Wave 4: March 2015 1

“ “ FOREWORD Seth Godin recently said, Brands don't care about you. The human factor With margin pressures there is a tendency to over-emphasise the importance of technology, processes, and supply chain efficiency. This is understandable but only part of the picture. All successful companies revolve around human needs because people are the ultimate consumers of every product and service. Without people, every patent in the world would be worthless and financial services is no exception – it is people (advisers and their clients) who make the decisions about what to buy and when. So when providers and platforms try to compete on price, quality or process (which create temporary advantages at best) it is worth remembering that the only lasting competitive advantage is the knowledge your company possesses (and the action that flows from it) about the people your company serves. Lost human capitol Yet boots on the ground have been reduced significantly as Executive teams seek to manage the numbers and boost short term profits. Unfortunately it has been proven to be incredibly difficult to cut your way to success. When a provider cuts front line staff to increase profits there is (or at least the very real risk of) corresponding disruption to vital relationships unless CRM systems are seamless. Few are. Brand equity damage This is all the more alarming when we consider that, to many advisers, provider consultants represent more than just a valuable conduit to knowledge and support… they are the brand. And so when they are ushered out of the door as part of cost ‘rationalisation’, along with them goes your entire brand equity – which doesn’t seem particularly rational and is reflected in the low industry brand equity scores we reveal for the first time this Wave. We recognise the cost pressures that exist which is why Profit Through Partnership is designed to maximise your return on adviser support through investing where it counts. Institutions don't care about you either. The only people who are able to care about you are “ people. The question, then, is “is this institution owned and organised and run by people who will allow the people who work there to care?” Generally, the answer is 'no', because caring is unpredictable, hard to command and regulate and sometimes expensive in the short run. That’s a great shame because the long term upside is huge. Our latest wave of adviser research, reveals the growing importance and influence of provider and platform consultants on advisers. That’s not to say that support of the right kind and quality is widely available or accessible (it’s not). But there is a strong and positive relationship between the delivery of relevant business and technical support and adviser propensity to do business with you. And it’s getting stronger, fuelled, in part, by scarcity.

Objectives Our adviser engagement programme is uniquely designed to improve the effectiveness of adviser facing activity. Profit through Partnership, through robust, unbiased and informed discussion with the advisers providers want to do business with, will: Identify the levers of business and technical support that will have the biggest positive impact for providers in the adviser market. Clearly Benchmark providers against a) support imperatives and b) resource commitment / market spend in each support area. Point clearly to the optimal blend of support services (content and delivery) required to meet and exceed business objectives with the advisers providers want to do business with. Enable providers to plan and deploy resources more scientifically and with greater confidence that they will deliver the desired outcomes. Positive and negative brand recall, associations and what drives these perceptions; Brand equity ratings for providers (as scored by advisers) The importance, both claimed and derived (statistical), of the whole suite of: consultant support, central support and central resources along with what is driving these views; The areas of support that advisers would like to see providers place greater focus; How that support is best delivered; How providers compare against each other and the market as a whole across 15 specific support areas; What drives propensity to do business (satisfying conscious and sub-conscious needs); Opportunities for valued differentiation.

From holistic financial planning businesses Methodology 128 advisers were randomly sampled from a robust panel of 800 Technical Connection adviser clients and over 15,000 advisers from So Here’s The Plan’s growing database. The sample comprised advisers who were: Nationally representative sample of firms in terms of number of RI’s, geography and AUM From holistic financial planning businesses All interviews were conducted by telephone, lasting 25-30 minutes on average. Interviews were conducted during January / February 2015. Participating advisers were offered access to online client facing material from Technical Connection in return for their participation. Individual anonymity agreed.

Respondent Profile (1) Q. How many RIs are there in the business? Q. Approximate AUM at a firm level? Closely mirroring the overall profile of adviser firms in the UK the vast majority (82%) had between one and five registered individuals providing advice. In terms of assets under management at a firm level, nearly four fifths of the sample (79%) had £20m+, while over two fifths managed £50m or more.

Respondent Profile (2) Q. Which of the following describes your firm? Q. What proportion of your time do you allocate across the following four areas? SPECIALISM % Investment 68% Retirement 64% Protection 16% Tax Planning 19% There has been very little change in business model over the last 6 months. Q. Does your firm have any particular specialisms? As was the case during the previous wave of the study, the bulk of advisers remain independent (84%), while just over one in ten (12%) have adopted a restricted whole of market approach (despite regulator concerns about the term). We also asked advisers to allocate how they spend their time across four key areas. At an overall level, advisers are spending the majority of their time on investment related business (37%) or retirement (35%). Just over a quarter of time is spent on tax planning (16%) and protection activities (12%). Therefore we have classed 68% of advisers as investment specialists (spending the most or equal most amount of their time on this area), 64% as retirement specialists, 16% as protection specialists and 19% as tax planning specialists.

Contents 2. 4. Spontaneous Brand Recall Business Imperatives Provider & Platform Benchmarking Building Better Support Headlines………………………………………………………………………………………………………...9 Providers standing out – technical support…………………………………………………………………10 Drivers of spontaneous recall………………………………………………………….……………………..11 Providers standing out – business support…………………………………………………………………12 Drivers of spontaneous recall……………………………………………………………………….………..13 Brand equity…………………………………..………………………………………………………………..14 Correlation by brand values……………………………………………………………..………………...…18 Implications and opportunities………………………………………………………………………………..19 Page 8 Headlines……………………………………………………………………………………………………….22 Wave on wave changes………………………………………………………………………………………23 Claimed importance of all 15 technical and business support areas……………………………………24 Reactive support – why it is so important…………………………………………………………………..29 Pro-active support – why it appears less important……………………………………………………….30 Optimising support delivery………………….……………………………………………………….………32 Implications and opportunities……………………………………………………………………………….33 2. Page 21 Advisers assess the performance of providers and platforms they have used in each of our 15 technical and business support areas: Assessment of ‘what good looks like’ in each of these areas. Consultant support……………….….37 Central support………………………43 Central resources……………………49 Page 34 Headlines………………………………………………………………………………………………………….58 Overall industry performance vs. stated adviser importance across all 15 support areas………………60 Opportunities for valued differentiation…………………………………………………………………….….64 Measuring adviser propensity to do business with providers / platforms………………………………….65 Mapping performance vs. propensity to do business………………………………………………………..66 Stated importance vs. derived importance – identifying the areas that have a greater impact on propensity to do business than advisers claim……………………………………………………………….67 Implications and opportunities………………………………………………………………………………….72 4. Page 57

This section explores: Who advisers say – top of mind – they associate with excellent business and technical support What those providers & platforms that stand out do well, in the eyes of advisers Brand strength - how advisers perceive provider and platform brands

Section 1: Spontaneous Brand Recall - Headlines Those that do aren’t necessarily delivering quality Few brands resonate Advisers associate very few providers or platforms with consistently good business or technical support. Those providers / platforms who are spontaneously recalled with greater frequency (Standard / Funds Network / Old Mutual) are not necessarily those who actually deliver quality support (as scored by advisers), emphasising that a whole host of other factors (brand / peers / past experience) shape top of mind perceptions… which in due course influence decisions. Exploring brand personality deeper reveals that the characteristics that most influence advisers are seldom seen in providers and platforms. Key personality traits influence advisers But the industry possesses few of them

Providers Standing Out – Technical Support Q. Which providers / platforms have stood out for providing guidance when you need it with navigating complex cases, understanding regulation and taxation or clarifying suitability / application of solutions for particular client segments? TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 3 TIER 4 % advisers Advisers associate very few providers or platforms with consistent delivery of quality technical support In previous waves we explored who advisers, top of mind and without being prompted, most associate with delivering excellent business and technical support. During wave 4 we split the question to look at technical (above) and business support individually. As such, there is no tracking data. Spontaneous views do not necessarily mirror actual performance in the 15 individual aspects of business and technical support, highlighting that snap judgements (whether accurate or not) are often the initial basis for day-to-day decision making. The chart above shows that there are some clear winners in terms of top of mind recall, with Standard Life (19%) and FundsNetwork (17%) the most commonly associated in positive terms. Old Mutual (14%) top the next tier, closely followed by Transact (13%), and Aviva (10%). Below this, AXA and Zurich (9%) and AJ Bell (8%) were mentioned by just under one in ten. After this point the level of cut through per business is extremely limited with 13 providers registering with only 5% or less of the adviser population.

