Spreading risk across providers

[B9]

I'm wondering what the PH masses do when it comes to spreading investment risk - eggs in one basket etc..

Looking at my pensions and ISAs, I've invested 75% into one partner (albeit across multiple funds). They've exceeded my expectations on performance and customer service so far, and I do have control over what funds I can invest in (UK, US, Global, Defensive etc). The other 25% is invested with high-street pension providers and easy-access savings accounts.

I'm curious how other people balance their portfolios? I intended to diversify into BTL in the future which would've naturally changed the balance, though I'm starting to go off that idea as I can see this being an easy tax. Is there any problem being weighted towards one provider, assuming your funds are well balanced etc?

Thanks

[VR99]

I'd like to think that the chances of another Woodford debacle are fairly low(not impossible though) and the same goes for the risk of fraud e.g: someone or a bunch of rogue individuals committing a fraud which is not caught early enough and results in a financial loss to investors.
However my personal preference is not to be invested 100% with a single provider..hence my LISA, S&S ISA and pensions are all with different providers/platforms and funds.
There is no right/wrong/better way just depends on your preference and perception of risks.

[arguti]

VR99 said:

I'd like to think that the chances of another Woodford debacle are fairly low(not impossible though) and the same goes for the risk of fraud e.g: someone or a bunch of rogue individuals committing a fraud which is not caught early enough and results in a financial loss to investors.
However my personal preference is not to be invested 100% with a single provider..hence my LISA, S&S ISA and pensions are all with different providers/platforms and funds.
There is no right/wrong/better way just depends on your preference and perception of risks.

I have done the same, some duplication of costs but to me, reduces risk,

[anonymous-user]

So far as a I am aware there should be no "platform" risk. I would nonetheless be inclined to stick with the larger, tried and trusted platforms.

Whichever platform(s) you are on your actual investments should be held by a "custodian", so they should still be there even if the platform collapses.

As regards the funds themselves I think there's something to be said for splitting your investment across different ones. For instance, two different "North American equity" funds with similar objectives; two different "Emerging markets" funds etc. This should IMO specifically suppress the "Woodford" fund management risk.