In a market increasingly dominated by private equity-backed and institutionally funded rivals, P1 Platform has taken a different path. Founder and CEO James Priday built the business organically, driven by a belief in independence, long-term thinking and simplicity.
He talks about growing without external capital, avoiding adviser fee deals, and what independence really means for advisers and clients.
Tom Browne:
You built P1 Platform organically in a sector where most rivals are fuelled by private equity [PE] or institutional cash. What has that been like in practice?
James Priday:
It was always important for me not to have a third party with too much influence over the direction of the business. The challenge, of course, is being more resource constrained than others, particularly in financial terms. But that brings benefits too, because it forces you to think smarter about how you use what you’ve got.
When you’re investing heavily in technology, operations and people, you’ve still got to make sure you’re meeting your capital adequacy requirements. You need to be profitable and generating positive cashflow, so that your liquid balance sheet is growing. That’s the part that really matters.
If we’re doing the right things, we should be the silent partner for advice firms and the silent tool for clients
The real benefit is that we can be much more long term in our outlook. We don’t have those three-to-five-year horizons that most PE houses or large institutions tend to have. Even if they have long-term goals, they face short-term commercial pressures. We, of course, have short-term pressures too, but we’re looking 10, 15 or even 20 years ahead.
It also means that, although we’re smaller, not having an external owner lets us move more quickly and be more agile. We can make decisions fast but without pressure. We can take the time to make the right choices for the long term.
Browne:
You’ve spoken about the value of independence in the adviser platform world. What does that look like from your perspective?
Priday:
Private ownership really comes down to the long-term view. Most advisers are choosing a platform for their clients for the next 10 to 20 years. The average client tenure, last time I looked, was around 11 years.
People assume that merging two £50bn platforms creates economies of scale and more margin, but that rarely seems to play out
So, if a platform’s ownership or executive team is focused on a three-to-five-year horizon, what happens in the latter half of that period is an unknown. When ownership is geared towards the long term, it gives advisers and clients more confidence. You’re less likely to see sudden pricing or structural changes — just gradual, consistent improvement over time.
Browne:
Many new platforms use fee deals and adviser incentives to ramp up growth, but you’ve stayed clear of that. Why?
Priday:
Partly because of the Consumer Duty. If we’ve got two clients on the platform, no matter who their adviser is, is there really a reason one should pay differently from another? There are ad valorem arguments, of course, but if we’re comparing one percentage charge to another, big differences are hard to justify.
If pricing can be justified, fine. But I often can’t see how. The client experience is broadly the same, so what’s the rationale for a large gap?
Off the Record: Diana French, retail strategy director at Triple Point
The other reason is simplicity. Running multiple pricing models across a platform for different advice firms, even with strong technology, is difficult to administer. You’ve got to collect payments at different rates, illustrate them differently, disclose different costs and issue different documents.
Browne:
You have experience of working directly with clients. How has that background in advice shaped how P1 thinks and builds?
Although we’re smaller, not having an external owner lets us move more quickly and be more agile
Priday:
I don’t think the client cares about the platform, which is a hard pill for platforms to swallow. A platform doing a good job is one that’s quiet: you don’t think about it, complain about it or notice it.
When I was an adviser, the only time clients mentioned platforms was when there were problems: transfers, payments, delays. That’s stayed with me. If we’re doing the right things, we should be the silent partner for advice firms and the silent tool for clients.
A platform is really a collection of things: technology, operations, client servicing, custody, trading, regulation and client money. Each needs a different skillset.
We work with Seccl Technology as our custodian, so we run the platform front end while they handle custody and client money. That allows us to focus on the adviser and client experience, while a specialist manages the regulatory and technical side. If we had to do both, it would distract us from where we add most value.
I don’t think the client cares about the platform, which is a hard pill for platforms to swallow
Browne:
You’ve positioned P1 as part of a new, adviser-led generation of platforms. How do you expect this to develop over the next five years in terms of consolidation?
Priday:
I don’t think it’s ever gone particularly well for platforms. People assume that merging two £50bn platforms creates economies of scale and more margin, but that rarely seems to play out.
Consolidation can also reduce competition. Personally, I think there should be more platforms, not fewer. A platform isn’t one thing; it’s a combination of products and services packaged together at the front end. That can take many forms and, if there aren’t new entrants doing things differently, the market becomes stale and generic.
It’s good when new platforms come along with innovative ideas — cash products, digital assets, current accounts linked to platform accounts. That kind of innovation doesn’t happen if consolidation dominates, because you end up with more of the same.
Running multiple pricing models across a platform for different advice firms, even with strong technology, is difficult to administer
Browne:
Finally, what does independence mean to you in 2025, and how do you hold on to that ethos as pressures rise?
Priday:
Independence in advice is crucial. Advisers should be free to put together propositions that let them work with whoever’s right for the client. That said, restricted propositions can also play a role, especially in tackling the advice gap, because they can build efficiencies and deliver advice at scale.
From a platform perspective, independence means operational independence from institutional owners. If you’re owned by a big institution and every change or tech investment has to be signed off by the parent, you lose agility. You risk being pulled towards its strategic objectives rather than your own.
That’s why I’ve always resisted large-scale institutional or PE investment. It could compromise our ability to make quick, independent decisions and pursue our own strategy without external influence.
Browne:
Thanks for your time!
