PlatformOct 10 2019

Platform costs could go up as tech firms merge

twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by
Platform costs could go up as tech firms merge

Platform costs for advisers could go up as a result of providers facing higher technology-related costs.

According to a report by investment bank Liberum, entitled Investment Platforms: High structural growth, with some underappreciated risks, published yesterday (October 9), investment platforms could be facing higher tech costs in the near future because of recent M&A activity in the marketplace.

The number of companies investment platforms can turn to for back-end third party technology is currently a mere three: GBST, FNZ and Bravura.

But in July 2019, FNZ entered into a binding agreement to take over GBST in a deal worth $269m (£220m), which will shrink the market to two, with one player being the clearly dominant one.

This could create a situation where a lack of competition could lead to inflated costs for platforms, according to Liberum. The costs are then likely to be passed on to advisers and clients.

"If the costs of tech for platforms was to rise, then that extra cost would fall onto either the adviser or the consumer. The providers aren't charities and they will want to push the costs onto someone else"Mike Barrett, director of the Lang Cat

In terms of assets under management in the platform space, GBST currently provides the technology for 30 per cent, FNZ for 23 per cent and Bravura for 18 per cent.

Pershing, another firm, accounts for 1 per cent while the other 24 per cent of assets under management are held on platforms which have their own in-house technology.

The FNZ-GBST deal will see the combined business have more than 50 per cent (52 per cent) of the marketshare of all platform assets and 71 per cent of all platforms that use an outsourced technology provider.

Source: Liberum

According to Liberum, the deal will “greatly impact” technology provision in the platform industry and competition between providers.

Mike Barrett, director at the Lang Cat, thought this was a “fair assessment” of the market but thought it was too soon to tell whether prices would rise because of the merger.

He said: “The largest part of costs increasing in the act of out-sourcing is the move to the [technology] firm. It’s very costly and difficult but once you're there and over the implementation stage, the costs should be lower.”

Mr Barrett thought if the costs of tech for platforms were to rise then that extra cost would fall onto either the adviser or the consumer. He said: "The providers aren't charities and they will want to push the costs onto someone else."

But he also thought a hike in price was unlikely in the short- to medium-term as platforms were likely in lengthy contracts with tech providers with fixed prices, noting the issue could be a bigger problem for platforms which decide to out-source in the future.

PlatformAUM (£bn)Tech provider
Hargreaves Lansdown99.3In-house
Aegon/Cofunds91.1GBST/FNZ
Fidelity87.8Bravura
Standard Life59.8FNZ
Quilter56.6FNZ
Aegon/Arc49.1GBST
AJ Bell43.4GBST
IntegraFin36.4In-house
James Hay26.8In-house
Aviva26.3FNZ
Alliance Trust15.9GBST
Ascentric15.8Bravura
Nucleus15.3Bravura
Zurich10.9FNZ
7IM9.7Pershing
Other31.1n/a

Liberum also analysed which of the two business models — in-house technology or outsourcing — was the best option for platforms.

"The decision whether to outsource or have tech in-house can be one of the biggest strategic decisions a platform company makes"Mike Barrett, director at the Lang Cat

Benefits of in-house technology included complete control over the platform and more control over changes that needed to be made and the costs involved, but such companies were unable to share the costs of new changes (such as regulation) or standard upgrade costs.

Meanwhile, companies which outsourced their back-end technology could retain the intellectual property over the user experience (the front-end) while benefiting from the latest developments in security and regulation.

However, such firms wouldn’t have control over the timing of launching changes. For example, AJ Bell — which outsources its technology — was not ready for the Lifetime Isa until two months after launch whereas Hargreaves Lansdown, which has its own tech, was ready on day one, the report stated.

Liberum analysts said they could see the benefit to both models but thought the dominance of only a few third party software providers meant costs could inflate for platforms.

The report stated: “We therefore see less risk to the in-sourced technology model, given the ability to adapt more quickly to change and increased ownership of IP.”

Mr Barrett did not think there was a “right or wrong” way to do things, noting there were successful companies with both models.

He said: “It comes down to the skillset you have within the business and the leadership. Do you have the developers in-house to deliver and handle the technology? If not, then you should probably outsource.”

Mr Barrett added the decision to outsource or develop in-house was one of the “biggest strategic decisions” a platform would make.

Platforms have faced a series of woes caused by re-platforming and upgrading issues in recent months.

Clients on the Aegon Cofunds platform began to face wide-ranging problems after a botched replatforming exercise which started on the May bank holiday weekend last year with issues lasting for several months.

As of August 2019, the platform suffered €2.8bn (£2.6bn) in net outflows from its UK platform as the troubles faced by advisers started to take effect.

The Aviva platform also saw a myriad of issues over the past few years.

The platform was unavailable for six days in January 2018 after it moved to FNZ and the platform received multiple complaints from advisers claiming it was causing problems between them and their clients.

imogen.tew@ft.com

What do you think about the issues raised by this story? Email us on fa.letters@ft.com to let us know.