was a brilliant idea,” says Taylor.

“People have already forgotten what it used to be like before platforms. They have become part of the infrastructure. Cast your mind back to the heady days of 1999. If a client had a pension, a Pep and 10 fund holdings, it could take weeks for an adviser just to get a valuation. Now clients pay advisers for advice rather than for chasing insurance companies for valuations.”

Taking the pressure off price

Taylor is keen to point out that platforms have also brought down the cost of investing.

“In the old days, to switch from one investment company to another incurred a 5 per cent charge. If the adviser was really kind and rebated all his commission, it would still be 2 per cent.

He says: “If I were the regulator I would be more concerned about vertical integration than about pricing alone.”

Taylor sees the move to vertical integration continuing but is encouraged the regulator is taking an interest.

“The people I feel sorry for are the clients. One week Mrs Miggins is invested in these funds across these tax wrappers on this platform, and the next week she is in different funds, in different tax wrappers on a different platform. How have Mrs Miggins’ circumstances changed to warrant that?”

He readily admits vertical integration poses a risk to Transact. Yet he believes the two models can exist side by side and is optimistic for a thriving independent advice community.

Looking back on his career, Taylor says: “Sometimes it feels like five minutes; sometimes it feels like an entire lifetime. Transact is the best thing I’ve done in my career. I’m genuinely proud. We have introduced real ethical value.”

In other words, less hard times than great expectations.

Heather Hopkins is head of Platforumplatforum_rgb

She can be reached at heather@platforum.co.uk

CV

1999-present: Transact

1992-1999: Marketing at John Govett Asset Management

1987-1992: Various roles at Royal Life

Recommended

3

Platform pressure: Is adviser due diligence up to scratch?

Advisers’ platform due diligence has been put in the spotlight as concerns have been raised about whether segmentation policies are benefiting clients. Last week, Money Marketing reported exclusive data on how advisers select funds and carry out due diligence on the products they choose. This week, our survey results reveal how advisers are picking platforms […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 3 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Agree !!
    I think, here we have another instance of micro management by the FCA

  2. I agree with Ian. Advisers who think it would be cheaper if they paid for the platform forget that would make them a product provider and then restricted to their own product! Do they care about independence or not? The regulator is also under the political cosh to make the whole value chain cheaper. Platforms have had a price war (result minimal profits, except Transact), now the attention switches to fund managers and in due course it will switch to advise fees (which have gone up post RDR). It is true that retail fund fees are substantially higher than wholesale fund fees (pension schemes etc) but the wholesale fund exists in a very competitive environment where all of it can be lost to a rival if the trustees so decidel. X thousand a retail investors on a platform are never all going to reach the same conclusion to move. Not only does an independent platform have no influence over distribution but the regulator places the obligation on the adviser (see cobs) to ensure that the platform presents funds to the adviser without bias (i.e. does not seek to influence the advisers choice. The lack of joined up thinking is embarrassing!

  3. These platforms or whatever the new term is, are and were one of the best thing for advisers. Advsers sign up to the platform contract unlike the Agency Agreement, the horse trading and the high handed and often arrogant and incompetent Principals ( of low principles ) in the industry of insurance – where they employ the hunting game using a whip and cudgel ( on their tied agents restricted agents and the independent adviser. Is he really Independent ? as an agent ?). The administration of a good platform in invaluable tool for any adviser. Erros when they occur need to be rectified immediately or remedies. Andy Bell does not do this – he prefers to drag it out like the sordid old insurance companies. the flexibility and transparency is essential to good sound advice. There is a cost but it is Value for Money. I have a great deal of respect for Ian he is always trying to help and direct new ways, and a great team of people he has working for him. However, I may be cynical – but if there is no charge where does that money come from ? Standard Life the restricted – as they are known norf of the cheviots. They would have been in the rich list if they had not purchased so many restricted advisers or Aberdeen – where it is said two heads are better than one ! a more cynical view may be held – that Standard life have always had two heads ( often pulling in different directions EG in areas of Pension Charges – non disclosure

Leave a comment