Winners Take All – Almost
There are still opportunities for platforms to increase their market share in the Australian financial planning industry, despite the near saturation of adviser use and prevalence of dealer group tie-ups and preferential white labelling.
New CoreData research of more than 1,400 platform users, reveals that while 50.3% of financial planners are allocating more than 80% of client funds that pass through a platform, via their main platform alone, growth opportunities still exist.
As the market is in a mature stage of development, the unfortunate news for those platforms that fall out of favour is that new growth will be at their expense – at least in instances where planners have access to two or more platforms.
The research shows this is the case for the 73.8% of planners in industry who use two or more platforms - the average number of platforms being used is 2.62 per planner.
Platforms are forced to fight urban warfare today, whereby they face many separate battles at a localised level from advice group to advice group.
As the market for adviser business is hotly contested, platforms compete against different sets of rivals from dealer group to dealer group.
This means they need to match-up not just to a key rival but to many rivals across the industry.
The foot in the door opportunity for platforms that are secondary, third or otherwise preferred by advisers is to outshine an adivser’s ‘primary’ choice (where able) and essentially make it easy for advisers to wean themselves away from their main preferred platform.
The research identifies a range of strengths and weaknesses across all platforms, and by using regression analysis reveals how significant these are in driving planners to or away from an investment administration vehicle.



pedantic says:
If you are going to use the terms “primary” and “secondary” then you should be consistent and use the term “tertiary” , NOT THIRD , as you have in your article. Otherwise , stick to first, second or third.