Those in financial advice have a responsibility to cut through the noise and refocus on the most timeless and fundamental priority for both platforms and advisers: meeting the needs of clients in a safe, efficient, and compliant way at a fair cost.

What do people want from platforms?

Even those who talk about platforms every day can easily lose themselves in a maze of bells, whistles, widgets, calculators, and tools. But I think it’s helpful during these times when strongly held opinions are communicated in forceful ways that we take a step back and refocus on what a platform does. 

If we strip it all down to its essence, a platform exists to help people buy investments, hold them, report on them, and sell them.

In our intermediated corner of the world, it helps people do these four things (that come with high jeopardy) safely, with an expert in their corner, guiding them through the process and providing professional planning and advice. That’s it. That’s why we’re all here.

Over time, these core functions have evolved to incorporate stronger regulatory resilience, greater investment flexibility, and improved functionality.

However, not all advisers – or their clients – have the same needs. Platform providers have taken varied approaches to meet these demands, and different features will be valued differently depending on the end user.

Lately, there has been considerable debate around the adviser-as-platform model, where the financial adviser takes the driving seat, accesses only the essential components, and saves costs by dispensing with the rest. It’s billed as a more cost-effective, tailored solution.

For some, this represents the end of traditional platforms as we know them. For others, it’s simply a passing trend.

Let’s be clear: the idea that new entrants in the market who crave the tag ‘disrupter’ will bring about an apocalyptic end for ‘traditional’ platforms is a misdirection. It’s equally misguided to paint established scale-platforms as static creatures incapable of evolving or accommodating more adviser autonomy.

Saving money – but at what cost?

One of the most compelling arguments for adviser-as-platforms is that advisers can run only the parts of the platform they need, saving money by simply shedding the parts they don’t. Some may look at their traditional platform costs and feel they’re paying for a full-service offering they don’t fully use.

It’s easy – tempting even – to focus solely on the overall higher cost of the more traditional platforms compared to the build-it-yourself ones.

However, this simplistic approach overlooks the value of the custody, the compliance, the financial strength, the richer functionality built over time through close relationships with the advice profession, and the depth of proposition for those more complex needs that we know advisers value.

Scale players are here to stay

More autonomy for advisers doesn't spell the end for traditional platforms – not by a long shot. There will always be demand for integrated services that allow advisers to focus on advising and planners to focus on planning.

Secondly, platforms have shown time and again that they can adapt, and as we emerge stronger, we are razor focussed on meeting the evolving needs of the advice profession. The core mission has always been to deliver reliable service while evolving alongside technology and compliance demands.

Recent external and domestic developments – such as global geopolitical pressures and the proposed integration of unspent pension value into inheritance tax from 2027 – are adding complexity for firms of all sizes. In such times, a strong relationship with a responsive platform partner can be essential to helping advisers focus on what really matters: the client.

And that brings us back to the timeless foundation of everything we do; striving to give our adviser and planner customers the best possible options to improve their clients’ outcomes.

That’s what success in financial advice and platform service is truly built on.