Markets supplied 57% of AJ Bell’s £22.7bn platform growth

AJ Bell ended its 2026 financial year with a record £126.0 billion of platform assets under administration, up 22%. The trading update also showed record net inflows and customer growth. Reconstructing the asset bridge reveals a less obvious division: £13.0 billion of the £22.7 billion increase came from “market and other movements”, while £9.7 billion came from net inflows. Market and other movements therefore supplied 57.3% of the annual increase.[1][2]

The calculation does not challenge the existence of the assets or the quality of AJ Bell's platform. It separates two mechanisms that the percentage headline combines. Net inflows are money retained after customer withdrawals and transfers. Market and other movements change the value of assets already administered and can include investment performance and other adjustments. Both lift closing AUA, but only one directly measures organic asset gathering during the year.[1][2]

The record closing balance had more market beta than net flow

Opening platform AUA was £103.3 billion. Add £9.7 billion of net inflows and £13.0 billion of market and other movements and the reported bridge reaches £126.0 billion after rounding. Dividing each contributor by the £22.7 billion increase produces the 42.7% and 57.3% shares.[1][2]

AJ Bell described the £13.0 billion figure as favourable market movements equivalent to 13% of opening AUA. Because the detailed table uses the broader label “market and other movements”, this analysis retains that wording rather than assuming every pound was investment performance. The public update does not separately quantify each “other” component.[1][2]

AUA growth driven by markets is economically valuable to a platform when fees are linked to asset levels. Higher market values can increase recurring revenue without requiring an equivalent acquisition cost. The analytical caution is different: market-driven growth is less controllable and can reverse when asset prices fall. It should not be used as evidence of customer acquisition or transfer success.[1][2]

Net inflows of £9.7 billion were nonetheless substantial, up 37% from £7.1 billion. The finding is therefore not that AJ Bell lacked organic growth. It is that the larger contribution to the closing-balance increase came from the market-and-other line. A record year can contain both strong execution and a favourable external tailwind.[1][2]

The two platform channels had very different growth mechanics

The advised platform began with £62.4 billion, received £1.9 billion of net inflows and benefited from £7.3 billion of market and other movements, reaching £71.6 billion. Market and other movements accounted for 79.3% of its £9.2 billion AUA increase. The D2C platform began with £40.9 billion, received £7.8 billion of net inflows and recorded £5.7 billion of market and other movements, reaching £54.4 billion. Net inflows accounted for 57.8% of its £13.5 billion increase.[1][2]

This split materially changes the channel narrative. The advised business remained larger in assets, but most of its annual growth came from revaluation and other movements. D2C supplied £7.8 billion, or 80.4%, of total platform net inflows. It also added 140,000 customers, compared with 12,000 in advised, and passed 600,000 customers.[1][2]

A high D2C customer count does not automatically imply the same average assets as an advised account. Closing D2C AUA of £54.4 billion divided by 602,000 customers gives an illustrative average of about £90,000, while £71.6 billion divided by 194,000 advised customers gives about £369,000. Those quotients are not disclosed customer-level averages: aggregate AUA can be unevenly distributed, account counts and customer definitions matter, and the timing of acquisitions affects the denominator. They nevertheless show why customer growth and asset growth must be analysed together.[1][2]

D2C's strong flow contribution also creates a future monetisation question. New customers may initially bring smaller balances, then consolidate pensions, ISAs and dealing accounts over time. The year-end update says the acquired customers have long-term potential to grow their assets. That is a management assessment; later cohort data would be needed to demonstrate the path.[1][2]

Gross inflows overstate the money that stayed

AJ Bell received £21.5 billion of gross platform inflows and experienced £11.8 billion of outflows, leaving £9.7 billion net. Net inflows were therefore 45.1% of gross inflows; outflows were 54.9%. The ratio is not a churn rate because the gross and outflow populations are not necessarily the same customers or the same assets. It is a transparent conversion measure showing how much of the incoming amount remained after the year's aggregate departures.[1][2]

Gross inflows are useful for assessing distribution reach and transfer activity, but they can make growth look more powerful when read without outflows. Net inflows better capture the asset change attributable to customer money. Even net inflows should not be treated as revenue: platform charging structures vary by asset type, account, tier and product, and some assets may be capped or charged differently.[1][2]

The non-platform business further illustrates the need to keep boundaries clear. Its AUA fell as a third-party SIPP arrangement wound down, with customers and assets expected to transfer onto the D2C platform. Those transfers can alter the classification of assets without representing wholly new money to the wider group. The £126.0 billion platform measure and £127.6 billion total AUA measure therefore answer different questions.[1][2]

AJ Bell also reported £12.1 billion of assets under management in its investment business and £1.9 billion of investment net inflows. Those figures should not simply be added to platform AUA or platform flows: investment products can be held on the platform, creating overlap between an administration measure and a management measure. An asset can be administered by AJ Bell and managed in an AJ Bell fund at the same time.[1][2]

Market-driven growth can improve revenue while weakening the organic signal

Platform economics often benefit from higher average asset values. If charges are calculated on qualifying assets, favourable markets can lift revenue and margin even without net new money. That makes market exposure part of the commercial model rather than noise to be removed. The correct analysis is to keep the components visible: what the company attracted, what customers withdrew and what market or other movements added.[1][2]

The same separation matters in a downturn. A year of positive net inflows can still produce lower closing AUA if markets fall by more than the money arriving. Conversely, weak net flows can be obscured by strong markets. AJ Bell's 2026 result had strong net flows and strong market support, but the latter was the larger contributor to the absolute increase.[1][2]

The update did not disclose full-year revenue or the average revenue margin because annual results were scheduled for December. AUA is therefore an operating leading indicator, not a complete profit result. The next report will allow readers to compare average AUA, revenue, costs and operating leverage, and to test whether the customer-acquisition investment produced proportionate economic returns.[1][2]

What is established and what is not

The published bridge establishes that £13.0 billion of the £22.7 billion platform-AUA increase was market and other movements. It establishes that D2C generated £7.8 billion of the £9.7 billion net inflows and that advised growth depended much more heavily on the market-and-other line. It does not establish that one channel is inherently better, because customer acquisition costs, revenue rates, service costs, retention and long-term assets differ.[1][2]

It also does not establish how much of the £13.0 billion should be attributed to market performance rather than “other” adjustments. The company's narrative calls the movement favourable market movements, while the tabular bridge uses the combined label. Any more granular claim would require the underlying reconciliation.[1][2]

AJ Bell's record year remains a record year. The investigative contribution is to identify the mechanism: 57% of the platform's asset increase came from market and other movements, 43% from net inflows, and the D2C channel supplied four-fifths of those net inflows. Those proportions are the correct base for judging how much of the growth was acquired, retained and market-delivered.[1][2]

Report an error or submit an update