2018年-FCA英国金融行为监管局_ms17_1_2_annex_8_19页_1mb

Summary of MS17/1.2: Annex 8 - Gap Analysis

Core Content

This annex presents a gap analysis of the investment platforms market, aiming to determine whether consumers are making choices that align with their preferences. The analysis is based on a combination of quantitative consumer data and choice based conjoint analysis to estimate consumer preferences and compare them with actual platform choices.

Main Viewpoints

1. Consumer Choice and Preferences

• The market is assessed by whether consumers choose platforms that reflect their preferences.
• Consumers may struggle with decision-making due to complexity, lack of transparency, or insufficient knowledge.
• Two approaches are used to evaluate this:
  • Aggregate analysis: Determine if different consumer preference types choose different platforms.
  • Individual analysis: Compare consumer choices with their stated preferences, particularly with respect to price.

2. Estimating Consumer Preferences

• Revealed preference techniques are not suitable for identifying gaps between preferences and choices.
• A stated preference approach using choice based conjoint analysis was adopted.
• This method allows consumers to choose between hypothetical platforms with varying attributes (e.g., brand, ease of use, investment options, reporting, research, and price).
• Consumers are asked to make trade-offs between these attributes, enabling the estimation of individual utilities or preferences.

3. Attributes and Levels

• Six attributes were selected for the conjoint analysis:
  • Brand
  • Ease of use
  • Range of investment options available
  • Reporting
  • Research
  • Annual Charge
• Each attribute had multiple levels to reflect different consumer valuations.
• For example, the "range of investment options" had levels from a small selection of pre-set portfolios to a broad range of investment options.

4. Consumer Choice and Price Sensitivity

• Price-sensitive consumers are defined as those in the top 25% of price valuation in the conjoint study.
• Non-price-sensitive consumers are in the lowest 25%.
• A super price-sensitive group is the top 10% and a super non-price-sensitive group is the bottom 10%.
• Price-sensitive consumers tend to prefer lower-priced platforms, while non-price-sensitive consumers may prioritize non-price attributes like brand or investment options.

5. Platform Price Categories

• Platforms were categorized as low, medium, or high based on their prices relative to the median price.
• The classification varied depending on the investment pot size of the consumer.
• No platform was consistently in the high or low price category across all consumer types.

6. Data Sources and Methodology

• Three data sources were used:
  • Quantitative individual consumer data from investment platforms.
  • Quantitative survey data from NMG, including consumer attitudes, preferences, and behavior.
  • Choice based conjoint study data, used to estimate consumer utilities.
• Consumers were grouped based on their investment pot size, knowledge, price awareness, and engagement.
• The analysis used Bayesian hierarchical regression models to estimate consumer preferences.

7. Key Findings

• Consumers with different preferences are distributed across platforms in varying proportions.
• Price-sensitive consumers are found on all platforms, with no platform having less than 16% of this group.
• Brand and range of investment options had the most variation in consumer distribution across platforms.
• Platforms differ in both price and non-price features, with some offering significantly lower fees than others.
• There is a gap between consumer preferences and actual platform choices, particularly for consumers who prioritize non-price attributes.

Key Information

Consumer Preferences

• 61% of consumers ranked non-price attributes as the most important.
• 32% prioritized brand, 19% prioritized range of investment options, and 39% prioritized price.
• The price attribute was valued more than twice as highly by price-sensitive consumers compared to other attributes.

Platform Price Categories

• Platforms were classified into low, medium, and high price categories based on their fees relative to the median.
• The classification depends on investment pot size, with some platforms appearing low-priced for smaller pots and high-priced for larger ones.

Consumer Grouping

• Consumers were segmented into 2-4 groups based on:
  • Investment pot size
  • Knowledge and engagement levels
  • Price awareness
  • Trading activity
  • Preference for low price

Findings on Platform Choice

• Price-sensitive consumers are spread across all platforms.
• Platforms that offer more non-price features (e.g., brand, range of investment options) attract more consumers with strong preferences for these attributes.
• Multi-homing is relatively common (37% of respondents), with most consumers using multiple platforms for risk diversification or new money.
• A small percentage (8%) use platforms for specific services, suggesting that platforms are not primarily used for complementary purposes.

Robustness of Analysis

• The study used weighted and unweighted responses depending on the level of segmentation.
• Statistical significance was tested at the 5% level, with some platforms showing statistically significant differences in consumer distribution.

Conclusion

The gap analysis reveals that while consumers with different preferences tend to choose different platforms, the alignment between preferences and choices is not perfect. This is especially true for those who prioritize non-price features such as brand and investment options, indicating a potential misalignment in the market. The study also highlights the importance of price transparency and the need for platforms to better reflect consumer preferences in their offerings.