LF comments for Citywire on issues with in specie transfers for advisers ie. providers being too slow / difficult

The blame sits with an industry that still allows fragmented systems, inconsistent asset data and manual processes to pass responsibility between the ceding provider, receiving provider and fund manager. Advisers can spend weeks chasing updates while nobody appears to own the transfer.

That creates a horrible choice: recommend an in-specie transfer that may protect the client from being out of the market but could become painfully slow, or disinvest and move as cash, exposing them to market movements, dealing costs and the risk of missing a recovery.

The ideal system is not complicated: one mandatory digital transfer standard, assets and share classes matched before the transfer begins, live tracking, a named responsible party and enforceable service deadlines. Advisers should choose cash or in specie because it produces the best client outcome, not because outdated administration has made one route almost unbearable.

In-specie transfers may be in the client's best interests, but too often operational barriers drive decisions.

The issues are shared: some advisers provide incomplete information, some consolidators prioritise moving clients onto preferred platforms or vertically integrated solutions whether it is right for the client or not causing excess demand and bottlenecks. Also, many providers still lack the technology, resource and standardised processes to handle transfers efficiently.

The continued reliance on wet signatures by some providers also feels outdated.

Clients ultimately bear the cost through delays, time out of the market if assets are sold, and potentially avoidable costs.

Greater industry standardisation, better technology, and a stronger focus on client outcomes over commercial objectives would significantly improve the process.

Platforms providers and advice firms need to realise there are clients at the end of every decision...often forgotten by senior management!