What Drives Good? “ “ “ “ “ ” ” ” ” ” 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Q. What is it about the service those providers deliver that you particularly value? [unprompted] “ They are generally helpful, they want to get to the bottom of the issue. Communication is easy with them there is always someone to assist you. “ They provide me with direct contact. When I have any questions they answer them quickly and I get confirmation by email. “ “ “ We normally speak over the phone. They have a legal and technical department which responds to our queries straight away. It's the support they gave us after we started using them last year. We have a business manager and good technical support. The guidance is phone based and they are always available, you don't get passed around departments. ” ” ” ” ” 1. 19% of all respondents 2. 17% of all respondents 3. 14% of all respondents 4. 13% of all respondents 5. 10% of all respondents Technically able staff Strong communication Online content Dedicated consultant support Ease of contact Dedicated consultant support Online content Ease of contact Useful events Ownership of problems Reliable and trustworthy Accessible telephone support Online content Online tools Direct technical contact Dedicated consultant support Likeable and approachable Problem resolution Navigable website Online content Dedicated consultant support Accessible technical experts Speedy and robust recognition and resolution to queries / issues both online and through direct contact Provider / platform % Standard Life 19% FundsNetwork 17% Old Mutual 14% Transact 13% Aviva 10% Zurich 9% AXA AJ Bell 8% Aegon 5% Prudential True Potential There is clear commonality between those providers who have fared better: Relationships and contact Thorough / navigable online content Technical expertise Speedy resolution

Providers Standing Out – Business Support Q. Which providers / platforms have stood out specifically for providing pro-active business support – e.g. business generation ideas, client engagement collateral etc.? TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 3 TIER 4 % advisers Advisers recognise a wider range of providers but fewer with any great regularity Looking specifically at proactive business support advisers reference a wider range of platforms and providers than is the case for technical support (25 compared to 21) – but far fewer resonate consistently. Old Mutual was name-checked by 14% of advisers with reference to the provision of good proactive business support, with Transact, Standard Life (both with 11%) not too far behind. Royal London and FundsNetwork topped the second tier of providers, marginally behind (with 10% recall), with Aviva and Cofunds mentioned by 7% advisers. However, perhaps most notably, one in four advisers (25%) felt unable to comment – suggesting that good proactive business support is something being delivered well relatively infrequently.

What Drives Good? “ “ “ “ “ ” ” ” ” ” 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Q. What is it about the service those providers deliver that you particularly value? [unprompted] “ They do it in regular updates, in the form of seminars. They are very proactive and they do this through all platforms of telephone, email and in person. They have two business development managers that see us quite often. They come to me with business solutions and are prepared to help. “ “ They're developing all the time. More access to risk graded strategies and they are constantly training us to make use of them. “ They offer really good collateral advice when it comes to critical illness, and they helped me to create a personal tax plan for my clients. They ran a great seminar about the pensions changes and we get very regular face to face contact from them. “ ” ” ” ” ” 1. 14% of all respondents 2. 11% of all respondents 3. 11% of all respondents 4. 10% of all respondents 5. 10% of all respondents Regular rep visits Technical seminars Regular contact via telephone / email Regular email bulletins Fresh ideas Dedicated business development managers Prepared to help Discuss how new solutions can be implemented Regular communication Identify timely opportunities Strong product advice Helping to shape business plans Level of personal contact Legislation seminars Regular ace to face contact Online content Up to date opportunities via email Proactive sharing of ideas and opportunities resulting from changes to legislation and new products, regular contact and understanding of individual businesses Provider / platform % Old Mutual 14% Transact 11% Standard Life Royal London 10% FundsNetwork Aviva 7% Cofunds AXA 5% Zurich 4% Prudential True Potential There is clear commonality between those providers who have fared better: Relationships and contact Implications of legislation changes Email bulletins / opportunities

Brand Equity In order to track brand loyalty among advisers, for the first time in wave 4 of Profit through Partnership, we asked advisers how far they agree with the following five brand personality statements– using the ratings given to provide an overall ‘brand equity score’. They are a provider I cannot live without; They are a ‘go-to’ provider – where relevant to a clients needs; There is no one quite like them; They represent fantastic value for money; They genuinely care about my business.

Brand Equity Q. Rate the providers you have used on a scale of 1-10, where 1 = disagree strongly and 10 = agree strongly (PROVIDER AVERAGES VS. INDUSTRY AVERAGES) These scores are the average agreement scores across all five brand statements INDUSTRY AVERAGE – 5.85 It is immediately clear that relatively few providers score highly as the strength of agreement with our brand equity statements (for most) is not what it could be – The highest level of agreement at an industry level is with regards to being ‘go-to’ (6.18/10) and ‘great value’ (6.11/10) and least positive with regards to ‘being no one quite like them’ (5.45/10). This highlights the relative shallowness of most adviser-provider relationships which are built on (short term and difficult to protect) product / function / cost aspects. With little to choose between providers / platforms on a product level, issues such as ‘genuinely caring about adviser businesses’, ‘being a provider advisers could not live without’ and ‘there being no one quite like them’ matter a great deal, and provide the opportunity for sustainable differentiation. but few deliver.

INDUSTRY AVERAGES Could not live without 5.74 Go-to provider 6.18 No one quite like them 5.45 Great value for money 6.11 Genuinely care about my business 5.79 Brand Equity Q. Rate the providers you have used on a scale of 1-10, where 1 = disagree strongly and 10 = agree strongly (MEAN SCORES) Provider They are a provider I could not live without They are a go-to provider (when client relevant) There is no one quite like them They are great value for cost / charges They genuinely care about my business AEGON 5.77 6.31 5.00 6.00 5.54 AJ BELL 5.75 5.67 6.33 5.92 ALLIANCE TRUST 7.25 8.25 ASCENTRIC 5.83 3.17 4.83 5.17 AVIVA 6.26 6.58 5.95 6.53 5.53 AXA 6.06 5.12 5.94 5.65 CANADA LIFE 6.25 6.50 COCOON WEALTH 4.90 5.03 4.87 5.37 5.33 COFUNDS 4.84 4.32 5.21 4.89 FIDELITY / FUNDSNETWORK 5.40 5.73 4.93 5.93 4.97 JAMES HAY 7.00 8.89 5.44 6.22 6.67 Cofunds appear among the bottom of the pack across the board – though most notably in relation to there ‘being no one quite like them’ (4.32) and being a ‘go-to’ provider (4.84). Ascentric rate comparatively poorly in terms of ‘there being no one quite like them’ (3.17) and value (4.83), while Cocoon Wealth are also among the least likely to be ‘go-to’ (5.03) James Hay are rated among the highest providers in terms of being a provider advisers cannot live without (7.00) and being a ‘go-to’ provider (8.89). Elsewhere, Alliance Trust are among the leaders in terms of there ‘being no one quite like them’ (7.25) and value (8.25).

INDUSTRY AVERAGES Could not live without 5.74 Go-to provider 6.18 No one quite like them 5.45 Great value for money 6.11 Genuinely care about my business 5.79 Brand Equity Q. Rate the providers you have used on a scale of 1-10, where 1 = disagree strongly and 10 = agree strongly (MEAN SCORES) Provider They are a provider I could not live without They are a go-to provider (when client relevant) There is no one quite like them They are great value for cost / charges They genuinely care about my business LEGAL AND GENERAL 4.70 5.90 6.60 4.78 LV= 4.54 5.62 4.92 6.08 5.38 NOVIA 6.50 6.75 5.00 7.50 OCTOPUS INVESTMENTS 5.33 7.17 6.42 6.25 6.17 OLD MUTUAL 5.84 5.53 5.37 5.42 5.05 PRUDENTIAL 6.64 6.73 6.82 ROYAL LONDON 7.30 6.90 SCOTTISH WIDOWS 4.57 4.29 3.71 4.00 STANDARD LIFE 5.36 6.00 5.43 TRANSACT 7.59 7.24 7.06 6.71 ZURICH 5.83 5.75 RL and Transact are the clear winners in terms of brand perceptions – among the top 3 in all issues (with the exception of being perceived as great value in the case of Transact). Prudential are among the leaders in terms of value (6.73) and being perceived as caring about adviser businesses (6.82) – where Novia also rate well on this latter issue (7.50). Scottish Widows perform comparatively poorly across the board and are among the lowest across all areas – most notably, there being ‘no one quite like them’ (3.71) and genuinely caring (4.00). L&G are among the least likely to be seen as caring (4.78) and also being a provider advisers could not live without (4.70) – with this also being the case for LV= (4.54)

Correlation by brand values Q. The following highlights the extent to which the brand values are correlated with an advisers’ preference to working with a provider (1 = perfect positive correlation). They are a provider I could not live without (0.65) They are a go-to provider (when client relevant) (0.65) There is no one quite like them (0.86) They genuinely care about my business (0.76) They are great value for cost / charges (0.71) Our correlation analysis shows a strong positive relationship between brand values and adviser propensity to do business with you. The providers who advisers most agree “there is no-one quite like” and who advisers feel “genuinely care about (their) business” are those providers advisers have the highest propensity to do business with.

