The commercial consequences of this are more significant than most boards appreciate. A wealth management firm that cannot identify which client segments are most profitable, which advisers have the highest retention rates or which clients are approaching life events that are likely to trigger additional advice needs is making strategic and operational decisions with less information than it could have. An asset manager that cannot identify which intermediary relationships are generating the most productive new business, or which fund strategies are attracting interest from allocators it has not yet engaged, is leaving commercial intelligence untouched. A hedge fund that does not systematically analyse the composition and behaviour of its LP base is managing an important business relationship without the tools to do so well.

There is also a people dimension to this problem that is worth naming directly. Being an outstanding practitioner does not make someone an effective manager of data or of the systems that capture it. The investment manager who generates strong returns, the adviser who builds deep client relationships, and the analyst who produces excellent research are all performing at a high level within their own domain. They are not, as a result, naturally inclined to maintain rigorous data hygiene, update CRM records consistently or think structurally about the information assets they are creating through their work. Firms that have not created clear governance around data entry, ownership and quality tend to find that the gap between the data they nominally hold and the data they can actually use widens with every passing year.

Consumer Duty has changed the regulatory dimension of this question for wealth managers. The FCA's expectation that firms can demonstrate good client outcomes at a portfolio level, not just at the level of individual advice files, requires the kind of systematic analysis that is only possible if client data is accurate, accessible and well-structured. Firms that cannot answer basic questions about outcomes across their client base with confidence are not only missing a commercial opportunity. They are accumulating regulatory exposure.

The investment required to address this is not trivial but it is also not as large as many firms assume. The starting point is not a technology procurement exercise. It is a clear-eyed assessment of what data the firm currently holds, where the quality problems are, who is responsible for maintaining it, and what questions the firm would most benefit from being able to answer. Many firms that have undertaken this exercise find that the primary obstacles are governance and habit rather than system capability. The data needed to generate genuine insight is already there. It is simply not being looked after well enough to be useful.

For boards the relevant question is whether client and counterparty data appears on the strategic agenda as an asset with governance requirements and commercial potential, or whether it sits entirely within operational and compliance conversations as a record-keeping obligation. The answer to that question increasingly correlates with competitive positioning across wealth management, asset management and alternative investment firms, and it is likely to correlate more strongly still as the market continues to evolve.

Fram Search works with firms across wealth management, asset management and alternative investments on appointments spanning investment, operations, technology and senior leadership. If you would like to discuss a specific hire or share a perspective on the market, we would be glad to hear from you.