Challenging Adviser Needs Under Scrutiny
As advisers strive to provide the best service possible to their clients, they need to rely on platforms that can deliver on the same core values. However, there is a growing reluctance to trust platforms to know best when it comes to adviser needs. This sentiment was further heightened at a discussion held on May 11th. The topic of the discussion was the selection of a suitable platform. Andrew Tiley, Chief Product Officer at Fundment, hosted the discussion and encouraged the attendees to reassess their faith in the varying platforms.
The debate highlighted significant points of conflicting opinion, with advocates for both sides engaging in a highly charged and passionate debate. The emergence of adviser-owned platforms has presented a viable alternative to the traditional platform route. These independently owned platforms provide more control to the adviser as well as more innovation when it comes to tailor making the platform experience.
The moderator of the debate highlighted issues such as regulation, data services and reporting as the main areas that differ between the two. The consensus was that traditionally owned platforms are more highly regulated and bound by existing limitations, whilst the independently run providers are less restricted and are often more agile in adapting to rapidly changing needs.
The discussion sparked a great deal of interest, particularly when it came to the question of user experience. The majority of attendees agreed that the fully supported platforms consistently delivered a superior service, with an understanding that the latter is still new and therefore in development phases. Leeds 2023 Platform was an example of this, and as it matures it is expected to bridge the gap between the old and the new.
By the end of the discussion it was clear that whilst traditionally owned platforms remain the most popular, the increasing number of independently run providers presents a worthwhile alternative which advisers should explore fully. As well as potential cost savings, these platforms provide greater freedom, allowing the user to tailor their package. Further, platforms such as MMI offer support for in-house solutions, proving hard to ignore for those who truly want complete control.
The discussion highlighted that times are changing and advisers no longer have to rely on traditionally owned platforms to meet their needs. Whilst every adviser is unique, with different needs, preferences and resources, an exploration of new platforms could lead to the perfect fit in the future.