Implications & opportunities The industry scores highest in the areas that matter least In the most influential areas the industry is weakest. The most significant driver of use (the perception of there being “no-one quite like you”) is where the industry performs most poorly, averaging only 5.45 / 10 in terms of agreement scores. The industry performs most strongly (averaging 6.18) in relation to a sentiment that is least influential on advisers – “being a go-to provider”. In the three areas that matter most the industry delivers an average of only 5.8/10 demonstrating clearly where there is an open door for providers and platforms who can tangibly demonstrate that they care, are different and represent value. Perceived uniqueness is rare but impactful. Demonstrating you genuinely care pays.

Implications & opportunities “ It does not always pay to be different but the pursuit of “unique” is nearly always worth the risk. “ The talent’s in the choices The talent is very much in where and how you choose to build your uniqueness and around what. This is true because delivering on time, to budget and to spec is fine as long as you are the only person or business who is doing it. As that is rarely the case in any competitive market, ticking boxes and meeting needs does us little good most of the time. Our correlation analysis shows a strong positive relationship between brand personality and advisers propensity to do business with providers and platforms. The power of unique The providers that advisers most agree “there is no one quite like” and whom advisers feel “genuinely care about their business” are the providers advisers have the highest propensity to recommend to their clients (all things being relatively equal). The great shame is that relatively few providers have the kind of true brand equity to leverage this opportunity, with average ‘uniqueness’ scores hovering around 5.45 / 10 and ‘caring’ ratings averaging just 5.79. The dangerous middle ground One of the things that holds executive teams back is the fear of being different, which sounds anomalous. We talk about the importance of differentiation, USPs and sustainable advantage, sure. But when it comes to the crunch, the fear of possibly alienating any of the target audience stops us in our tracks and keeps us firmly on middle ground. Safe ground. Same ground. Most brands that fail fall into the chasm of trying to be all things in order to please everyone, and up reaching no one.

This section explores: How important advisers say each of the 15 components of support are to their business How this differs by different types of advisory business Why each support component is important / unimportant and how it makes a difference What good looks like and where improvement is possible

Section 2: Business Imperatives - Headlines Central support remains critical But f2f consultant support is becoming more important While the big picture remains unchanged and central support is still crucial there are some subtle but significant shifts The importance of f2f consultant support is at its highest level since tracking began. The technical expertise of consultants, along with their business generation idea capabilities are the two area that have risen in importance most profoundly compared to last wave. Reactive support remains more important but this is still based largely on advisers poor experience of pro-active support which has been overtly sales-led to date – diminishing the perceived value. Reactive support is a higher stated need. Pro-active support must be based on relationship (but can differentiate)

Importance of support: changes this wave Number indicates change in stated importance More important (+0.25 or more) Little change (+ <0.25) Less important Big picture, there is remarkable consistency in term of how each of the 15 supports rank. The most noted increases in importance are with (f-2-f) consultant support – technical expertise (+0.64) and business generation ideas (+0.50) While central support contains four of the top five most important forms of support, average scores for three of these dropped slightly. Consultant support – technical expertise Consultant support – business generation ideas Central resource – online content Central resource – online tools Consultant support – likeability Central resource – CPD Consultant support – availability Consultant support – practice development support Central support – email responsiveness Central resource - events Central resource – support materials Consultant support – problem resolution +0.64 +0.24 Central resource – technical expertise Central resource – problem resolution Central resource – telephone availability -0.18 +0.50 +0.15 -0.18 +0.14 +0.41 -0.02 +0.39 +0.14 +0.37 +0.31 +0.28 +0.27

Claimed importance by support type (1 – the data) Central support functions represent 80% of the top five most important supports Consultant Support Central Support Central Resources Very Important Quite Important Mixed Views Not Very Important Not at all Important

Claimed importance by support type (1 – the data) Q. How important to your business are the following aspects of business and technical support? RANK (15) (14) (11) CONSULTANT SUPPORT (7) (6) (2) RANK (4) (5) CENTRAL SUPPORT (3) (1) RANK (13) (12) CENTRAL RESOURCES (9) (8) (10)

Claimed importance by support type (2 – the meaning) Q. Average Importance of Broad Support Types 1st 2nd 3rd Biggest Wave increase As has historically been the case, central support is clearly seen as the most vital function (an average rating of 8.53/10) and still has four of the top five ranked support components by claimed importance. Consistent with previous waves, reactive support tends to rate as more important. It is vital for advisers to know they can get hold of someone and have issues resolved quickly as and when they arise: Problem resolution (both in terms of central and consultant support) remain the two most critical factors. Technical expertise, mainly within central support, is the next most critical factor – though its importance within the context of consultant support has increased above that of any other type of support. Responsiveness remains a crucial factor, particularly relating to central support, likely linked to the need for speedy resolution of problems. With regard to central resources, tools, content and support remain important staples for the support portfolio. The two least important rated facets of support remain those linked to more proactive business development (both business generation ideas and practice development support). It is still likely that rather than being ‘unimportant’, they are not as immediately necessary or relied upon as other forms of support, meaning that providers willing to do this well have the opportunity to delight advisers far above and beyond their expectations.

Claimed importance: significant differences (1 – the data) Beware generalisations: there is no such thing as average… LESS IMPORTANT TO… SUPPORT TYPE MORE IMPORTANT TO… Sub 10 advisers (7.47) Availability / Responsiveness +10 advisers (8.56) NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES Technical Expertise 6-10 advisers (7.50) Problem Resolution Business Generation Ideas £50m+ AUM (5.26) Practice Development Support £0-£20m AUM (6.27) £0-£20m AUM (6.22) Consultant Likeability +10 advisers (7.33) ALL FORMS OF CENTRAL SUPPORT 6-10 advisers (4.00) Events 1-5 advisers (6.01) 10+ advisers (6.00) 6-10 advisers (5.00) CPD Support 1-5 advisers (6.42) £0-£20m AUM (7.13) Online Content £50m+ AUM (7.29) Online Tools £0-£20m AUM (8.00) 10+ advisers (6.33) +£50m (6.71) Tied whole of market (6.58) Support Materials 1-5 advisers (7.42) Sub £20m AUM (7.67) Independent (7.28) Consultant support Central resources Q. How important to your business are the following aspects of business and technical support?

Claimed importance: significant differences (2 – the meaning) CONSULTANT SUPPORT While there is little difference in opinions on business generation ideas, practice development support is more valued typically by those with lower AUM. Problem resolution and technical expertise are important across all adviser types. Consultant likeability seems to be more an important factor for larger firms (both in terms of AUM and RIs). CENTRAL SUPPORT All types of central support are equally important to all types of advice firm. CENTRAL RESOURCES It is those with the lowest and highest numbers of RIs who most value events, though those with the fewest number are also most likely to value CPD support. Again, it is smaller firms (in terms of AUM and RIs) who are more likely to value support materials and online tools – though online content remains as important to all types of adviser.

Why is reactive support so important? Q. Could you give me a practical example of how this type of support really makes a difference? Can help the adviser to deliver the right specialist advice (33%) Reflects a good service in the eyes of the end-client (28%) Means the adviser can go back to adding value knowing problems are being dealt with (22%) Time and associated cost savings (11%) Back up for compliance (6%) Huge impact Moderate impact If you are dealing with something you are not used to that's when you need the tech support to engender a better client relationship. “ It enhances our ability to work and gain the respect of clients and generate more business. It is so important to have problem resolution as it means I do not have to worry and a support mechanism is there. “ “ It’s the backup. It needs to be right. It needs to be accurate. “ When you hit a problem that's when you need a solution to be delivered quickly and efficiently. You don’t have time to waste chasing. “ “ “ “ “ “ Advisers want to be advising – and that means giving their clients the best possible service, both in terms of the appropriateness and suitability of the advice they give and the end-to-end experience. This, simply, is why technical support and problem resolution are so vital in the eyes of the average adviser. Linked to this, advisers generally dislike anything that gets in the way of the part of the job that they enjoy and that, ultimately brings in the revenue. Compounding this dislike is the impact on time and associated costs of chasing down solutions to problems. It is the relationships that advisers build and maintain with their clients that matter the most to them. Support that helps them galvanisen these relationships is what will make you truly invaluable.

Why is proactive support less important? (1) Q. Why is proactive support (business generation ideas and practice development support) less important? Not required – conducted internally (38%) Not required due to (poor) experience (15%) A lack of new high quality support of this kind available (19%) Already winning enough / more than enough business & not looking to expand See support of this kind as being either sales-led or leading to a conflict of interests (9%) “If your business relies on other companies to give ideas, it's not a good business. We're in financial planning so we charge for our time to earn money, we don't make our money from selling products.” “It's none of their (providers’) business. They get involved and then there's a conflict of interest.” Poor past experience… …has significantly depreciated the value of pro-active support “We already have more business than we can shake a stick at.” “I think generally it's the absence of anything quality from providers that has led to us doing it ourselves.” Advisers are quick to argue that they don’t (and can’t) know everything, particularly relating to more nuanced and technical solutions, and openly value support being provided upon request. But proactive business generation and practice development support continues to be seen as less relevant. While advisers have come to depend on their own internal processes / experience for this type of support it is clear that a perceived lack of quality provision, with clear independence from providers’ products, has tainted the way advisers view it… depleting perceived value

Why is proactive support less important? (2) Persistent bombardment of pro- active support that is either (or all): Sub standard Poorly communicated Untargeted Has resulted in many advisers being wilfully blinded and deafened to the (dwindling) business generation support on offer. This has created a barrier of resistance that has only made it harder to cut through & providers less inclined to invest. Only providers that are committed to the long term investment required (truly bothering to get to know their adviser firms and understand what support they need and when) will cut through.

