HUNTSWOOD_RCX_OnBLACK 1
  • Capabilities

    Capabilities

    Huntswoodโ€™s suite of client services provide the people, processes and technologies your business needs to succeed, all supported by advisory expertise

    • Complaints excellence
    • Customer contact centres
    • Offshore customer support services
    • Recruitment process outsourcing
    • Past business review and remediation
    • Customer servicing
    • Operational resilience and continuity
    • Regulatory risk and assurance
    • Advisory services
    • Resourcing and recruitment
    • Outsourcing
    Linkedin
    Complaints

    Complaints Outlook 2024

    Our latest Complaints Outlook research report provides your firm with actionable insight for every stage of the complaints journey

    Learn More
  • Industries

    Industriesโ€‹

    We help clients transform their business to drive better customer, compliance and commercial outcomes

    • Financial services
    • Utilitiesโ€‹
    Linkedin
    Hunstwood

    We are Huntswood

    Learn more about Huntswood’s experience, high quality resource and bespoke solutions.

    Learn More
  • Company

    Company

    • Contact us
    • Media centre
    • Life at Huntswood
    • Environmental, social and governance
    • ResultsCX

    About Huntswood

    • About us
    • Our leadership team
    • Our client relationship directors
    • Our partners

    Off Payroll (IR35) Working

    • Off payroll (IR35) working - FAQs for clients
    • Off payroll (IR35) working - FAQs for associates

    Policies and Reports

    • Modern slavery statement
    • Huntswood tax strategy
    • Covid-19 workplace risk assessment
    • CXP gender pay gap
  • Insights

    Stay informed. Stay ahead.

    • All
    • Articles
    • Case studies
    • Regulatory updates
    • Whitepapers
    • Infographics
    • Videos and podcasts
    Linkedin

    Business outcomes
    that underpin your growth

    Watch video
  • ResultsCX
Recruitment

Regulatory Update: MS17 / 1 – Investment Platforms Market Study

Resources

Regulatory Updates

Date

March 26, 2019

BACK TO ALL POSTS

Regulatory Update: MS17 / 1 – Investment Platforms Market Study

Share

Background

On the 14th March 2019, the FCA published the final report of its Investment Platforms Market Study. It sets out the regulatorโ€™s view of the market, outlining how effectively the market is working from a competition perspective. Similar market studies in the past few years have resulted in overt regulatory intervention โ€“ ranging from enhanced governance requirements to the implementation of price caps โ€“ meaning that the findings of such studies are not to be taken lightly. ย 

The outcome of this particular market study, however, should be seen as broadly positive. The FCA considers that competition is working well within this market and that platforms are delivering benefits to consumers whilst not making excessive profits.

Still, there are some areas that could be improved within the platforms market. These include simplifying charging structures and clarifying how costs and charges are disclosed. The FCA, however, has decided against making immediate rule changes in all areas and is instead open to industry-led solutions which the UK Platforms Group will spearhead.

The FCA has committed to a review in 2020 / 21 that will allow them to see how firms are addressing the issues raised. The FCA did make special note of the fact that it has already seen improvements in the market since the publication of the interim report back in July of 2018.

The regulator found that switching between platforms can be difficult and that consumers can be forced to redeem holdings in investments, incurring dealing costs and potential Capital Gains Tax liabilities, in order to move.

Such costs are clearly against the sixth customer outcome introduced as part of the โ€œTreating Customers Fairlyโ€ (TCF) initiative and only add to the complexity that consumers are already facing in terms of costs and charges, so it is unsurprising to see the FCA take action to remedy this. The regulatorโ€™s findings also seem to suggest that these exit fees do not correlate to the cost to the firm.

Recent headlines have been hinting at a potential ban on switching fees to come, although this is currently only at an early discussion point.

Firms will need to look at their unit conversion process and ensure itโ€™s fit for purpose as, historically at least, conversions have perhaps been a little problematic.

Clarity of costs and charges has been discussed at length in every area of the financial services industry and investment platforms are no different. Primarily, it seems that inconsistency of terminology is the main driver of consumers being unable to compare prices across a range of providers.

With the UK Platforms Group offering to take forward the initiative in identifying areas of commonality between firms, a more uniform terminology could be relatively quick and easy to agree. The actual implementation of this (requiring an update to marketing collateral and back office systems) on the other hand, is likely to be onerous and will likely require careful planning.

As weโ€™re all surely aware, one of the key drivers for effective competition is customers being able to make informed decisions. As part of the market study, the FCA looked at how investment choices are presented to customers.

โ€œBest buyโ€ lists, for example, should be compiled impartially, especially where vertically integrated firms include in-house funds on their lists. This is hardly a new requirement, and many firms are likely to be already effectively managing conflicts of interest in this area.

The FCA is, however, concerned about how model portfolios are described, particularly around the different terminology used by different platforms. Although there are no remedies proposed at this time, the FCA does reference other work being done in this area with model portfolios structured as funds.

Next steps

The consultation period on the proposed changes to switching ends on the 14th June 2019. Responses are also invited on the idea of implementing either a ban or a cap on exit fees by the same date.ย 

Considerations for firms

Firstly, your firm should consider responding to the consultation paper on proposed remedies and the discussion section on exit fees. Now is the time to put forward points of view which could be considered as part of the policy development process. Let the FCA know, from your viewpoint, what would work and, equally as important, what wouldnโ€™t? Give reasons for your thinking and examples if you have them.

Spend some time looking at charging structures and the clarity of cost disclosures. Are they clear and understandable to the average customer? The FCA has published a lot of information that should help firms understand its expectations in this area, including the 2015 Smarter Consumer Communications paper and the more recent MiFID II costs and charges disclosures review findings. This also applies, naturally, to how platforms disclose the treatment of cash balances.

Think, as well, about how โ€˜orphan clientsโ€™ are identified, tracked and handled within your firm. Are these customers being offered โ€“ and are they receiving โ€“ the right service at the appropriate cost? Could the process be improved, either from their perspective or the firmโ€™s?

Analyse how customers are led through key decisions when investing. How are funds presented? Are conflicts of interest appropriately managed or, if necessary, disclosed? Are model portfolios explained clearly and without jargon? Most customers donโ€™t understand the term โ€˜volatilityโ€™, for example, but they will understand that stock prices go up and down depending on a variety of factors. Again, there may be an issue with the consistency of terminology โ€“ one platformโ€™s โ€˜balancedโ€™ may be anotherโ€™s โ€˜mediumโ€™ โ€“ but if the descriptions are clear and concise, this will enable customers to compare offerings.

Finally, identify any improvements that could be made to order-handling processes and best execution monitoring. Best execution, for securities at least, is not solely driven by price and all firms should have appropriate procedures in place to ensure that other factors โ€“ such as time and, where appropriate, venue โ€“ are also considered when necessary.

Author

Huntswood - Insights

Home
About us
Insights
Contact us
ResultsCX
Privacy Policy
Cookies
Terms and Conditions
Modern Slavery Statement
Carbon Reduction Plan
Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA)

ยฉ2025 All Rights Reserved. Huntswood. A ResultsCX Company.

Privacy Policy
Cookies
Terms and Conditions
Modern Slavery Statement
Carbon Reduction Plan
Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA)