Transfers: Why Are We Still Making It So Hard?

If there’s one thing that’s followed me around in my career like a loyal (and occasionally mischievous) sidekick, it’s Transfers. I’ve found myself tangled up in them more times than I can count. From hands-on processing to orchestrating bulk client migrations, leading transfer teams, fixing things when they’ve gone awry, and even rolling out shiny new tech to make the whole experience smoother for customers.

Transfers have a funny way of sneaking into all sorts of places – much like me, really! I’ve always loved working across different areas, connecting dots, and finding better ways to do things. So maybe it’s no surprise that this particular process has carved out a special place in my heart. It’s complex, it’s collaborative, and it’s never boring (again just like me!)

The process of transferring assets, whether pensions, investments, or other financial products, remains one of the most frustrating aspects of the customer journey in financial services. Despite the existence of standardised mechanisms across the industry, the way these processes are implemented varies significantly between firms. This inconsistency is not driven by necessity, but by deliberate choices rooted in culture, commercial priorities, and operational inertia.

Some firms offer seamless, modern transfer experiences, while others rely on outdated, manual processes that create unnecessary friction. The result is a fragmented landscape where customers face inefficiency, delays, and a lack of transparency. My own experience with a pension transfer involved a seven-week wait, interactions with three separate firms, and the duplication of paperwork – an experience that is unfortunately far from unique.

Change in this area tends to occur only when mandated by regulation or when aligned with strategic priorities. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has expressed a preference for industry-led reform, yet progress remains slow. Budget constraints perceived commercial risks, and reliance on third-party providers all contribute to the complexity. The technology to streamline transfers exists, but adoption is hindered by concerns over customer retention and operational disruption.

A psychological barrier also plays a role. Some firms fear that simplifying transfers will lead to faster customer attrition. While this concern may stem from valid business considerations, such as protecting assets under management, it is important to recognise that retention strategies based on procedural friction resemble coercion more than loyalty. Sustainable customer relationships should be built on trust, value, and service quality, not on barriers that inhibit choice.

To move forward, we must challenge the notion that variance in transfer processes is acceptable. While firms may argue that customisation allows them to better serve their clients, this should not come at the expense of efficiency or transparency. Striking the right balance between adaptability and standardisation is essential. Standardisation should be guided by common sense and customer outcomes—not solely by regulatory pressure.

So, what’s holding us back?

• Culture over process: The barriers are not technical—they’re cultural. Many firms are reluctant to change because it feels risky.
• Technology fragmentation: Tech providers often promote proprietary solutions that resist open standards, creating silos.
• Lack of accountability: Transfer agents and third-party providers are rarely measured on customer outcomes, reducing incentives for improvement.
• Outsourcing complexity: Firms that outsource operations often claim they cannot enforce change without renegotiating contracts – yet Consumer Duty and Operational Resilience provide strong grounds to demand better.

What’s the opportunity?

Firms that embrace streamlined transfer processes stand to gain significantly: faster onboarding, improved Net Promoter Scores (NPS), reduced operational costs, and enhanced customer trust. If we can agree on APIs for payments, why not for transfers?

Imagine mapping out all the non-value-add activities in a typical transfer—the repeat requests, manual workarounds, and delays. Quantifying the true cost of inefficiency could be a powerful catalyst for change. Similarly, defining a minimum viable product (MVP) for digital transfers would allow us to benchmark providers and highlight those who treat essential features as optional.

It’s time for the industry to take ownership of this issue. We must:

Call out inefficiencies and challenge outdated practices
Push tech providers to support open standards and interoperability
Use data to expose the real cost of doing nothing
Balance standardisation with flexibility, ensuring processes remain responsive to diverse customer needs
Hold third parties accountable, especially where customer outcomes are at stake

Let’s stop waiting for regulation to do the heavy lifting. The tools are available, the need is clear, and the opportunity is real.

At Simplify, we bring extensive experience in partnering with clients to assess their current Transfer proposition and uncover opportunities for future-proofing their approach. Rather than waiting for external pressures to force change, we encourage proactive transformation. Be a leader, not a follower, join the movement and connect with us to begin shaping a more resilient future.

Nicola Flannigan

Consultant