Spectrum of Adviser Platforms and the Rise of White Labelling
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Spectrum of Adviser Platforms and the Rise of White Labelling May 2021 Contents Introduction 3 Methodology 3 NextWealth View 6 Four key learnings from our research 7 Major players/ market overview 8 Drivers of adoption 12 Operational efficiency 12 Client experience 14 Margin 15 Price: from price taker to price maker 15 Considerations: Questions to ask platform providers when thinking about launching a white-label platform 16 Compliance framework 16 Client money and CASS responsibilities: 18 Orphan clients 18 Investment in tech 19 Integrations 19 Financial stability and strength 21 Cultural alignment 23 Costs and charges 23 Functionality 25 Additional platform services 28 Brand and client interface 28 APIs, what are they and what do you need to ask providers about them. 30 Concluding thoughts 33 Platform Profiles 34 Advance by Embark 34 IFDL - Ascentric 35 FNZ 36 Fundment 37 Fusion Wealth 38 Hubwise 39 P1 Platform 40 Praemium 41 Seccl 42 SEI 43 2 Introduction Like many things, it’s hard to define specifically what makes they offer custom integrations and data feeds. At the far a platform a white-label or bespoke solution as there is no right of the spectrum, the financial advice firm will typically clear distinction. In figure 1, we present the platforms on take on permissions for safeguarding and arranging of client a spectrum based on the level of branding, customisation assets and will have CASS oversight responsibilities. and the legal arrangement. We refer to these as white- This report is part of NextWealth’s Adviser Tech Stack series. label solutions in this report. Others use the terms platform To support this free report, we also produce a paid-for operator and platform service provider. report and bespoke workshops for platforms to understand The purpose of this report is to help executives at financial the options in more depth and provide additional analysis advice businesses understand the options available, and competitive comparisons. important things to consider and to take a broad view of This report is organised into five sections: the major players. Our research suggests there is a shift happening with more advice firms launching white-label • NextWealth view solutions. The decision to launch a platform should never be taken lightly – despite some appealing aspects, it is a big • Market overview undertaking and comes with a lot responsibility. • Drivers of adoption We categorise firms that offer branding and some • Considerations customisation of the platform as offering a white-label solution. These firms, presented to the right of centre on • Profile of major players our spectrum, offer more than just ‘spray on branding’ – Methodology Online survey of 218 advisers, conducted in February 2021. Roundtable 10 CEO, CTO and COOs of large financial advice businesses and consolidators with a mix of those who have launched a white-label platform, those planning to and those who have decided against it. Interviews with representatives at platforms. Questionnaire sent to 28 platforms. Responses were received from the 24 firms listed below. For those that didn’t reply, estimates are provided. • 7IM • Fidelity FundsNetwork • Parmenion • Advance by Embark • Fusion Wealth • Praemium • Aegon Platform • Hubwise • Raymond James • AJ Bell Investcentre • James Hay • Seccl • Aegon Retirement Choices • Multrees • SEI • IFDL - Ascentric • Nucleus • Standard Life Wrap • Aviva • Old Mutual Wealth • Transact • BNY Mellon Pershing • P1 • True Potential 3 Executive Summary Market overview and adoption • Nearly half (47%) of financial advisers in businesses with £250m or more in assets under advice say they plan to launch a platform in the next three years. 8% are already underway on the process. • On average, financial advisers put 55% of new client money on their preferred platform. This rises to 77% among financial advisers working in firms with a white-label platform. • 62% of financial advisers use a third-party platform with no branding. Take-up of branding options is higher among advisers in larger firms. Main drivers Argument for white-labelling Argument against white-labelling Operational Large firms can have more control of Benefits can mostly be gained with a single efficiency implementing CIP. Reduces risk, costs and platform provider, without incurring the offers simplicity. Ability to control costs helps expense and significant responsibility, to build case to transfer assets reducing the in particular client money and CASS number of legacy systems that must be used. responsibility. Client Offers firm more control over client As above, mostly can be gained with a single experience experience and to develop the firm’s own platform. Also, cost of middle office (data and brand. tech) can be high. Ability to Firm earns revenue from platform fee and Creates potential conflicts of interest. capture margin diversifies revenue streams. Comes at a cost – advice firm takes responsibility for oversight, governance and service. Control White-labelling allows firms to become Financial advisers have in the past negotiated over price a price-maker rather than a price-taker. hard on third-party platform fees and those Financial advisers are facing increasing savings are passed to customers. By moving to competition from lower cost options, notably a single platform for most business, financial Vanguard. Having more control over the value advice firms could command more clout when chain means greater control of pricing. negotiating the price. 4 7 key considerations for advice firms contemplating the white-labelled platform route 1. Compliance framework: running a platform comes firm and its white-label partner are compatible in how with responsibilities. With a third-party platform, the they operate and make decisions. This is hard to assess contractual arrangement for custody is typically between objectively, but insight can be gleaned by asking for the client and platform. With a white-label platform, references. the agreement is usually between the advice firm and 5. Additional services provided by platforms: third-party the client and fees are paid to the adviser. The financial platforms provide more than just custody. Careful advice firm may take responsibility for arranging and consideration must be given to assessing the importance safeguarding of assets and will have responsibility for of service, technical expertise and the other support CASS oversight. provided. 2. Tech upgrades: whilst any changes necessary to comply 6. Functionality, in particular the tax wrappers and the with new rules and regulation would typically be paid for degree to which the SIPP is integrated into the platform by the underlying tech provider, any bespoke upgrades is an important consideration that must be probed. of a white-label platform are usually paid for by the advice firm. 7. Integration with other tech: our research repeatedly shows this is a priority and frustration for advice firms. 3. Financial strength and stability: advice firms must Integrations can be custom built, delivered via API or carefully assess financial strength and stability of any managed via the Origo Integration Hub. Many platform tech partners. It is also important to get a sense for the providers – third-party and white-label – claim high commitment to the market and the ability to weather levels of integration but financial advice businesses tell various market cycles. us these can deliver poor outcomes. 4. Cultural alignment: it can be important that the advice 5 NextWealth View This report reveals a subtle but substantial shift among large The third, but no less important, driver is about the client financial advice businesses toward launching a bespoke or experience. Firms want to build their brand, develop their white-label platform. The shift is being driven by a desire client proposition and offer a slick tech experience for to capture margin, improve operational efficiencies and clients. This is critical for those looking to build and scale – improve the client experience. they need to attract next-gen clients and deliver a next-gen proposition. Many believe a bespoke platform will help by It’s a hard to argue against a proposition that will cost giving the firm more control over data in particular, allowing clients the same or less while allowing firms to clip the the firm to build better tools for serving clients. ticket. The decision to launch a platform comes with huge responsibilities but the basic economic argument is White-labelling makes sense for firms that are trying to appealing. grow and scale and possibly list a financial advice business. These firms will typically have an in-house DFM and will be Operational efficiency is a more powerful force than many actively looking to acquire financial advice practices. They realise. Let’s take a step back to understand the context. Our will be driven by a desire to diversify and grow revenue and survey for this report found that half of financial advisers deliver significant operational efficiencies. are not satisfied with their tech stack. Platforms tend to get high scores. But financial advisers want to have more The path to launch a white-label platform can also make control over their tech stack – and many believe a white- sense for DFMs who want to have their own custody to label platform will give them that control. make managing models more efficient. Model portfolios on platform operate under pretty serious constraints. They In large financial advice businesses that have discretionary can’t practically hold investment trusts or listed securities permissions or that manage their own models, the and they are optimised for clients accumulating wealth. In operational headache of managing those across multiple order to unlock further growth, a platform can be a good platforms is not to be underestimated. It also introduces option. risk and cost. But in our view, with the exception of capturing margin, the Another issue is the multitude of systems advisers need to drivers can be addressed through a strategic partnership deal with from product providers, in particular for legacy with one third-party platform.