Tailoring the way in which support is delivered (1) Q. From a practical viewpoint, how would you prefer the providers that you work with to best deliver business and technical support? F2F support (25%) Telephone contact (18%) Email contact (18%) Online / website (15%) Via dedicated RM (10%) Seminar / webinar (8%) Different methods for different people in the business (6%) There is clearly no ‘one size fits all’ approach. Providers need to spend more time understanding the fundamentals of advisers’ business before foisting solutions on them. But F2F support is becoming more important again. “ In a practical sense advisers prefer a mix of face to face, telephone and email when it comes to providers delivering business and technical support – though how this comes together differs case to case. Though advisers are increasingly used to the general industry-wide withdrawal of dedicated consultant support we have already seen from the previous section how good examples of this (admittedly labour intensive) form of support helps providers to stick out from the crowd. To an extent advisers have become hardened to the fact that less personal and face-to-face support is being prioritised by providers and have themselves become less reliant on it – this, though, does mean that it can have a disproportionately positive impact when delivered consistently well. This is even truer when we consider the relatively small % of providers willing and able to invest in this area. It is particularly the proactive elements of support where providers really need to understand individual firms and what they are interested in and how this is best received. It goes without saying that appearing ‘salesy’ should be avoided at all costs. I think it's quite important that they get to know you and understand how you operate. ” “ Email - I just don't like to receive calls from companies constantly. If we are to receive calls from companies we will spend all day on the phone. Convenience I would say is the key for selecting email. ” We are lucky as most of it is done face-to-face. We prefer to focus on companies who provide face to face meetings. “ ” “ I much prefer working on a one to one basis with someone like a dedicated account manager. Sometimes without this dedicated person the support given is quite vague and that can be the frustrating bit. ”

Implications & opportunities Personal experiences are more important Support must respond to needs Which are only uncovered through listening. Segmentation is key! Advisers are all different in terms of how they want to access and receive both reactive and proactive support from the providers that they use. You cannot hope to adopt one broad approach and expect all advisers to engage with it in the same way. But the clear trend is the yearning for something more personal – reflected in the rising importance of F2F (coming through loudly and clearly both quantitatively and qualitatively). Every good conversation should start with good listening (seldom experienced by advisers). It is about truly committing to understand someone else’s world irrespective of (and completely detached from) the solutions you may have.

This section explores: How providers and platforms rate, in the eyes of advisers who have used them for business and technical support across the 15 key support components [across consultant support, central support and central resources] What good looks like in each support category Relative importance of each area vs. how well the industry delivers What really drives successful support

Section 3: Provider & Platform Benchmarking We asked advisers to rate providers and platforms they have used for business or technical support this year. Advisers scored each provider / platform across each of the 15 (below) criteria on a 1-10 scale. The results in this section show the average rating each provider / platform achieved.

The Leader board: overall ratings RANK WEIGHTED BY CLAIMED IMPORTANCE % score WEIGHTED BY DERIVED IMPORTANCE 1 ROYAL LONDON 84.23 84.54 2 PRUDENTIAL 83.08 82.75 3 OCTOPUS INVESTMENTS 78.90 79.47 4 TRANSACT 75.09 75.18 5 CANADA LIFE 73.67 73.63 6 AVIVA 72.92 73.10 7 ZURICH 72.40 8 JAMES HAY 71.87 71.70 9 LEGAL AND GENERAL 69.98 70.52 10 AXA 66.88 ALLIANCE TRUST 66.98 11 LV= 66.49 NOVIA RANK WEIGHTED BY CLAIMED IMPORTANCE % score WEIGHTED BY DERIVED IMPORTANCE 12 NOVIA 65.93 AXA 66.65 13 OLD MUTUAL 65.44 LV= 66.53 14 AJ BELL 65.27 65.28 15 FIDELITY / FN 65.17 STANDARD LIFE 65.26 16 65.11 65.12 17 ALLIANCE TRUST 64.82 64.89 18 ASCENTRIC 64.16 64.03 19 COFUNDS 63.22 62.26 20 AEGON 62.08 62.17 21 SCOTTISH WIDOWS 54.85 54.07 In order to provide an overview of who is delivering in the areas that matter, our leader board takes into account provider performance across each of the 15 support areas: factoring in weighted scores for both claimed importance and derived importance (so those support areas that are more important carry more weight). The first thing to note is that there are subtle differences between the rankings weighted by claimed importance and derived importance. Royal London and Prudential lead the pack in terms of performance, while Octopus, Transact and Canada Life also rank highly. At the other end of the scale, Scottish Widows, Aegon, Cofunds, Ascentric and Alliance Trust rank far less favourably, while Standard Life and Fidelity FundsNetwork are also in the bottom third. THE WINNERS

Provider and platform benchmarking Consultant availability Consultant technical expertise Consultant problem resolution Consultant business generation ideas Consultant practice development Consultant likability The following section looks at how advisers rated consultant support from providers and platforms they have used in the past six months. So that’s… Rated out of 10

Provider ratings: consultant support mean scores Q. In relation to consultant support, how would rate the providers you use on the following? (OVERALL CONSULTANT SUPPORT MEAN SCORES) PROVIDER AVERAGE (6.79) Of the providers with the highest proportion of advisers using them for support, Royal London (8.45), and Prudential (8.20) were the best performers while Octopus Investments (7.87) and Zurich (7.48) also performed relatively well. At the bottom end we see some of the usual suspects with Scottish Widows (5.17), Cofunds (5.65) and Ascentric (6.17) in the bottom three. Several providers have shown some significant positive improvement over the last wave – most notably with Royal London (+1.39), Prudential (+1.42) and Legal and General (+1.86). LV= (-1.07) and Scottish Widows (-1.05) are the only providers showing a significant fall in scores. Availability / responsiveness Technical expertise Problem resolution Business generation ideas Practice development support Likeability Advisers were asked to rate the providers / platforms whom they had used for support across the following areas of consultant support:

Consultant support: winners and losers STABLE LOSERS The Royal London rebrand appears to have galvanised adviser sentiment– with scores improving from simply middle of the pack to the outright leader. Prudential have also seen a significant leap forward from the middle of the pack to second overall. Octopus Investments have continued their strong performance from the previous wave to find themselves third. Both Zurich and L&G have shown significant improvement to finish with an above average industry score. Canada Life have shown no change to leave them strongly placed in the top six. James Hay, Alliance Trust and Axa have all shown little change since the previous wave to leave them in and around the middle of the pack. Old Mutual have also shown little change from wave three of the study, but find themselves slightly below the industry average. Scottish Widows have experienced a significant drop in performance to find themselves rooted to the bottom. Cofunds and Fidelity / FundsNetwork have averaged the same scores as the previous wave, leaving them both in the bottom five. Despite Aegon and Ascentric demonstrating some improvement over the last wave, they both still find themselves rooted in the bottom five.

Availability / responsiveness Business Generation Ideas Technical expertise Problem resolution Business generation ideas Practice development support Likeability 7.22 Consultant support: changes this wave (1) 7.42 7.19 5.76 5.89 7.24 Q. In relation to consultant support, how do the providers you have used rate on a scale of 1-10, where 1 = very poor and 10 = excellent? (MEAN SCORES) N.B: Green and red numbers on the right of each cell indicate change from previous wave. * refers to no change. Provider Availability / responsiveness Technical Expertise Problem Resolution Business Generation Ideas Practice Development Likeability AEGON 6.93 6.57 6.50 4.79 5.46 7.07 AJ BELL 6.10 7.30 6.18 5.75 7.13 ALLIANCE TRUST 8.25 7.75 7.25 4.67 5.00 7.50 ASCENTRIC 7.00 3.50 6.75 AVIVA 7.78 7.94 6.13 5.60 7.76 AXA 7.27 5.92 5.38 6.63 CANADA LIFE 8.18 7.60 6.78 6.71 7.09 COFUNDS 5.41 6.29 6.00 5.13 5.36 5.69 FIDELITY / FUNDSNETWORK 6.62 6.36 5.33 5.74 6.89 JAMES HAY 5.40 6.67 7.38 +0.51 +0.32 +0.50 +0.23 +1.71 +1.99 +0.30 +0.50 -0.22 +0.50 +1.25 +3.13 +0.92 +0.42 -0.75 -1.33 * +0.50 +2.08 * * -1.17 +2.00 +0.08 +0.91 +0.61 +0.99 +0.30 -0.07 +0.85 +0.73 +0.82 +0.08 -0.21 -0.33 +0.13 -1.65 -0.45 -0.78 +1.34 +2.04 -0.73 -0.59 -0.04 +0.25 -0.01 +0.07 -0.19 -0.38 -0.29 +0.78 -0.08 -0.14 +0.14 -0.54 -0.77 -0.95 -0.27 +2.00 +0.38 When looking at the highest and lowest rated providers in terms of the six issues explored there is a high degree of consistency . Cofunds rank among the lowest three providers on all reactive consultant support and likeability. On the other hand, Alliance Trust and Ascentric rank among the bottom three in terms of proactive consultant support. Aegon compare among the lowest scoring providers in terms of both technical expertise and business generation ideas. Despite upping their game. AJ Bell tend to rank in the middle of the pack, though are ranked among the bottom three in terms of consultant problem resolution.

