Robo-Advisors

Robo-Advisors Are Not Robo-Planners. Yet.

Advisor Perspectives welcomes guest contributions. The views presented here do not necessarily represent those of Advisor Perspectives

Get The Timeless Reading eBook in PDF

Get the entire 10-part series on Timeless Reading in PDF. Save it to your desktop, read it on your tablet, or email to your colleagues.

We respect your email privacy

Q2 hedge fund letters, conference, scoops etc

Robo-Advisors

geralt / Pixabay

Over the past 10 years, the financial press has been overflowing with news of robo-advisory services – the early launches, the astonishing asset growth and the threat (or lack thereof) to financial advisors.

Enter robo palooza

When robo-advisors first rolled on to the scene, I was tickled to see someone automate the interrelationship between a client’s ability and willingness to tolerate risk – and then marry the two with a seamlessly allocated (and rebalanced!) investment portfolio.

And then the fees – oh, the fees you save! How could the investing public possibly resist paying 50-80% less than those greedy financial advisors charge? Not to mention the fact that some of those financial advisors were probably allocating to high-cost mutual funds instead of the low-cost ETF nirvana offered by the robos.

I am a huge fan of investment automation. One of my most cherished career roles was spent developing trading algorithms that managed client order flow at a busy broker-dealer. But I also know what it is like to work with individual investors on a one-on-one basis as their portfolio manager. In this role, solutions are highly customized and a great deal of time is spent tailoring the offering to their specific needs.

In looking at robo-advisors fairly, the investing public, who embraces it as a solution, are getting short-changed.

I’m not saying this because I think that, as an industry colleague put it several years ago, robos are just a bunch of “glorified target-dated funds.” I just think the “advisory” moniker is inaccurate.

Where robo-advisors fall short

Clients are best served when provided unbiased, unconflicted and complete advice delivered by a well-qualified fiduciary (a professional required to place the client’s interests ahead of his/her own). Robos (notwithstanding high mandatory cash holdings at some) do deliver on some – but not all – of that value proposition. They are investment advisors only.

Here is the bigger issue: Investment management is not financial planning.

A family cannot button up their entire financial well-being via a 15-minute online survey and a couple online signatures. Proper and complete financial planning must take into account a myriad of other questions such as:

  • What do we keep? (Taxes)
  • When do we protect it? (Insurance)
  • Where does it all end up? (Estate)
  • How do we get there? (Integrated Plan)

Robo-advisors fail to answer the four critical questions above – mainly because it is first and foremost an investment management solution.

I challenge you to find someone served completely by a robo-advisor. I’ll even provide you a few examples:

Robo-Advisors

Read the full article here by Carl A. Friedrich, Advisor Perspectives

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

LEAVE A COMMENT


Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required

Opt of of ocassional 3rd party offers


Congrats! We have a limited time offer for loyal readers like yourself.

Sign up today and get three months free if you select yearly subscription

Use coupon code 3monthsfreeconfidential at checkout

Limited time offer only expires 3/31/2019 or next 30 subscribers whichever comes first – please do not share this discount with others