What our conversations at Future Proof revealed about service, scale and what wealth firms should expect from their providers
The biggest names in wealth technology were hard to miss in Huntington Beach. Big footprints, big events, big investments in being seen. Understandably so.
What stayed with us was what we heard away from the booths.
Our team spent several days meeting with clients, prospects, partners and other service providers. We all came from different backgrounds, so when we debriefed afterward, we wanted to know which themes actually overlapped.
One did, repeatedly.
Firms that liked their technology, and in many cases had chosen well, described feeling increasingly distant from the people behind it. Relationship teams turning over. New points of contact. Requests taking longer than they should. And, more than once, a sense that they were no longer large enough to command the attention they once received.
In most cases, the software itself was not the complaint.
They were describing a relationship.
A QUESTION WORTH SITTING WITH
If you run a $200 million RIA, when was the last time one of your most important providers sat down with you, really listened to what you needed and left you feeling energized about where the relationship was going?
If the answer comes quickly, good. If it does not, that is worth noticing.
Future Proof’s organizers named the human advisor’s edge as one of the themes defining this year: as tools become more similar, the differentiator becomes how the advisor shows up in the moments that matter.
The industry has accepted that logic for advisors. We think it should apply to providers too.
Platforms are converging. Feature lists look more alike every year. What increasingly separates one provider from another is how they show up when something in your business changes.
And that is exactly where many of the firms we met felt let down.
WHAT FIRMS WERE ACTUALLY ASKING FOR
The requests we heard were not exotic.
Cleaner data from a second or third custodian. Alternatives that do not fit neatly into a feed. Reporting in another currency. A security master that everyone in the firm trusts. A workflow changed because the firm’s process differs from the provider’s default. Compliance support from someone who already understands how the business operates.
Every one of those is a reasonable ask of a strategic provider.
The frustration was rarely that the technology could not do it. It was that getting there required a ticket, a queue, a new contact and another conversation about what the platform was designed to do.
The firm was expected to adapt to the provider, while getting the provider to adapt to the firm proved much harder.
Compliance was probably the sharpest version of this. The technology in that space has improved enormously, and that is a good thing. There are excellent technology providers solving very real problems through automation, workflow and better oversight.
But technology and service are different things, and firms should be clear about which one they are buying.
If you are buying software, the software should be excellent. If you are buying a strategic service relationship around it, the standard should be higher.
A CCO still needs experienced people to call when judgment is required. A COO needs a partner who can adapt as processes and the business change. A CIO needs confidence that the data and operating infrastructure underneath the technology can be trusted.
The issue is not that every technology provider needs to become a consulting firm. It is that firms paying for both technology and partnership should actually receive both.
FIVE QUESTIONS FOR ANY STRATEGIC PROVIDER
If the answers are consistently no, the logo on the platform should not end the conversation.
This is not an argument for ripping out technology every time something frustrates you. Changing systems is expensive and disruptive, and many of the firms we met are on platforms that work.
The goal is to have technology, data, people and operating support working together well enough that a firm can evolve without constantly rebuilding around its providers.
WHERE WE SIT
These conversations resonated with us at STP because they are closely tied to how we have built the business. We are fanatical about data and data hygiene, we have invested heavily in managed services, and we believe the relationship around the technology matters just as much as the technology itself.
We are not trying to be the biggest. We are trying to be the best partner to the firms we serve.
But the takeaway from Future Proof was not that everyone needs STP.
It was that everyone should expect more.
Technology should work. Data should be trusted. Solutions should have room to adapt. And when something matters to your business, there should be someone on the other end who knows who you are and gives a damn about getting it right.
That should not be premium service.
It should be the standard.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
This was written by three guys at STP who, between them, have spent decades inside investment operations, fund administration, compliance and client service, and who have sat on enough sides of these conversations to have earned an opinion. We are not going to tell you which one of us typed it. It does not matter. What matters is that all three of us went to Huntington Beach, talked to different people, and came back having heard the same thing. If you want to debate with us about any of it, we would enjoy that. Find us at stpis.com.