The Hidden Costs of Staying on an Outdated Platform

The Cost of Inertia in Wealth Management

For many investment firms, platform selection is often seen as a one-time decision rather than an evolving strategy. The logic is understandable: switching platforms is complex, disruptive, and often expensive.

But what if the greater cost comes from staying put?

While firms focus on visible costs—such as platform fees and transaction charges—the hidden costs of inefficiency, lost productivity, and limited growth potential often go unnoticed. Yet these inefficiencies are costing firms thousands of hours per year, directly impacting revenue, client satisfaction, and long-term scalability.

In an industry where agility, technology, and operational efficiency are now key competitive advantages, firms can no longer afford to ignore the true cost of outdated platforms.

1. Operational Drag: The Productivity Killer

The most immediate cost of outdated platforms is lost time—a resource that firms cannot afford to waste.

• 50% of firms lose five or more hours per week per adviser due to platform inefficiencies.
• The biggest reason for contacting a platform? Chasing up work that should already be completed.
• Transfers can take months instead of days, with worst-case scenarios lasting over a year.

For a mid-sized firm with multiple advisers, this quickly translates into thousands of lost hours per year—time that could have been spent acquiring new clients, enhancing investment strategies, or strengthening client relationships.

The worst part? This inefficiency is often accepted as normal. Firms build workarounds, assign additional staff to chase issues, and absorb the cost—rather than fixing the root cause.

But in a competitive industry, the firms that remove operational friction will be the ones that scale faster and more profitably.

The transition from a retail investment platform to institutional-level custody is not just about switching providers. It’s about adapting to an entirely different way of operating.

2. Client Experience & Reputational Risk

In today’s wealth management landscape, client expectations are higher than ever. Investors expect seamless digital experiences, real-time reporting, and frictionless service.

Yet, firms tied to legacy platforms are often forced into reactive, apology-driven service models:

• Only 1 in 20 advisers has avoided apologising to a client for poor platform service in the last year.
• Transfers remain a major point of frustration, with 89% of firms describing the process as “painful” or a “nightmare.”
• Clients increasingly compare their financial experiences to those in other industries—where frictionless digital interactions are the norm.

The risk? Advisers are judged not just on their expertise but on the infrastructure they operate within. A poor platform experience reflects poorly on the firm, even if the core investment strategy is sound.

In contrast, firms that adopt efficient, integrated platform solutions can offer faster onboarding, transparent reporting, and seamless asset transfers—critical factors in building trust and winning new business.

3. Growth Limitations: The Opportunity Cost of Stagnation

Perhaps the most damaging hidden cost is the limitation outdated platforms place on a firm’s ability to scale.

Retail platforms, while useful in the early stages, often become a bottleneck for firms looking to expand:

• Higher costs over time: As AUM grows, retail platforms’ percentage-based fees often exceed the cost of institutional solutions.
• Limited flexibility: Firms looking to offer custom investment solutions, launch their own funds, or integrate with other technologies find themselves constrained by the platform’s capabilities.
• Lack of control: Many retail platforms dictate investment parameters, pricing structures, and even client interactions—making differentiation difficult.

The result? Firms that could be evolving into fully independent investment entities remain stuck, unable to make the leap to institutional-grade infrastructure.