Availability / responsiveness Business Generation Ideas Technical expertise Problem resolution Business generation ideas Practice development support Likeability 7.22 Consultant support: changes this wave (2) 7.42 7.19 5.76 5.89 7.24 Q. In relation to consultant support, how do the providers you have used rate on a scale of 1-10, where 1 = very poor and 10 = excellent? (MEAN SCORES) N.B: Green and red numbers on the right of each cell indicate change from previous wave. * refers to no change. Provider Availability / responsiveness Technical Expertise Problem Resolution Business Generation Ideas Practice Development Likeability LEGAL AND GENERAL 7.71 7.88 7.75 5.50 5.00 7.63 LV= 6.00 6.60 7.29 5.75 6.09 NOVIA 7.50 7.00 6.25 OCTOPUS INVESTMENTS 8.20 8.45 8.88 7.18 6.30 OLD MUTUAL 7.19 7.06 6.81 5.43 5.07 6.19 PRUDENTIAL 8.89 8.78 7.67 8.18 ROYAL LONDON 9.00 8.67 8.80 7.80 SCOTTISH WIDOWS 6.33 4.80 4.00 5.86 STANDARD LIFE 5.93 6.92 6.73 5.67 5.73 8.14 TRANSACT 8.07 8.13 ZURICH 8.42 8.17 7.70 6.10 7.14 7.36 +2.15 +2.00 +2.25 +1.83 +0.14 +2.63 -1.44 -0.73 -0.71 -1.64 -0.33 -1.56 * * * * * * +1.00 +0.52 +1.44 +0.51 -0.20 +0.77 +0.61 -0.19 +0.26 -0.34 -0.58 -1.05 +1.59 +1.43 +1.57 +1.54 +1.57 +0.83 +1.85 +1.11 +1.35 +1.39 +1.66 +0.97 -1.25 -1.05 -1.20 -0.60 -1.40 -0.85 -0.59 -0.29 -0.06 -2.14 -1.77 +1.19 +0.25 +0.17 +0.13 +0.43 +0.66 +0.75 +1.92 +1.55 +2.20 -0.07 +1.16 +0.59 Prudential and Royal London are ranked in the top three providers across all six measures in consultant support. Octopus Investments perform strongly throughout – though are ranked among the best three providers in terms of technical expertise, problem resolution, business generation ideas and likeability. Reflecting their overall position at the bottom of the pack, Scottish Widows rank among the bottom three providers across the board (with the exception of business generation ideas). Standard Life perform comparatively poorly in terms of availability, L&G in terms of practice development support and LV= in terms of likeability.

Why is proactive support valued? Consultant support: Why is proactive support valued? Q. What is it that you really value about good proactive consultant support? BUILD A RELATIONSHIP DELIVER RELEVANT CONTENT A MORE RECEPTIVE ADVISER Meet advisers face-to-face at least occasionally; Contact through a Relationship Manager; Listen to firms! Be likeable. Through the understanding developed (left) A strong relationship and relevant content – ergo – a more receptive adviser. Good proactive consultant support should not (primarily) be about trying to increase business done by the provider, but, rather, helping the adviser gain a competitive advantage through relevant and timely opportunities. This is best done through the building of a relationship between your people and their people: take time to understand their business, meet in person, have a consistent relationship manager and be likeable! Over time you will be able to contact the adviser with the type of content they want in they way they want to receive it. And, crucially, you will also have a more receptive listener. Quotes: They try hard to do business with us. They are very interested and very proactive and attentive in attempting to get business with us. “ ” “ They take an interest in us as a business. He writes to us casually. We have a nice relationship with him and he will contact us just to see how things are going. ” “ The consultant knows us very well, and with that he can predict what we will want and need. ”

Provider and platform benchmarking Central telephone availability / responsiveness Central email responsiveness Central technical expertise Central problem resolution The following section looks at how advisers rated central support from providers and platforms they have used in the past six months. So that’s… Rated out of 10

Provider ratings: central support mean scores Q. In relation to central support, how would rate the providers you use on the following? (OVERALL CENTRAL SUPPORT MEAN SCORES) PROVIDER AVERAGE (7.27) Of the providers with the highest proportion of advisers using them for support, Royal London (8.57), Prudential (8.46), Octopus (8.31) and Transact (8.27) were the best performers while James Hay (8.01) and Canada Life (7.89) also performed relatively well. Conversely, Scottish Widows (5.45), Novia (6.11) and Aegon (6.38) find themselves at the back of the pack. A number of providers have seen significant improvements over the last wave – most notably L&G (+1.72), Prudential (+1.60) and Royal London (+1.20). Few providers saw a decline in performance over the last wave, with Standard Life seeing the sharpest decline (-0.73). Telephone availability / responsiveness Email responsiveness Technical expertise Problem resolution Advisers were asked to rate the providers / platforms whom they have used for support across the following areas of central support:

Central support: winners and losers STABLE LOSERS Royal London and Prudential have both seen significant improvements to central support over the last quarter to find themselves ranked first and second respectively. Octopus Investments, Transact and James Hay have also seen slight improvements in performance to complete the top five. L&G have jumped from last place in wave 3 to slightly outperforming the industry average. Canada Life have experienced little change to remain well placed above the industry average. LV=, Ascentric and Zurich have all produced a similar performance to the previous wave and remain in and around the industry average. Scottish Widows have seen a slight drop in performance to find themselves at the very bottom of the pack. Novia and Aegon (despite a slight improvement among the latter) make up the bottom three. Standard Life have seen the biggest decline in performance – falling from the industry average to ranking fourth from the bottom.

Telephone Availability / Responsiveness Central support: changes this wave (1) Telephone Availability / Responsiveness Email Responsiveness Technical Expertise Problem Resolution 7.27 7.08 7.47 7.25 Q. In relation to central support, how do the providers you have used rate on a scale of 1-10, where 1 = very poor and 10 = excellent? (MEAN SCORES) N.B: Green and red numbers on the right of each cell indicate change from previous wave. * refers to no change. Provider Telephone Availability / Responsiveness Email Responsiveness Technical Expertise Problem Resolution AEGON 6.64 6.15 6.50 6.23 AJ BELL 6.91 7.09 6.45 ALLIANCE TRUST 7.75 7.50 8.00 ASCENTRIC 7.80 6.60 7.40 6.80 AVIVA 7.59 7.43 7.47 AXA 7.06 6.87 7.00 CANADA LIFE 7.64 8.10 8.50 7.33 COFUNDS 7.67 6.57 6.88 6.63 FIDELITY / FUNDSNETWORK 7.37 6.52 6.97 JAMES HAY 7.88 8.38 +0.83 +0.29 -0.07 +0.73 +0.05 -0.03 -0.05 -0.55 +0.50 +0.75 +0.17 +1.00 -0.20 -0.40 +0.15 -0.87 +0.74 +0.47 +0.20 +0.91 +0.64 +0.80 +0.42 +0.80 -0.57 -0.35 -0.07 -0.22 +1.82 +0.82 +0.71 +0.63 +0.10 -0.48 +0.10 -0.54 +1.05 +1.21 +0.71 +1.05 Despite showing improvements (compared to the previous wave) across three of the four central resource issues, Aegon continue to rank in the bottom three providers in terms of email responsiveness, technical expertise and problem resolution. Despite ranking in the middle of the pack across the board it has been a good wave for Alliance Trust, Aviva, Axa, Cofunds and James Hay who all improve their scores as compared to the previous wave. Despite showing slight declines in performance across all issues Canada Life generally perform quite well and are ranked within the top three in terms of technical expertise. It has been a mixed bag for Fidelity / FundsNetwork, tending to rank in the middle of the pack but finding themselves ranked among the bottom three in terms of problem resolution.

