John Torode et al might proclaim the worth of home-made custard but I like Bird's better. This does relate to platforms - read on.

One of our IFAs has been in contact with us this week to complain about how Cofunds and Fidelity disclose their charges on PAT. This is not the first we've heard from IFAs on the subject, we're looking at it and we actively think there is certainly a case for more clarity. The old "there's no charge" line just sounds a bit lame and we all know that's nonsense - whether explicit or bundled there's obviously and justifiably a bit they keep for their service. Why are they so coy about what they 'charge' in today's more platform-literate market? We’ve had some constructive discussions with them this week and will be updating PAT shortly.

However I do draw the line when the IFA in question says we should remove fund supermarkets from the site because "they are not wraps."

The platform world has become quite snobby and it's terribly de rigeur to champion unbundled pricing and the 'posher' wraps, but lots of us prefer a slosh of Bisto to the lacklustre pan juices, a varietal of annoyingly called 'jus'. Lots of advisers use supermarkets and tell us they are happy with what's on offer. I'll go further and say I'm not sure the apparent holy grail of unbundled pricing is what all customers want.

The point is we have a choice in today's market between models and I think that's a good thing. Nucleus is in Money Marketing this week talking about how 2010 is the year of the "true wrap" and I just don't see this. Some of what are objectively the very best full wrap platforms on the market will be the very worst options for particular types of client. Fund supermarkets have evolved and dominate AUA so much because they service an important part of the market.

In 2002 in Aus, First State really shook the platform world up with the storming success of their naffly-named baby wrap, targeting smaller account sizes with a 'Bird's' proposition, priced to match. If anything, I think 2010 will be a year of a fight for scale and getting RDR-ready which has to mean increased attention on a wider customer base and other distribution channels including direct sales, D2C and employee channels.

To continue the theme of custard vv crème anglaise , Skandia's announcement this week that no platform should cost more than 50bps seems a bit prosaic too (although I tend to agree with this). Surely it depends what's being delivered and then it's the customers' choice. As long as customers understand what they are paying (take note supermarkets - everyone knows you're about 25-30bps ongoing so be out and be proud) then Skandia can certainly deliver a proposition for 50bps but shouldn't dictate to others what's acceptable or not. Everything comes at a price and the 50bps comes with news of a further 150 redundancies. Service ain't cheap, which is Transact's 60bps tussle.

Let me conclude with a car analogy as I realise all this jus and custard stuff isn't really focussed on our principal audience demographic. I can't tell the difference between a Mazda sports car and an Alfa Romeo at a glance but I'd probably prefer the silver one. Or the cheaper one. I think cars are only marginally less boring than walking everywhere and have zero interest in what lies under the bonnet. I know many people feel the same about financial services.

The point here is not that I have the mechanical intelligence of a gnat but that one size does not fit all and it's a good thing that platforms are starting to differentiate. Why should any one provider dictate what their competitors must do?

So I continue to encourage platform differentiation and as long as we have clarity (not necessarily transparency) then vive la différence and let's leave the choice to the IFA (whose job it surely is to really know what his/her client needs?) and the customer themselves.