FTAdviser.com

Advertising

Platforms, which combine a choice of investments and tax wrappers, together with tools and services for research, administration and client servicing, are very widely used by IFAs.

In fact, recent research found nearly 90 per cent of advisers use a platform in some form and most (73 per cent) use more than one. But the use of platforms, like the platforms themselves, is still evolving. The findings show that there is still all to play for in this growing market, as the handful of large, established players face an array of new entrants.

For anyone who thinks that a platform is where you wait to catch a train, some definitions are in order.

The research asked IFAs how they defined their primary and secondary platform, from four options: a fund supermarket, which offers a wide range of mutual funds at discounted terms on a single platform; a fund supermarket with added features, as before but with additional services and tools; a wrap, or a platform intended to act as a central hub for an adviser’s business in terms of client servicing, administration and other functions; and an investment proposition, which offers a wide range of investment services, particularly discretionary fund management, and tools on a single platform.

In response to these definitions, just over 40 per cent, said their main platform was a wrap, while just under 40 per cent described their main platform as a fund supermarket with added features.

This split between wrap users and advisers content with a fund supermarket was a feature of the research, but it should not be seen as an unbridgeable chasm. Over a third of advisers believe a fund supermarket meets their needs already, but at the same time, relatively few rule out using a wrap; only around a tenth of advisers think that a wrap is not suitable for their business or their clients.

As wrap is intended to provide a more comprehensive service to advisers than a fund supermarket. It is not surprising that they are markedly more popular as an IFA's main platform, while fund supermarkets are more popular as a secondary platform. This can be seen as evidence of IFAs adopting wraps, but still retaining fund supermarkets, either for legacy business or certain client segments.

When the platform definitions were cross-referenced to IFAs' main platforms, we can see how advisers define some of the different platforms out there. Transact, for example, is seen by the great majority of its users as a wrap, whereas most Cofunds users see it as a fund supermarket with added features. Seven Investment Management's users are evenly split on whether it is a wrap or an investment proposition and Skandia, Raymond James, Novia and FundsNetwork also have a mix of user views on what type of platform they are.

It must be said that split opinions over the definition of a particular platform does not necessarily indicate an image issue; Seven's platform can operate as a wrap or an investment proposition offering discretionary investment services, for example.

One issue for all platforms is the level of business written by IFAs on them and this shows why fund supermarkets are still sufficient for many. Equity Isas and pooled funds outside a platform are by far the most popular products to be written on a platform, with over two-thirds of these product types being placed on a platform. In contrast, only 22 per cent of direct investments are written via a platform, less than a third of onshore and offshore bonds and less than half of pension business.

Over 600 IFAs took part in the research, answering questions on their primary and secondary platforms, and their responses enabled the researcher to carry out a comprehensive benchmarking of the main platforms, as well as to enumerate market trends and measure the impact of the global financial crisis on adviser sentiment. In addition, the research company segmented IFAs into three broad categories: those serving mainly mass market clients (defined as up to £100k in liquid assets), those serving mass market and mass affluent clients (£100k to £250k in liquid assets) and those serving mass affluent and high net-worth clients (£250k to £1m in liquid assets). These groups showed different traits in their use of platforms; for example, the latter two groups were more likely to use platforms on a daily basis and were generally more likely to use wraps, as opposed to fund supermarkets.

Differences in adviser remuneration were also noted between the three adviser segments. The more affluent an adviser's client base, the more likely he or she is to be paid a salary and bonus, and to hold equity in a business, and for their clients to pay a fee for advice. In line with this, advisers to mass affluent and high net-worth clients were much more likely to be give holistic financial planning as their clients' main need.

Earlier research was carried out last September, just before the collapse of Lehman Brothers. By comparing the results obtained then with those from April and May of this year, the impact of the global financial crisis on adviser sentiment can be measured. One of the key findings here is the sharp increase in the lack of consumer trust in the financial services industry as the most important challenge facing IFAs. Given the events of late 2008, this result is hardly surprising, but it chimes with other research showing an increase in what could be termed 'disengaged consumers', who have fundamentally lost trust in financial services. This group, estimated to be between a fifth and a third of consumers, are either unhappy with their existing suppliers but unsure where to go, or looking at ways of going direct for their investment and pension needs. Check out user forums on websites such as Motley Fool or Money Saving Expert for more evidence of this increasingly militant tendency.

A future challenge for both platform providers and IFAs is to serve this group. The evidence from other platform markets, such as Australia, is that affluent, direct investors can bring platforms to profitability at a faster rate, making them an attractive market niche. These individuals may also split their assets between assets under advice and assets they wish to invest themselves, so IFAs can still form relationships here, provided they recognise the nature of these disenchanted, or more worldly wise, clients.

Another effect of the global financial crisis has been to apply a slight touch on the brakes to platform adoption. Only 10.4 per cent of advisers say they are very likely to adopt a new platform in the next 12 months in 2009, compared with 15.8 per cent in 2008.

As well as looking at adviser sentiment, the research benchmarked platform performance on the criteria of functionality, product and investment range, platform fees and underlying costs, platform service to advisers, platform support to advisers and reporting capability. It is beyond the scope of this article to go into much detail here, but only around a fifth of IFAs are promoters, or loyal and enthusiastic advocates of their main platform.

At the other extreme, over a quarter of main platform users and even more secondary platform users can be classed as detractors, or unhappy customers trapped in a bad relationship. This shows that there is considerable potential for new entrants to win market share; their challenge will be to demonstrate they can meet a platform user's needs more effectively than the existing provider.

In conclusion, platforms may be an increasingly important tool for IFAs, but their needs are far from being completely met. Many at platform providers know this, hence the frenetic pace of development and the continuing need for most platforms to address the challenges they face at strategic, tactical and operational levels.

Matthew Craig is a director of CoreData Research