Telephone Availability / Responsiveness Central support: changes this wave (2) Telephone Availability / Responsiveness Email Responsiveness Technical Expertise Problem Resolution 7.27 7.08 7.47 7.25 Q. In relation to central support, how do the providers you have used rate on a scale of 1-10, where 1 = very poor and 10 = excellent? (MEAN SCORES) N.B: Green and red numbers on the right of each cell indicate change from previous wave. * refers to no change. Provider Telephone Availability / Responsiveness Email Responsiveness Technical Expertise Problem Resolution LEGAL AND GENERAL 7.25 6.75 7.88 7.83 LV= 7.20 7.56 7.30 7.50 NOVIA 6.00 5.67 OCTOPUS INVESTMENTS 8.40 8.10 8.50 8.22 OLD MUTUAL 6.69 6.25 7.13 7.00 PRUDENTIAL 8.44 ROYAL LONDON 8.33 8.60 8.67 SCOTTISH WIDOWS 4.33 5.60 6.67 5.20 STANDARD LIFE 6.13 6.17 7.36 6.76 TRANSACT 8.13 ZURICH 7.08 7.27 +1.48 +1.19 +1.94 +2.16 -0.11 +0.21 -0.70 -0.03 * * * * +0.48 +0.48 +0.30 +0.72 -0.19 -0.96 -0.31 +0.39 +1.55 +1.26 +1.15 +2.40 +1.10 +1.56 +1.06 +1.13 -1.45 +0.38 -0.44 -0.55 -1.22 -0.83 -0.64 -0.24 +0.23 +0.29 +0.43 +0.16 +0.55 +0.40 +0.23 * As was the case with consultant support, Prudential and Royal London perform particularly strongly with the former ranking in the top three providers on all factors and Royal London on three (though still performing strongly in terms of telephone availability. Transact also rank highly across the board and find themselves in the top three in three of the four central support areas. Octopus Investments, while scoring highly across all four support areas, also find themselves within the top three in terms of telephone availability and technical expertise. Conversely, Scottish Widows find themselves ranking among the bottom three across the board, while Novia only escape this fate in terms of problem resolution.

What does good look like? Central support: What does good look like? Q. What is it that you really value about good central support? Good central support ultimately boils down to the speedy resolution of problems (40%). For some advisers this is all that matters and they are happy enough for their request to go into a ‘black box’ provided the issue is resolved quickly. For others there is more to it than that and they will also want: With so much emphasis placed on the efficiency of problem resolution, it becomes doubly crucial to ensure clear and up-to-date communication where unavoidable time delays are experienced. Speedy acknowledgement and resolution of support requests (40%) Having a named contact and direct contact details (19%) Knowing the team has the right technical expertise (15%) Reliable and trustworthy – getting it right (16%) Easily accessible / contactable (10%) Access to a direct contact who handles all issues arising – accountability; To know that, whatever happens, the provider ‘has their back’ in terms of always being there and always getting it right; Which links in with reassurance of the technical expertise of the central support team. “ We really value the people who pick up the phones. Whoever picks up, knows what they are talking about and immediately deals with the issues. ”

Provider and platform benchmarking The following section looks at how advisers rated central resource from providers and platforms they have used in the past six months. So that’s… Events CPD support Online content Online tools Support material (adviser & client facing) Rated out of 10

Provider ratings: central resource mean scores Q. In relation to central resource, how would rate the providers you use on the following? (OVERALL CENTRAL RESOURCE MEAN SCORES) PROVIDER AVERAGE (6.54) Events CPD support Online content Online tools Support materials Prudential (8.18) and Royal London (8.08) both saw significant improvements to their ratings to find themselves ranked in the top two spots for central resources. We then see a significant gap to Octopus Investments (7.39) ranked in third place. There is relatively little then splitting Zurich (6.94) ranked in fourth and Old Mutual (6.43) ranked in twelfth. Alliance Trust (-2.57) and Scottish Widows (-1.60) have both seen significant drops in performance to end ranked as the bottom two providers respectively. Ascentric and Aegon, as with the previous wave of the study, have performed comparatively poorly and find themselves in he bottom five providers. Advisers were asked to rate the providers / platforms whom they have used for support across the following areas of central resource:

Central resources: winners and losers STABLE LOSERS Prudential and Royal London have both seen significant improvements to central resource over the last quarter to find themselves ranked first and second respectively. Octopus Investments and Zurich have also seen slight improvements in performance to complete the top four. Axa have jumped from being among the bottom ranked providers to meeting industry averages. Zurich, Aviva and Canada Life have experienced little change since the previous wave and find themselves still performing above the industry average. Cofunds and Old Mutual have also seen little movement and still in and around the industry average. Scottish Widows and Alliance Trust have both seen significant drops in performance over the last wave – with Alliance Trust bottom by a margin, Aegon and Ascentric both saw slight declines in scoring and make up the bottom four.

Central resources: changes this wave (1) Events CPD Support Online Content Online Tools Support Materials 6.10 Central resources: changes this wave (1) 5.98 7.01 6.85 6.77 Q. In relation to central resources, how do the providers you have used rate on a scale of 1-10, where 1 = very poor and 10 = excellent? (MEAN SCORES) N.B: Green and red numbers on the right of each cell indicate change from previous wave. * refers to no change. Provider Events CPD Support Online Content Online Tools Support Materials AEGON 4.64 5.18 6.69 6.62 5.90 AJ BELL 7.86 5.88 6.45 6.09 6.00 ALLIANCE TRUST 3.00 1.50 5.50 5.67 6.75 ASCENTRIC 7.00 5.25 5.00 AVIVA 6.67 6.31 7.41 7.19 7.06 AXA 6.47 6.53 6.76 6.27 CANADA LIFE 6.13 8.00 7.18 7.30 COFUNDS 5.77 5.80 7.11 6.94 FIDELITY / FUNDSNETWORK 6.54 6.04 6.70 6.63 6.41 JAMES HAY 6.40 7.25 6.57 7.14 -1.09 -0.65 +0.55 +0.33 -0.23 +1.86 +0.63 -0.26 -0.08 -0.17 -3.00 -5.50 -1.75 -1.66 -0.92 +2.00 +2.67 -2.00 -1.50 -1.50 +0.73 -0.47 -0.13 -0.46 -0.32 -1.61 +0.13 +0.56 +0.86 +0.16 +0.55 -0.37 +0.54 +1.01 -0.39 +0.52 +0.80 +0.57 -0.06 -0.26 -0.46 -0.96 -0.68 -0.57 -1.02 +0.40 +1.25 -0.32 -0.29 +0.51 Alliance Trust have seen significant falls across the board, placing them within the bottom three providers across all services. Ascentric experienced a mixed bag of results, with improvements in events and CPD, but ranking in the bottom three on all other issues. Aegon also find themselves in the bottom three providers in terms of events and support materials. AJ Bell are another provider with a mixed bag of results, showing improvements in events and CPD (ranking in the top three in terms of the former) but ranking in the bottom three for online tools and support materials. Canada Life find themselves in the middle of the pack across all resources, with the exception of online content where they rank among the market leaders.

Central resources: changes this wave (2) Events CPD Support Online Content Online Tools Support Materials 6.10 Central resources: changes this wave (2) 5.98 7.01 6.85 677 Q. In relation to central resources, how do the providers you have used rate on a scale of 1-10, where 1 = very poor and 10 = excellent? (MEAN SCORES) N.B: Green and red numbers on the right of each cell indicate change from previous wave. * refers to no change. Provider Events CPD Support Online Content Online Tools Support Materials LEGAL AND GENERAL 5.83 4.75 7.13 6.86 7.25 LV= 6.20 5.40 6.78 6.67 NOVIA 5.50 6.00 7.00 6.75 OCTOPUS INVESTMENTS 8.20 7.75 6.70 6.63 7.67 OLD MUTUAL 6.13 5.75 6.82 7.06 6.38 PRUDENTIAL 7.88 8.33 8.70 8.50 7.50 ROYAL LONDON 7.40 8.67 8.83 SCOTTISH WIDOWS 3.75 4.50 7.14 6.14 STANDARD LIFE 5.67 5.36 7.11 6.41 TRANSACT 5.82 7.69 ZURICH 7.38 6.91 6.55 7.09 +0.16 -0.69 +0.67 +0.86 +1.50 -0.80 -1.47 -0.07 -0.69 -0.47 * * * * * +1.58 +1.06 -0.37 -0.46 -0.20 -0.54 +0.01 -0.53 +0.10 +1.04 +0.95 +0.86 +1.25 +1.30 +0.40 -0.07 +0.60 +1.15 +1.05 +1.29 -4.08 -1.93 -0.44 -0.36 -1.19 -1.02 -0.24 -0.39 -0.61 -0.59 +0.45 +0.96 -0.20 +0.94 +0.35 +0.11 +1.56 -0.23 -0.37 -0.53 Continuing a very positive wave, Prudential and Royal London perform strongly throughout. Prudential rank inside the top three on all service issues, while Royal London only miss out on events. Octopus Investments too continue their strong wave performance and rank inside the top three in terms of events, CPD support and support materials. Transact, despite seeing improvements across all but one service issue tend to find themselves in the middle of the pack, though rank among the leaders in terms of online tools. L&G and Novia also find themselves in with the bunch on the majority of service issues, though both fall into the bottom three in one area (CPD and online content respectively).

