Blog

Performance will always be a key factor in assessing a DFM, but we hear from the planners we work with that service visibility, accessibility and the day-to-day interaction count for almost as much. In the third wave of our research with the lang cat, CIPs in 2026: Tuning the Engine for Growth, we asked firms what would make them review or switch provider. Persistent underperformance came first (85%), with poor service or reporting a close second (71%). With almost two-thirds (63%) of firms now mostly outsourcing to MPS, the quality of the relationship has a direct bearing on the service they can give their own clients.

Consumer Duty has played a part in the move to outsourcing. In February 2025, the FCA said it would examine how MPS providers are applying the Duty. The spotlight is on providers for now, but we believe this is a good opportunity for planners to review their approach and the providers they partner with.

We look in more detail at the formal governance side of outsourcing in our recent blog. Choosing the right provider is equally important, as a quality DFM will play a major role in how well a firm can fulfil its obligations under the Duty.

Transparency and accessibility

Our latest report also shows that fewer than half (48%) of advisers identified risk drift or volatility mismatch as a trigger for review and only 27% cited excessive model turnover or trading. Both are much easier for planners to spot when their DFM is open with the data. Our blog on holding providers to account goes into these factors in more detail.

As firms become more demanding of their MPS providers, there are certain qualities planners should be looking for that mark out partners worth staying with. We believe firms should be able to set the terms of the partnership. This involves providers being transparent in how they work and making data and information readily accessible to planners.

Whatever the mandate, planners should be able to get hold of the people making the investment decisions and ask whether those decisions are appropriate. A good DFM will explain its reasoning, be open to challenge and work with the planner on which solutions best suit their clients.

Having a seat at the table

Copia Custom MPS is an opportunity for the planner to collaborate more directly in the investment process. The firm sees the ideas we are suggesting and has a say in whether they go ahead. It works the other way too; we’re open to the firm bringing its own ideas to the table for discussion. We also take as much of the reporting burden off the firm’s shoulders as we can. See our website for more information on our Custom MPS.

We expect demand for custom mandates to grow under Consumer Duty, and they are an option firms should be considering. However, in any outsourcing arrangement firms should expect their DFM to be open to interaction and treat the arrangement as a partnership they have a voice in.

Service visibility makes quality partnerships

The outsourcing relationships we see working best are those where the DFM and the firm treat investment management as a collaboration. Prompt replies to emails and the ability to pick up the phone to a knowledgeable person who is familiar with the firm’s proposition are features of the relationship planners should be able to expect. As Paul Scott at Strategic Financial Solutions, which uses Copia Custom MPS, told us in our research, “It is vital that you feel listened to [by the Investment Manager]. This not only is important within the quarterly meetings, but day to day as and when client queries come in.” At Copia, we’re always a phone call or email away for the firms we work with.

There should be signs, like access to decision makers, service visibility and transparency, that show the DFM has built its business around the firm’s needs and will take it seriously as a partner, rather than just a customer for a product.

Next time you review your DFM, whether that’s us or someone else, check it against those signs. Think about who you’d speak to with a question on the models, how quickly you’d hear back and whether you understand why a change was made.