Copy article

RAW - Advice risks becoming a "corporate pass-the-parcel" - RAW

ended 16. August 2026

****NEWSPAGE RAW**** Unpublished News Alert 

The wealth management industry has undergone a significant period of consolidation in recent years. Driven by regulatory costs, succession planning challenges and, increasingly, private equity investment, many formerly independent firms now sit within much larger groups. For investors, this raises an important question: when choosing a wealth manager, how much does ownership and structure matter?

Many investors have found themselves on their third or fourth wealth management firm without ever actively deciding to move. Acquisitions transfer relationships from one owner to another, sometimes multiple times over a relatively short period (given that the investment journey may span several generations).

The adviser may remain the same, but the culture, investment process, service model and strategic priorities behind the business can change significantly. In some cases, neither the client nor the adviser originally chose the relationship they now find themselves in.

Against this backdrop, when selecting a wealth manager, one investment manager on Newspage, Paul Denley of Oakham Wealth Management, has said it is worth looking beyond performance tables and asking a few structural questions, for example.

  • Who owns the business?
  • How often has it changed hands?
  • Who actually makes the investment decisions?
  • How long do advisers typically stay with the firm?
  • How are clients serviced as they move through different wealth bands?
  • If the business is sold again, what is likely to change?

Unedited responses from Newspage experts below.

8 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Star Quote
Copy

Editor
Paul DenleyVerified
CEO at Oakham Wealth Management
When private equity turns wealth management into a game of corporate pass-the-parcel, clients can end up bearing the cost. The concern isn't M&A itself, but what happens when the private equity investment thesis is built around aggregating assets, improving margins and eventually selling it on.
A client's adviser may remain the same, but the mandate beneath them can change: centralised investment models, rigid processes and greater commercial pressure can gradually replace the bespoke service clients originally signed up for.
So the question isn't simply who owns your wealth manager today, but what the corporate plan is. Who controls the investment decisions? How many times has the business changed hands? And what happens to the client proposition when the next sale comes? In wealth management, ownership shapes the service you receive - and deserves the same scrutiny as performance.
Star Quote
Copy

Editor
Scott GallacherVerified
Director at Rowley Turton
One of the biggest risks with consolidation is that clients can find themselves in a completely different advice proposition without ever choosing to move.

That is particularly relevant when an independent firm is acquired by a restricted or vertically integrated group. The new owner may want to standardise platforms, funds and investment solutions, especially where it earns revenue at several points in the chain.

Clients should therefore ask who ultimately controls the investment proposition, how often the business has changed hands, and what happened to clients after previous acquisitions. They should also ask whether their adviser is likely to remain, because advisers who value their independence may leave following an IFA-to-restricted takeover.

Consolidation is not inherently bad, but clients need to understand whether they are choosing a long-term adviser relationship or simply becoming part of an asset pool that may be sold again.
Copy

Editor
Nouran MoustafaVerified
Practice Principal & IFA at Roxton Wealth
Ownership matters far more than most clients realise. You might choose an adviser because you trust their judgement, but five years later the firm behind them could have been sold twice and be operating under completely different commercial pressures.

I would absolutely ask who owns the business, who controls the investment proposition and what happens if the firm is sold again. Performance tells you what happened yesterday; structure tells you a lot about whose interests may shape tomorrow.

Consolidation is not automatically bad. Larger groups can bring better technology, stronger governance and deeper resources. But clients should understand whether their adviser still has genuine independence, whether service changes as their wealth changes, and whether the relationship they are buying today is likely to look the same in ten years.

For long-term financial planning, stability is part of the proposition.
Copy

Editor
Tony RedondoVerified
Founder at Cosmos Currency Exchange
Investors must stop being passive passengers in a corporate game of pass-the-parcel. Years working with wealth managers, from boutique independents to PE-backed chains tell the same story: ownership drives client experience. When acquisitions happen, "business as usual" never survives. Private equity works to 3- to 7-year exit windows, so decisions get made for the next valuation, not the client. To widen margins, consolidators push Centralised Investment Decisions and model portfolios, eroding the bespoke advice clients signed up for. Corporate bureaucracy and cross-selling targets kill firm culture, pushing top advisers out and leaving clients with revolving-door relationship managers. "Segmentation" often down-tiers long-standing clients into call centres, while future sales trigger re-platforming into proprietary, costlier models. Performance matters, but structure decides whether it lasts.
Copy

Editor
Harvey DhillonVerified
Founder & CEO at Zmartly
You don't have to ask who owns your wealth manager, because the answer is filed and dated. Unless the firm is listed on a main market, anyone holding more than 25 per cent of the firm is named on its Companies House record. Each change of ownership since 2016 is on a dated filing you can count yourself, not take on trust. If the owner is another company, that can take a second search up the chain. So the fear that ownership is hidden is oversold: it's public, and it's free. A buyer crossing 10 per cent of the shares or votes needs FCA approval before the sale, not after. Last year the FCA warned that fast growth handled badly can mean poor client service, and seller incentives tied to client decisions could put clients in the wrong in-house product. Who picks the investments, how long advisers stay and how you're looked after as your pot grows are questions for an adviser, not me. If you never chose the firm you're with now, start with its filing history.
Copy

Editor
Graham NicollVerified
Financial Planner, Chartered FCSI at NCL Wealth Partners
Consolidation and M&A aren't inherently bad. The issue is you often have decisions being made for clients by an executive committee or board who have little or no experience of engaging with clients or what financial planning actually is, what a good proposition and advice looks like and how it's been delivered to the clients of the Business.  The driver of private equity ownership is generally to reduce, costs, streamline the business, increase margins by moving clients onto their platform and into their central investment proposition.  It often becomes more of platform and MPS advice (tell),  as opposed to true centric financial planning.   At the end of the day, a private equity back business is just that it's a business that will sell again in the future and there is a question of what happens when the music stops, as the only end buyers are banks, insurance firms or other consolidators who all have their own products to sell.
Copy

Editor
Riz MalikVerified
Independent Financial Adviser at R3 Wealth
If your advice firm is under new ownership and you don’t like the new structure you can vote with your feet. Your adviser is part of your team and will guide you and your family. Make sure you are in charge.
Copy

Editor
Ross LaceyVerified
Director & Independent Financial Adviser at Fairview Financial Management
Ultimately clients want a particular outcome for their financial future. Change will always create uncertainty but any fears can be allayed where clients feel confident they are still on track for the same or even better outcomes.


Consolidation of a smaller firm into a bigger one doesn't necessarily mean things will be better or worse.

Our experience having recently acquired another firm is that meeting with the existing adviser and client together with the new adviser is essential in a successful handover. Those years of relationship capital built up are valuable, and clients want and need to feel they'll be in safe hands going forward without change for changes sake.

Explaining the likely changes, what will be the same, and ultimately how everything will be to continue towards those same outcomes the clients are looking for goes a long way compared with a letter in the post to say you've got a new adviser, and they'll be in touch!