Why do so many trust providers and wealth managers still rely on outdated, clunky technology—when better alternatives clearly exist?
According to Russell Morse, a veteran wealth management consultant and Director of RJM Consulting, it’s not for lack of interest.
“When I get called in, it’s because there is an appetite for change on the wealth management side,” Morse said.
But that curiosity rarely translates into action, especially in the bank/trust environment.
For every ten firms that recognize the need to move on from legacy systems, Morse estimates only about three make a real push to change—and just one follows through.
The barriers to change
So why do change efforts so often stall? Morse outlined several obstacles:
- Resource constraints: Wealth groups inside banks are often “technical resource thin,” relying on overburdened IT departments that prioritize core banking projects.
Even if the wealth team is eager to improve their tech stack, “the bank side comes in and says, ‘We just don’t have the resources to support you,’” Morse explained.
- Relationship loyalty: Many bank-based wealth teams are “relationship bankers” at heart. That loyalty often extends to technology vendors—even when those vendors are no longer meeting expectations.
“It’s ground into their head that they have to appreciate those relationships,” says Morse. “So it’s hard to break that.”
- Outdated assumptions: The trust tech landscape has evolved—but not everyone has noticed. Many professionals still operate with a decades-old belief that “all systems are the same,” or that there are only two viable providers, both offering subpar options.
“Unless they’re curious and researching what’s out there, they’re still under the impression from 25 years ago,” Morse said.
- Fear of disruption: Morse frequently hears concerns about the disruption a system change might cause. But in his experience, “The biggest success comes with outlining exactly what the efforts would be from the bank side—and showing it’s not a heavy lift.”
The perception of disruption, he said, often outweighs the reality.
The high cost of standing still
Morse doesn’t sugarcoat the consequences of staying with legacy tech.
“It’s possible to survive using older technology,” he said. “But it’s very hard to be profitable doing so.”
Firms relying on outdated platforms must layer manual processes, throw extra people at inefficiencies, and pay hidden fees. Many legacy technology providers are notorious for opaque pricing, tacked-on markups, and unnecessary services.
“Try going through one of those invoices and figuring out what you’re paying for,” Morse said. “It’s next to impossible.”
There’s also the looming risk that legacy systems will be “sundowned”—discontinued or unsupported—leaving firms scrambling.
“Many trust providers have been using these antiquated systems for 20, 25, 30 years,” Morse said. “They know how to do workarounds, but it’s costing them a whole lot of money they don’t have to spend.”
Making the business case for change
Cost, surprisingly, is rarely the primary roadblock to changing platforms.
“When clients rank their priorities in a new system, cost usually comes in at about 5%,” Morse said.
In fact, switching to a modern system can often reduce overall costs—after accounting for automation gains, reduced headcount needs, and more transparent billing.
The key to winning internal buy-in, Morse said, lies in how the conversation is framed.
“You have to show the bank side that the resource lift isn’t huge,” he said. “Then you’ve got a shot.”
And timing? There is no perfect moment to make a change.
As Morse puts it: “It’s like having kids. There’s no good time—but if you wait too long, you lose the opportunity.”
Final thought: Change is inevitable—profitability is not
In an industry where margins matter and expectations are rising, sticking with outdated technology isn’t just inefficient—it’s risky.
Whether the motivation is to grow, reduce cost, or simply survive, trust providers and wealth managers can no longer afford to dance with the devil they know.
