Beyond UMA adoption: Why structure matters

The UMA conversation has entered a new phase. For years, much of the focus has been on adoption: why advisors are using UMAs, which clients may benefit, and where a unified account can help simplify portfolio implementation. In a recent 55ip post, we explored the adoption question directly, emphasizing that adoption momentum should not be mistaken for universal suitability. But the next phase of the conversation is less about whether to use a UMA and more about how the UMA is built.

That distinction matters because advisors are being asked to coordinate more moving parts and objectives: model portfolios, SMAs and other forms of direct ownership, tax-aware transitions, tax-loss harvesting, restrictions, cash needs, and legacy holdings.

From UMA adoption to UMA architecture

A UMA is not automatically more tax efficient, more coordinated, or better aligned with client goals simply because multiple strategies sit inside one account. The structure matters. Does tax management happen across the full account? Does the platform coordinate rebalancing and cash across components? Is tracking error managed at the sleeve level, at the total-portfolio level, or through another methodology? How are restrictions, legacy holdings, and transition needs addressed?

These questions matter because advisor adoption often depends on whether the benefits are clear, and the workflow is intuitive. Cerulli Associates notes that platform enhancements need to offer advisors a “clear path of least resistance,” and that even features that may improve client outcomes can lag in adoption if they are not intuitive extensions of existing workflows.[1]

For advisors, then, the issue is not only access to UMA structures. It’s understanding how the structure works, how it changes day-to-day portfolio implementation, and whether it provides a clear way to see how decisions are being made across the account.

Where models and SMAs meet

An important UMA use case is the combination of model portfolios and SMAs. Many advisors want the scalability and operational efficiency of model portfolios but also see the benefits—as do their clients—that come with the direct ownership, customization, and tax-loss harvesting potential of SMAs.

A model portfolio may provide a target allocation or recommended portfolio structure. An SMA may provide account-level security management that can deliver tax-loss harvesting opportunities. One is not necessarily subordinate to the other. Each may serve a distinct role in the overall portfolio design.

The challenge is making them work together. If model and SMA components are managed as separate workflows, the advisor may still face fragmented implementation. Rebalancing may happen in one part of the portfolio while tax-loss harvesting occurs in another. A tax trade may appear attractive inside one component but create an unintended exposure at the account level.

That is why UMA structure matters. The point is not that one structure is universally better than another. Sleeved and sleeveless UMAs can each be appropriate depending on the program, platform, manager, and client need. The important question is what each structure enables and how clearly advisors can explain that structure to clients.

Why tracking error belongs in the UMA conversation

In our view, tax management should not be viewed separately from portfolio construction. A loss may be available to harvest, but that does not necessarily mean it should be harvested. The decision depends on whether the tax benefit is worth the resulting portfolio trade-off. This is where tracking error becomes an important decision framework.

Tracking error measures how much a portfolio’s returns may differ from its intended benchmark, model, or target exposure. In a UMA, that concept becomes especially important because tax-aware decisions may need to be evaluated across multiple portfolio components. A tax-loss harvesting opportunity inside the direct-ownership portion of the account may create a replacement-position decision. A rebalance in the model portfolio may affect overall exposures. A restriction or transition plan may introduce additional deviation from the intended allocation.

55ip’s ActiveTax Technology^® is designed to help manage these trade-offs. This capability accounts for factors including optimal loss thresholds, proxy selection, and minimization of tracking error, while enabling scalable execution. In practical terms, tax-loss harvesting is not treated simply as a search for losses. It’s evaluated alongside the portfolio impact of the trade.

A tax-loss harvesting opportunity may look attractive in isolation. But if the replacement exposure moves the account too far from its intended risk profile, style exposure, sector allocation, or investment objective, the tax benefit may not justify the trade. The reverse can also be true: Some deviation may be acceptable if it helps improve after-tax outcomes while preserving the portfolio’s broader investment intent. This is the link between our ActiveTax Technology and tracking error in our UMA offering. The goal is not to eliminate all deviation or harvest every available loss. It’s to help evaluate position-level opportunities through a broader framework that considers taxes, risk, replacement exposure, and portfolio alignment together.

The 55ip UMA chassis

Our UMA is designed around this implementation challenge.

In our current sleeveless UMA architecture, we bring model portfolios and SMAs into a shared framework, with ActiveTax Technology helping evaluate position-level decisions through the combined lens of taxes, risk, and portfolio intent.

This is not a claim that sleeveless UMAs are inherently better than sleeved UMAs. Structure should follow the needs of the program and the client. What matters is whether the advisor understands how the chosen structure works and whether the platform can coordinate the decisions the advisor is relying on it to support.

For asset managers and platform partners, that chassis may support a repeatable way to bring model and SMA combinations to market. The underlying implementation question remains the same: How can the platform help coordinate tax-aware decisions while keeping the portfolio aligned with its intended design?

Getting into UMAs with eyes wide open

If anything, the growth of UMAs makes questions around architecture more urgent. Growth won’t tell advisors how to use the structure well. The next phase of the UMA conversation should focus on how different UMA structures work, what they can coordinate, and how advisors can apply them with greater confidence.

As advisors evaluate UMA programs, the key questions are increasingly structural:

• What can the platform coordinate?
• How does it balance tax opportunities with portfolio alignment?
• Does tax management happen across the full account, within sleeves, or through another process?
• Is tracking error managed at the sleeve level, the total-portfolio level, or both?
• How are rebalancing, cash, restrictions, and transitions coordinated?
• Does the advisor understand the structure well enough to explain why it fits the client’s portfolio?

A UMA is not just an account type. It’s an implementation framework—and the value of that framework depends on how clearly it supports the decisions advisors need to make to enhance client outcomes.

[1] Cerulli Associates, U.S. Managed Accounts 2025: Prioritizing Tax Optimization.

c5538687-2ca4-11f1-aba9-c902005a4d67 04/26