Reducing reliance on third-party platforms may sound attractive in theory, but adviser firms are increasingly discovering the operational challenges involved, says Mike Phillips, Commercial Director at Novia Global.
The prospect of white-label offerings one day ruling the platform roost has been touted for years, but it has never become a reality. In fact, the rise of “adviser-as-platform” propositions may have peaked.
According to a report published earlier this year, many adviser firms that have taken the white-label path have come to regret doing so. They have discovered that this kind of streamlining can bring problems[1].
Granted, there are often clear upsides. These are most likely to come in the form of specific operational efficiencies – the happy and welcome consequences of “cutting out the middleman”.
Yet there are often also clear downsides. These are most likely to come in the form of assorted trade-offs and limitations – the unhappy and unwelcome consequences of misguided compromise.
As someone who works for an established third-party advised platform, I might be forgiven for taking satisfaction in the apparent decline of this trend. After all, providers like us have long been warned that white-label propositions could pose an existential threat to our business model.
But I am not here to celebrate others’ difficulties. Rather, I am here to try to explain why adoption of the adviser-as-platform model may have levelled out and why, with the best will in the world, we should not be especially surprised.
The limits of expertise
It seems only right to first acknowledge what the appeal of the white-label route might be. In doing so, we must also concede that it would be wrong to dismiss the adviser-as-platform school of thought as having no value at all.
At first glance, the principal benefits appear to centre on the simplicity and autonomy that could result from operating independently. Smaller firms in particular may find this proposition attractive, as may companies seeking consolidation following a series of acquisitions.
This, though, is where an uncomfortable truth can enter the reckoning. It is reasonable to suppose that an adviser firm will excel at delivering advice, but it might be a stretch to suppose that it will excel at dealing with technology.
A sceptic might respond that advisers are already demonstrating technological competence, increasingly using AI to undertake more routine analytical and research tasks and thereby allowing more time to focus on clients. By deploying technology more effectively, they might argue, firms are strengthening their own capabilities.
That is a reasonable argument, and such developments are certainly commendable. However, by any meaningful standard, using a chatbot to support a limited degree of data analysis or research remains very different from the much more complex task of operating an investment platform.
As my colleagues and I know only too well, the latter requires substantial energy and resources. Maybe above all, it requires considerable expertise. I suspect that this is why so many of the disappointments experienced in the adviser-as-platform space can be traced to a difficult realisation: individuals, and the firms for which they work, are generally best served by focusing on their core competencies.
Welcoming further challenges
In my opinion, the enduring success of third-party advised platforms demonstrates the importance of appreciating what advisers know best and what platform providers know best – and, crucially, of uniting the two. Combined expertise represents the ideal here.
Yet this is not to imply for a moment that platforms such as ours can afford to rest on their laurels. As the white-label narrative starts to wane, the spectre of a new threat – the multi-platform approach – is gradually looming larger.
A multi-platform set-up involves the use of numerous models to perform a range of tasks. This, it is argued, can enable firms to better satisfy the needs of different clients. Conceivably, there would be an agreeable balance between complexity and capabilities.
Should those of us who champion the proven effectiveness of third-party advised platforms be worried? Not necessarily. Any sort of innovation in this arena can be seen as positive – even if it fails – because it helps stave off the debilitating menace of inertia.
History tells us that new market participants and the novel concepts that they bring with them almost invariably serve to shake up the status quo, irrespective of whether they are good or bad.
At the very least, they remind the incumbents that there is always room for improvement and that stakeholders have a near-insatiable appetite for progress.
This is just one reason why third-party adviser platforms will keep evolving, and for that we should be grateful. Ultimately, perhaps the biggest challenge that we face is to continue to grow without losing sight of what attracted so many advisers and their clients to our way of doing things in the first place.
[1] See, for example, NextWealth: When the Dust Settles: Platforms After the Shakeout, February 2026 – https://nextwealth.co.uk/research/when-the-dust-settles-platforms-after-the-shakeout-2026/.
Main image: background, light, bulb, blue, nejc-soklic-wO42Rmamef8-unsplash
