This is the last blog in my tips series on outsourcing, based on our latest research with the lang cat, CIPs in 2026: Tuning the Engine for Growth.

The first two blogs covered formal governance and holding providers to account to get the best out of an outsourced CIP. This final article looks at why firms should consider the future direction of their CIP, and how their operations may need to adapt as their business, and the market around it, changes.  

Anticipation is key

Across our three studies into how advisers construct their CIP, we’ve found that change is rarely brought about by sudden events. An Overheating CIP: 2024 – Ways to cool the engine, showed how firms running their own model portfolios often became a victim of their own success, as growing client numbers made the operational burden increasingly onerous. Rising requirements under MiFID II and Consumer Duty added further pressure, driving many firms towards outsourcing through MPS, as we discussed in our first blog.

Outsourcing has changed what a CIP looks like compared with five years ago, and Consumer Duty has also matured. The FCA’s current review of MPS focuses on providers, rather than advice firms directly, but that might not stay the case. Firms should think about whether their current CIP arrangement will still fit their own needs, and the regulator’s expectations, in five or ten years’ time.  

Investment partners

One of the areas worth looking at closely is whether your firm’s current investment partner will meet your clients’ needs tomorrow as well as today. Our research highlighted growing interest in custom MPS. We asked firms to imagine what their CIP usage will be in ten years and found 42% of firms saw tailored models playing a role in their clients’ investments. Currently, 8% of firms use a custom model service, rising to almost a quarter (23%) among firms with £500m to £999m in assets. The research points to where things are heading, particularly for firms that are large enough to want portfolios that reflect their own investment thinking but don’t have the specialist resources to manage investments entirely in-house.

Strategic Financial Solutions, an advice firm working with Copia on a custom model, is an example of what this looks like in practice. Director Paul Scott believes the model is more about collaboration than a typical provider relationship. He says, “I originally thought Copia would be order takers, but it is a partnership,” adding, “This model comes down to teamwork.”

As we have identified over the past two blogs, the ongoing demands of compliance, suitability and due diligence are creating new challenges for firms. Because DFMs share more of the governance workload with a tailored model than an off-the-shelf MPS service, they are well placed to help growing firms manage those demands.

Looking ahead

Our research shows the trend to outsource looks set to continue, but it is evolving, with firms increasingly considering custom solutions built around their own clients. As firms grow and the market matures, CIPs need to keep pace, which means tightening governance, holding providers to closer account, or moving towards a more tailored arrangement. A CIP sits at the centre of how clients’ investments are managed, so it’s worth getting the right structures in place now, rather than waiting until the arrangement starts to strain.

You can read more about our research with the lang cat in CIPs in 2026: Tuning the Engine for Growth >

In our first blog on CIPs in 2026: Tuning the Engine for Growth, our latest research with the lang cat, we looked at the case for formal governance when outsourcing a CIP, including robust documentation and monitoring processes. Now we’re turning our attention to how firms interact with their providers to make sure they are getting the best value from outsourcing.

When selecting any provider, whether platform or investment manager, advisers will be conducting research and due diligence. The most important factor here is ensuring individual client suitability, but good research and due diligence will go beyond that.

We believe advice firms should be more demanding of the providers they entrust with client wealth. This should include being clear about where responsibilities lie, how advisers want to be supported, and the service standards expected. They should also have a process in place for switching if a provider fails to live up to that standard. At Copia we welcome having these conversations with the advice firms we support. We would encourage other firms to be mindful over how their providers approach the issue. 

Selection process

Data from the lang cat’s Analyser due diligence tool finds that advisers, rightly, look at service, reputation, financial strength and technology alongside price when assessing investment platforms. However, the Analyser data shows when it comes to MPS provider selection, the emphasis is mainly on price and past performance. These are important metrics, but they are relied upon disproportionately compared with other factors.

This lack of granularity continues once an MPS provider is in place. Our 2026 CIP research found that over 80% of advisers said persistent underperformance against the benchmark or peer group would trigger a deeper review or a change of provider. Poor service or reporting was the next most cited trigger, at 71% and an increase in charges or concerns about cost and value came third at 63%. By contrast fewer than half (48%) of advisers identified risk drift or volatility mismatch as a trigger and just 27% cited too high model turnover or excessive trading.

It is up to advice firms to decide what is important to them, and we encourage firms to share this with providers so all parties are clear on the outcomes that are expected. Provider due diligence is part of the CIP documentation the FCA already expects firms to keep, and criteria for ongoing monitoring is a vital part of this documentation so it’s worth reviewing if you’re updating your CIP paperwork.

Switching triggers

As firms get more rigorous in assessing MPS providers, it’s worth setting a formal procedure for what would trigger a switch and how it would be handled. There are a few questions worth considering.

• What would trigger the switch? Have clear thresholds and red lines for switching, beyond just price and performance.
• What would happen next? Think about the practicalities of switching and whether a substitute provider has already been identified.
• What would you need to tell clients? Put procedures in place around what would be communicated to clients, when and how, including assessing the level of detail and tone required for different clients, taking any vulnerability factors into account.
• What would you need from the provider? Consider ahead of time what you’d need from a provider if a switch became necessary, both for your own governance processes and for client communication.

Looking ahead

Across our three CIP studies, we’ve found that a key driver behind the move to outsourcing has been CIPs becoming a victim of their own success. Growth in client banks and assets can reach a tipping point where running investments in-house creates an unmanageable operational burden. As well as having strong governance in place, firms also need to stay adaptable.

Establishing formal governance processes and holding providers to account will cover most of what’s needed to run a CIP well when outsourcing investment for the majority of their clients’ assets. But it’s worth anticipating what may need to change as the firm changes. In our final blog of the series, we look at what advisers should keep in mind about the direction their CIP needs to take as their business grows and the market and regulations change.