What does good look like? Central resources: What does good look like? Q. What is it that you really value about good online content / tools / materials? Good is an easily navigable library of content, tools and resources that have a practical application, are easy to use and are of the required depth. It is all about making the life of the adviser easier and cutting down on time and resource wastage. If you can be an innovator and leader in this field then so much the better. RANGE / DEPTH (60%) Range and depth of content. Range of functional & easy to use tools. High quality CPD. Demonstrable understanding of an IFAs requirements. Client facing documents. NAVIGATION (35%) An easy to navigate library of tools, content and resources. Clear links to further support if required. TECHOLOGIAL WIZARDRY (5%) Early-adopters of new / different / innovative tools. Smartphone / tablet compatibility. It is the sheer breadth of information available. They have a lot of good technical information in a well ordered format. “ ” Easy website to use. It's one of those you don't have multiple clicks. It's a one click website. “ ” They provided a more dynamic approach. It's evolving all the time and is always moving forward. “ ”

The impact (1) Big improvements to consultant support Central support also gains traction But gains are driven by half of the market Central resources have taken a hit. The industry has responded and made investments where it matters: Though it is only half the market that is getting better, indicating a growing gulf in quality… good news for the ‘improvers’. Central support is the area advisers say is the most important for providers to get right and at least half the market is making progress in this area, particularly in problem resolution (+0.44pts). But the biggest improvements have been in the area of consultant support – key in that the impact of getting consultant support right is even bigger than advisers claim. However, these investments appear to be at the expense of central resources which have taken a huge backward step, particularly in events and CPD support.

The impact (2) Central support Consultant support Central resource 8.5 Importance: Importance: Importance: 8.5 7.13 6.86 Most valued by advisers Least valued by advisers Industry Performance: Industry Performance: Industry Performance: Improved 1.23 pts Improved 1.88 pts Declined 2.31 pts Telephone Availability +0.32 Email Responsiveness +0.29 Technical Expertise +0.18 Problem Resolution +0.44 Availability / responsiveness +0.35 Technical Expertise +0.22 Problem Resolution +0.31 Business Generation Ideas -0.06 Practice Development +0.61 Likeability +0.33 Events -0.80 CPD Support -0.81 Online Content -0.22 Online Tools -0.44 Support Materials -0.04 Improvements have been made across the industry having experienced a fall of 0.71 pts in the previous wave. Again it is just over half (57%) of providers who are driving improvements After negligible improvement previous wave (0.17pts gain) there has been a tangible improvement across the industry. Exactly 50% firms improved while 50% fell back. The 2.35 pts gained the previous wave have been all but lost by a 2.31 pts regression this wave. Again 50% of firms are improving / 50% getting worse.

This section explores: How to interpret the combined qualitative and quantitative aspects of our findings Assessing industry performance in each support area against stated importance Opportunities for valued differentiation The effect of (all types of) support on the propensity of advisers to do business Provider performance and individual impact on propensity to do business

Section 4: Building Better Business - Headlines While delivery has improved, the bar has risen And so importance vs delivery gaps remain Despite incremental improvements in some key areas (notably consultant support) advisers are recognising the growing importance of support, meaning that many of the importance / performance gaps remain largely unchanged. These gaps are highest in relation to technical expertise and problem resolution – both with central support and F2F consultants, representing significant opportunities for highly valued differentiation. There are significant differences in what advisers say is important and what truly drives propensity to do business with providers and platforms. While central support functions represent 4/5 of the top five supports as advisers claim – our correlation analysis highlights that F2F consultant support (when delivered well) that has a more signigficant baring on propensity to do business. Problem resolution and technical expertise are key Consultant support is the biggest true influence

So what? Piecing the findings together The following section brings together the various facets of support (both directly prompted and spontaneously captured) and: Shows what the most significant drivers are. Points to what will have the biggest positive difference for platforms / providers in this space. Stated importance Desired improvements / innovations Brand equity Provider scores What drives good Spontaneous association Propensity to do business with

Industry level importance vs. performance (1) Q. Average support ratings by average claimed importance rating The chart opposite illustrates the extent to which industry support ratings compare against claimed importance (by advisers). The trend line (blue) illustrates how, at an overall level, performance rises slightly as importance increases – meaning that, to some extent at least, providers are ensuring better performance in the most important areas of support. However, as we can see by comparing the trend line with the efficiency frontier (yellow), performance is still some way off from matching importance, despite improvements in central and consultant support. Across the board, at a broad level, consultant support (7.13 importance vs. 6.79 performance), central support ( 8.50 importance vs. 7.27 performance) and central resource (6.86 importance vs. 6.54 performance) are under-delivering vs. claimed importance – however, with performance highest in those areas of greater importance providers are at least on the right track. The only support components where performance exceeded importance are those ranking among the least important – business generation ideas, practice development support, events and likeability. There remains a significant gap between the claimed importance of support and average industry performance in many areas. 11 4 6 5 12 16 9 8 10 7 18 17 1 14 13 2 3 15 INDUSTRY MEAN PERFORMANCE RATING Consultant Support (overall) Business Generation Ideas Practice Development Support Likeability Availability / Responsiveness Technical Expertise Problem Resolution 8. Central Support (overall) Telephone Availability / Response Email Responsiveness Central Resource (overall) Events CPD Support Online Content Online Tools Support Materials Key MEAN IMPORTANCE SCORE Trend Line Efficiency Frontier

Industry level importance vs. performance (2) It is important that we don’t just accept what advisers say is important at face value. There are elements of support that influence decisions far more than advisers are aware (or at least are willing to admit) Sometimes what people say can be misleading. Just because advisers generally say that proactive support (e.g. business generation ideas) is less vital doesn’t mean it isn’t influential. It is. The lack of high quality support of this type available these days, driving low expectations (and lower still dependency) makes the gap between stated importance and providers’ delivery artificially small. This makes it seem as though industry performance matches importance when all other evidence suggests otherwise.

Industry level importance vs. performance (3) Wave on wave, the industry as a whole has upped it’s game in terms of consultant and central support, though with expectations around technical expertise being so much higher this time around, the gap between importance and performance has increased (in 8/15 areas) Problem resolution (both centrally and through consultant support) continues to show the biggest under-delivery (also being the most important areas) despite industry improvement. Providers and platforms need to keep up to pace with changes to the value advisers place on various facets of support.

Industry level importance vs. performance (4) Industry av. performance Despite improved industry performance, gaps remain as the bar is raised… Industry av. performance Performance / importance gap   WAVE 3 WAVE 4 DIFF CONSULTANT SUPPORT Availability / responsiveness 6.87 7.22 +0.35 Technical expertise 7.20 7.42 +0.22 Problem resolution 6.88 7.19 +0.31 Business generation ideas 5.82 5.76 -0.06 Practice development support 5.46 5.89 +0.43 Likeability 6.91 7.24 +0.33 CENTRAL SUPPORT Telephone availability / responsiveness 6.95 7.27 +0.32 Email responsiveness 6.79 7.08 +0.29 7.29 7.47 +0.18 6.81 7.25 +0.44 CENTRAL RESOURCES Events 6.33 6.10 -0.23 CPD support 6.11 5.98 -0.13 Online content 7.07 7.01 Online tools 6.85 - Support materials 6.77 -0.24 WAVE 3 WAVE 4 0.72 0.65 0.49 0.91 1.56 1.39 -0.87 -0.31 -0.10 -0.26 -0.38 -0.34 1.22 1.21 1.26 0.93 1.07 1.99 1.37 -0.66 -0.28 -0.16 0.28 -0.02 0.45 0.29 0.68 0.06 0.44 Across consultant support all service issues increased in importance, while all but one factor improved in performance. Technical expertise increased in importance more than performance, meaning the under-delivery gap has increased. The opposite is true in terms of practice development support where performance improved more than importance increased, meaning over-delivery has increased. In terms of central support, email responsiveness and technical expertise both increased in importance more than performance – meaning that the gap in terms of under-delivery increased. Problem resolution (both centrally and through consultant support) continue to show the biggest under-delivery (also being the most important areas) despite industry improvement. The under-delivery gap in terms of online content, tools and support materials has also increased in wave 4. N W N N W N N W W N N W W W W w Gap is wider N Gap is narrower Performance / importance gap numbers: an explanation of what to look for… The higher the number; the higher the gap – which represents under-delivery. High negative numbers, on the other hand, represent over-delivery – which is inefficient. The closer to zero the better.

