However, Quilter chief executive Paul Feeney remained optimistic about the progress being made. In a statement accompanying his company’s accounts, he said: “The lessons learned from our soft-launch phase have been valuable and we are delighted with the improved functionality that the new platform delivers. In addition, our plans to ensure our customers and advisers are prepared for the migration are progressing well. However, the final delivery of the platform is expected to take approximately three months longer than planned. This is driven by the complexity of the programme and our commitment to a high-quality outcome.”
Despite Mr Feeney’s words of confidence, some intermediaries have become so disillusioned by the various processes that they are investigating ways to circumvent the platform market entirely.
“Honestly, I would like to get rid of all of them, and operate from my back-office system, Intelligent Office, where I would have access to vanilla products,” says Susan Hill, chartered financial planner at Susan Hill FP.
“I would be charged for the products and trading facility which would be part of my annual fee. [There would be] two fees – the adviser fee, which includes the product, and a fund fee; clear, simple, transparent – as much as funds can be.”
Ms Hill concedes, however, there are a few obstacles to making this a reality. She says Intelligent Office does not offer a basic self-invested personal plan, individual savings account or general investment account, plus there is the issue of how to co-ordinate third-party offerings.
But she points to recent enhancements made by Intelligent Office provider Intelliflo – itself owned by Invesco – as a potential sign of things to come. In June, Intelliflo announced a new service making it easier for intermediaries to run model portfolios on an advisory basis.
“The only issue with that is you can [currently] only attach Invesco funds and model portfolio services,” she says.
Although cutting out platforms is far from a new argument, being able to offer such services in-house could provide the antidote for advisers perpetually frustrated by platform technology glitches, and for those who do not see value in the bells and whistles added in recent years.
But putting in place such processes is fraught with a number of potential hurdles. Some have suggested scale is a crucial factor here, with only the largest companies having the necessary resource to make it happen. This is also likely to be the case when it comes to another familiar issue – cost – with bigger companies more adept at absorbing higher expenses.
Going elsewhere
