Under New Ownership: Auditing Your Investment Platform After a Takeover

Few events in a long-term investment life feel less consequential than a letter announcing that your platform has been acquired. The account number is unchanged, the login still works, and the holdings sit undisturbed. Yet a change of ownership is precisely the moment at which terms tend to be reset: charges repriced, interest on cash recalculated, fund ranges rationalised and service levels re-based. For a UK investor who intends to hold an ISA or a SIPP for twenty years or more, the sensible response is neither alarm nor indifference, but a single structured review, documented and then set aside.

What a change of ownership actually touches

The regulatory wrapper does not move. Your ISA remains an ISA, your SIPP remains a SIPP, and the protections that attach to them — including Financial Services Compensation Scheme limits and the rules on client money — follow the authorised firm rather than the brand above the door. What does move is the machinery underneath: the charging schedule, the rate paid on uninvested cash, the list of funds and share classes on offer, the dealing terms, the treatment of regular contributions, and the quality of contract notes and tax reporting.

Consolidation has been a persistent feature of the UK platform market, driven by the cost of technology, the burden of regulatory reporting and the economics of scale. The FCA's Consumer Duty has sharpened expectations around how firms communicate changes and how clearly they demonstrate value, but it does not prevent terms from changing. It simply means the changes should be explained. Reading that explanation properly is your responsibility, not theirs.

Read the new terms, not the welcome letter

Welcome letters are written to reassure, and they tend to emphasise continuity. The detail worth your attention sits in the terms of business and the schedule of charges. Request the full tariff in writing and compare it line by line with the version you last agreed.

Pay particular attention to the annual platform fee and its tiers and any cap; the treatment of fund-level charges; dealing commission and how many free trades, if any, are included; the cost of regular monthly investment; SIPP administration and drawdown fees; the transfer-out charge; and, often overlooked, the interest paid on cash balances and the thresholds at which the rate changes. Note also whether the new owner now charges for services the previous one provided without charge — dividend reinvestment, partial withdrawals, printed statements, or the processing of a pension commencement lump sum.

Four tests to run against your own holdings

A tariff is an abstraction until it is applied to your own portfolio. Four checks will usually settle the matter.

Cost, in pounds. Recalculate your actual annual charge using your current balances rather than comparing percentages in the abstract. A rise of five basis points on a £150,000 ISA is £75 a year; across a SIPP and an ISA it may be materially more. Tiered structures mean the headline rate rarely describes what you pay.

Access. Confirm that every holding remains available, and on the same share class. New owners frequently consolidate legacy classes into a single equivalent, which is usually harmless inside a tax wrapper but worth verifying. Investment trusts and exchange-traded funds are the holdings most often affected by a rationalised fund list.

Cash. Interest on uninvested cash is where platforms compete most quietly. Check the rate, the tier thresholds, whether it is paid monthly, and how it compares with the prevailing Bank Rate. Over a full year, a difference here can outweigh the movement in the headline fee.

Service. Telephone hours, secure messaging, response times, the closure of a regional office and the quality of reporting all matter, but they should be weighted soberly. A relocated call centre is an irritation, not grounds for moving a six-figure portfolio.

Distinguishing a reason from restlessness

Genuine triggers for a transfer are few and identifiable: a fee increase that compounds meaningfully over time; the loss of a fund or structure central to your strategy and unavailable elsewhere at a sensible cost; the withdrawal of a service you depend upon, such as flexible drawdown or in-specie regular investing; or persistent administrative error that has cost you money or confidence.

Cosmetic triggers are more numerous: new branding, a redesigned app, a different telephone number, a change of name on the contract note. These are the ordinary texture of corporate life and should not, on their own, prompt action. Between doing nothing and transferring everything there is also a middle path — retaining the account while adjusting the portfolio within it, or transferring only part of the holding.

The arithmetic of leaving

If a transfer is warranted, cost it properly. Establish the exit fee, which is sometimes charged per holding rather than per account, and check whether the firm has waived it for a defined window following the merger. Confirm whether an in-specie transfer is available on both sides, since a cash transfer exposes you to time out of the market and, outside a wrapper, to a realised gain. Allow a realistic timetable of several weeks rather than days. And weigh the value of your own time and attention, which is a real cost even when it does not appear on a statement.

One further consideration deserves a mention: the platform you transfer to may itself be acquired. Continuity of ownership is not among the guarantees any provider can offer.

A short, dated note

Write a one-page memorandum recording what changed, what it costs you each year in pounds, what you decided and why, and the date on which you will revisit the question. Keep it with your written investment policy. This is not bureaucracy for its own sake. It prevents the same review being repeated every few weeks, and it provides a clear record should a complaint later become necessary.

The conclusion

Loyalty to a platform is not an investment strategy, and neither is restlessness. The measured response to a change of custodian is a single, thorough review — cost, access, cash and service — followed by a decision expressed in pounds rather than impressions, and written down before anything is moved.