Opportunities for valued differentiation Q. Based on analysis of average support ratings by average claimed importance rating: The opportunities for differentiation we have seen since the inception of PTP remain the same to this day. The importance of problem resolution – either solved through consultant support or central support is massive and yet, is an area where performance does not match claimed importance. This need is clearly linked to the stated requirement for greater responsiveness (though this need not necessarily be f2f) and should be underpinned with better technical expertise. Highly valued differentiation Consultant problem resolution Central problem resolution Consultant technical expertise Central support email responsiveness Central telephone availability / responsiveness Central technical expertise Highly important but under-served Online tools Online content Support materials Again, we also see the same gap between the perceived importance of online tools, online content and support materials and the quality of what is made available to advisers. Fairly important but under-served Fairly valued differentiation

Desire to continue doing business with Q. Thinking specifically about the providers / platforms you have used over the last quarter, to what extent would you say you are keen to continue working with them in the future? (scale of 1-10 where 1 = not at all keen and 10 = very keen) PROVIDER AVERAGE (7.26) Strong correlation between scores and propensity to do business All advisers were asked the extent to which they are keen to continue doing business with the providers / platforms they had used over the previous six months. Advisers remain most keen to work with those providers scoring highly in terms of consultant and central support – this particularly the case for Royal London, Transact, Octopus Investments and Prudential. Aviva, Canada Life and Zurich all tended to rank above average, but behind the leading pack, in terms of their support ratings and this is reflected in their ranking in terms of advisers being keen to continue working with them. LV=, Standard Life, Old Mutual, Fidelity/FundsNetwork and Scottish Widows all saw significant drops, with advisers seemingly less keen to continue working with them.

Actual performance / propensity to do business The matrix below is designed to illustrate where each provider / platform falls in terms of advisers preference to continue working with against current support ratings. There is a strong relationship between levels of support and preference to continue working with a provider. In short, a significant number of providers / platforms with high performance (Prudential, Royal London, Octopus Investments, Transact and Aviva) are the businesses advisers wished to do business with going forwards. Those receiving lower support ratings (Ascentric, Cofunds and Widows) were, typically, those advisers were less keen to continue working with. However, there were a few outliers in this regard, most notably with regards to Aegon, Alliance Trust and Standard Life who scored comparatively in terms of support, but remain providers that firms are still quite keen on working with The diagram (left) clearly demonstrates a positive relationship between perceived quality of support and a desire to continue working with a provider. Delivering support that shows you understand advisers and the issues they face will make demonstrable impact on how favourably they view you. That said, there are a few outliers – proving that support is not always the be all and end all. Canada Life James Hay Aviva Octopus Investments Prudential Royal London Transact Fidelity/FundsNetwork Old Mutual AJ Bell Axa Legal & General LV= Novia Zurich Ascentric Cofunds Scottish Widows Aegon Alliance Trust Standard Life

Correlation analysis - explained What is said What is thought What is done Correlation analysis helps us match what advisers ‘say’ is important (and influences their decisions) and what ‘actually’ seems to drive decisions. In the gap between what advisers say and what advisers do lies the biggest opportunity to develop and deliver support that truly makes a difference and differentiates providers and platforms from the rest of the market. Claimed importance = the importance rating advisers gave each area of support when asked Derived importance = how far each support area affects advisers’ propensity to do business with providers (based on our correlation analysis)

Correlation analysis - explained Correlation is a term that refers to the strength of a relationship between two variables. A strong, or high, correlation means that two or more variables have a strong relationship with each other while a weak, or low, correlation means that the variables are hardly related. Correlation coefficients can range from -1.00 to +1.00. The value of -1.00 represents a perfect negative correlation while a value of +1.00 represents a perfect positive correlation. A value of 0.00 means that there is no relationship between the variables being tested. To provide a visual illustration, the diagram opposite shows two potential outcomes of correlation analysis. Example one is more highly correlated as there is less deviation from the line of direct relationship. It is important to note that in correlation analysis the results highlight a relationship between two factors. However, this does not necessarily entail that one of these factors directly influences the other. For example, sales of personal computers and athletic shoes have both risen strongly in the last several years and there is a high correlation between them, but you cannot assume that buying computers causes people to buy athletic shoes (or vice versa). The following slides look at the correlation between the various aspects of support explored in this study against the extent to which advisers wish to continue doing business with providers / platforms. Due to the ‘real world’ nature of the subject being explored (we are not comparing two completely unrelated factors here), we can confidently be sure that issues showing a high correlation directly impact willingness to continue doing business with. It almost goes without saying that, in these times, providers cannot commit resources to do everything. This analysis helps to identify which areas of support it would be most beneficial for providers to focus their efforts.

Claimed importance vs. derived importance (1) The most significant finding from our correlation analysis is that the influence of f2f consultants is far greater than advisers realise or claim. Four of the top ten real influences are consultant supports Consultant problem resolution capability is the most powerful driver. Consultant technical expertise is the 2nd most influential support, though advisers only rated it as 6th. Consultant availability / responsiveness is 4th (where advisers ranked it 7th) Consultant likability is far more of a deal (ranking 5th) than advisers claim (advisers rated it only 11th)

Claimed importance vs. derived importance (1) Q. The following highlights the areas of support that our correlation analysis shows are more influential on advisers’ decisions than they claim: More important Consultant problem resolution Consultant technical expertise Consultant availability / responsiveness Consultant likability Practice development support Business generation ideas Just as important Central team problem resolution Support materials Less important Central technical expertise Central telephone availability / responsiveness Central email responsiveness Online tools Online content CPD support Events Claimed importance = the importance rating advisers gave each area of support when asked Derived importance = how far each support area affects advisers’ propensity to do business with providers (based on our correlation analysis)

Claimed importance vs. derived importance (2) Q. Ranked claimed importance vs. derived importance The table on the left is more than just a set of rankings. It tells a clear story about what advisers say they want and expect as a minimum from the providers they do business with. It contrasts this with the support elements that our correlation analysis shows has the greatest impact on propensity to do business. There is often a significant difference. RANKING CLAIMED IMPORTANCE DERIVED IMPORTANCE #1 Problem resolution #2 Technical expertise #3 #4 Telephone availability / responsiveness Availability / responsiveness #5 Email responsiveness Likeability #6 #7 Support materials #8 Online tools #9 Online content Practice development support #10 #11 Business generation ideas #12 CPD support Events #13 #14 #15 There are a number of factors advisers recognise as key in terms of support, which the correlation analysis also show drives propensity to continue using a provider – namely problem resolution and availability / responsiveness. There are also factors advisers claim are important that have less influence on the decisions that they make – namely central support technical expertise and online tools and online content. Conversely, likeability and support materials both to have a greater impact on desire to continue doing business with than advisers perhaps realise. Business generation ideas and practice development support, too, seem to be more influential than advisers claim on a conscious level. What the table on the left really shows us, then, is that as advisers readjust to the industry withdrawal of 1-2-1 dedicated consultant support what matters to them (on a conscious level) is how effective the central support taking over is. However, when it comes down to what really drives an adviser to want to work with a provider, good and robust reactive consultant support still seems to trump. KEY Consultant support Central support Central resources

Sub-conscious Conscious Central / consultant problem resolution Consultant availability / responsiveness Consultant technical expertise Central / consultant problem resolution Telephone / email responsiveness Central / consultant technical expertise Consultant likeability Central email responsiveness Satisfying the unconscious mind helps you to win Satisfying the conscious mind allows you to compete While there are certain elements that are both stated and unstated (but important) needs – things like the responsiveness of the central support team to email requests, providing timely telephone support centrally and their ability to resolve problems… there are certain unstated needs that we know have a far bigger impact on advisers at the point of decision. These factors (consultant availability / expertise and likability) are what will truly differentiate. These are the things that advisers say it is important providers and platforms get right. As such, it makes sense to reflect these stated needs in your proposition to demonstrate that you are listening and prepared (and able) to act. These factors, though, may play more of an important role in post-decision rationalisation (and satisfying the compliance trail) than at the point of selection, where less rational factors hold sway. SUMMARY: Get the central support right to satisfy the conscious mind of the adviser but deliver killer reactive consultant support to win them over.

Next steps… As a subscriber to Profit Through Partnership we look forward to taking these findings further with you and in particular: Providing a top-line technical support spend and resource allocation benchmark against all participating providers and platforms Going into more detail on your performance specifically during our debrief with you Overlaying this with your business priorities Providing a dashboard performance summary Supporting you with messaging (both internal and external). Developing a plan to help you have a bigger impact in your chosen markets and with your target adviser audience.

Thank you We look forward to exploring the opportunities with you. Tony Wickenden, Joint MD, Technical Connection e:tkw@tecconn.demon.co.uk m: 07802584743 Phil Wickenden, MD, So Here’s The Plan e:phil@soherestheplan.com m: 07966092075 74