Can Robots Provide Financial Advice?

Originally published by OpenMarkets

Robots have long featured in sci-fi and cartoons; a quick Google (NASDAQ:GOOGL) search informed me human interest in bots can be traced back to ancient China, where a text describes a humanoid able to mimic human operations. But can you imagine the robots we’ve grown up with offering financial advice?

…Arms swinging wildly, ‘Robot’ from Lost in Space – “Danger Will Robinson, your investments are tanking”

…Or the morose ‘paranoid android’ Marvin of Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy fame – “It’s all gone, I lost your money. In fact, I did it so badly you owe money. Lots of money.”

…Or the mischievous Bender from Futurama – “Give me all your money, I’ll look after it…woohoo”

Luckily for us humans, robo advice does not involve robots. So, while robots of all descriptions are being developed to fulfil a range of needs, financial advice is not one of them.

The ‘robo’ in robo advice refers to the fact that humans are not involved in the investment process. To quote from ASIC’s Smart Money site, robo advice is:

“…financial advice delivered online via computer, tablet or smartphone. It uses algorithms and technology in place of a human financial adviser.”

Importantly, humans do design the algorithms on which the robo advice is based, so it’s therefore important that any robo is analysed in the same way you’d assess an investment manager, to ensure the IP behind the algorithms stands up to scrutiny. The algorithms direct an investor into one of several portfolios after asking a series of questions to determine basic parameters – primarily investment goals and risk tolerance. The portfolios are typically comprised of exchange traded funds (ETFs), although some robos offer a broader range of investment options.

Humans also provide the support and communications that go with robo-advice…so there is most definitely a human element to the process, albeit less than the traditional advice model.

While robo advice might provide a neat, low cost alternative to traditional financial advice, there are a range of things it can’t do:

• debt management and budgeting
• tax planning
• estate planning
• life and other insurances
• managing the effects of investments on Centrelink benefits, or dealing with changes to Centrelink entitlements and tests
• explaining regulatory change to clients – for example, the significant changes to super that were introduced on 1 July 2017 – and helping them organise their investments accordingly.

Get The App

Join the millions of people who stay on top of global financial markets with Investing.com.

Download Now

A robo platform also can’t offer a cup of tea, read body language (are you really that risk tolerant?) or ask more in-depth questions around goals, financial objectives and risk tolerances. It won’t account for changes in circumstances due to illness or injury, a maternity or paternity break, or a leave of absence to climb lofty peaks. Interestingly, most robo services don’t ask about other investments, which may result in a total investment portfolio that is not as appropriately balanced or diversified as it should be.

Regardless, it’s an appropriate choice for some investors, and where embraced by financial planning practices, can free up advisers and relevant staff to deal with those matters that require the human touch.

According to Investment Trends’ Financial Advice Report 2017, the number of consumers engaging with financial advice has fallen by 25 per cent over the past decade; this likewise represents a decline in the long-term average that 20 percent of Australians seek advice, with the new figures closer to 12 percent. This is despite an ageing population with record numbers of baby boomers expected to retire over the coming years.

Why are consumers failing to engage with financial advice? Cost. Investment Trends found that the average price Australians are willing to pay for advice is $750, compared to the $2,500 that advisers estimate as the cost of delivering financial advice. That’s quite a disconnect.

While this is not the forum for a discussion of the myriad of costs that comprise advice fees, regardless of their justification, there are – and will always be – a section of consumers that aren’t willing (or able) to pay.

According to website Statista, robo advisers have assets under management of US$225 on a global basis. Anticipated growth between now and 2021 is 47.5%. While much of those assets and that growth is US domiciled, Statista anticipates an Australian growth rate of 59.1% over the same period, albeit from a much lower base. Banks and super funds jumping on the robo bandwagon – it won’t be long before the outlier becomes mainstream.