MPS, multi-asset funds and in-house portfolio management: the state of play today

Advisers are undergoing a structural shift in how client portfolios are built and delivered. While many still rely on ready-made multi-asset funds and adviser-constructed portfolios, there is a clear and growing preference for outsourced, centralised investment solutions, often delivered through managed portfolio services (MPS).

There’s no doubt that MPS adoption is accelerating. And with it offering greater consistency, operational efficiency and governance when compared to standalone multi-asset funds as the core building block. The question is: what role will more traditional approaches play going forward?

Why MPS is taking centre stage

MPS has emerged as the leading approach to portfolio construction, according to our latest research. Close to a third (32%) of financial advisers and IFAs say that, when considering their clients’ investment solutions within centralised investment propositions (CIPs), MPS forms the primary building block. This places MPS ahead of traditional multi-asset funds (27%), in-house investment portfolios (24%) and bespoke discretionary fund management (17%).

The appeal goes beyond performance. MPS offers a structured, scalable framework that supports consistency across client portfolios, while simplifying oversight and governance – an increasing priority as regulatory expectations evolve.

We believe advisers are increasingly focused on relationship management and financial planning, and less on day-to-day fund selection. This trend goes beyond MPS and reflects a broader shift towards governed, repeatable investment frameworks.

Multi-asset funds: evolving rather than disappearing 

MPS moving ahead of multi-asset funds as the primary building block signals a deeper shift away from product selection and towards the design of investment solutions. Multi-asset funds remain widely used, often complementing MPS frameworks and featuring within them, rather than being displaced outright.

Most of the conversations we are having right now are centred on MPS propositions. But in parallel, we are seeing growing interest from intermediaries in co-designing tailored fund solutions with us – not just in co-manufactured MPS. The landscape is evolving for OEICs too, with more firms exploring co-manufactured fund structures that combine repeatable design, transparent holdings and consistent reporting, while still allowing room for firm-level customisation.

Building investment solutions through partnership and scale

Multi-asset funds have long been a core building block for adviser portfolios. But their role is shifting from default solutions to one component within more structured, governance-led investment propositions.

Nearly a third (32%) of advisers and IFAs say that Consumer Duty has renewed their focus on the services and solutions they offer to clients. While a further 32% say they have become more selective about the strategic partnerships they use. Our research found that 87% of advisers and IFAs say they are now more likely to recommend model portfolios as part of their investment solutions, with 48% significantly more likely and 40% slightly more likely. This is particularly pronounced among mid-sized firms, where 92% reported a greater likelihood of recommending model portfolios.

The bottom line

Ultimately, this evolution underlines a broader shift in how advisers deliver investment solutions: away from standalone products and towards integrated, collaborative frameworks. While “off-the-shelf” MPS offers a standardised approach, the broader MPS landscape, including co-manufactured solutions, is far from a one-size-fits-all. Some advice firms may prefer a fully white-labelled approach, and our teams are structured to support firms of all sizes in developing co-manufactured propositions.

The opportunity now is to build solutions that reflect each firm’s identity and client needs, with the governance, transparency and reporting that today’s environment demands.