Your IndustryMay 17 2016

Robo advice: the good, bad and the ugly

      pfs-logo
      cisi-logo
      CPD
      Approx.30min
      pfs-logo
      cisi-logo
      CPD
      Approx.30min
      twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
      Search supported by
      pfs-logo
      cisi-logo
      CPD
      Approx.30min
      Robo advice: the good, bad and the ugly

      Then there is of course the point that a robo can only ever be as good as the data it receives. If the wrong data is fed into an inappropriate algorithm, then this will inevitably result in the wrong recommendation.

      The US is currently working on ways to develop robo-advice so that it is sophisticated enough to deal with a wider variety of financial circumstances and different degrees of complexity, known by the industry as ‘robo-advice 2.0’.

      With plans to create specialised robo-advisers who can deal with specific circumstances including retirement income or growth, this technology has the potential to prove disruptive both in the US and here in the UK.

      Guidance versus advice

      Distinguishing between guidance and advice can pose issues for anyone considering setting up an automated service. Essentially, any system that results in a specific course of action, as opposed to sign-posting different routes for the customer to take, has provided advice.

      Robo-advice could place greater pricing pressure on the advice market

      There are examples of both advised and non-advised robo-advice services in the current marketplace but although the difference between these offerings may seem logical enough, this can often become confusing to the customer.

      For those companies taking the advice route, the responsibility will lie with them to make it clear to the customer when they are receiving advice and their model will also have to comply with regulation - arguably making this one of the most important decisions affecting the development of robo-advice.

      The term ‘robo-advice’ itself would also benefit from further clarification. At the moment there are many variations of the ‘catch all’ term ranging from online services that provide entirely automated, algorithm-based financial planning advice, while others incorporate human interaction at a particular stage of their automated service.

      A clearer definition of the parameters of robo-advice could not only help those in the industry to better understand whether automated services can fit with their existing business, crucially, it will also ensure customers are fully aware of the service they are interacting with and the products that best suit their needs.

      The gap between what robo-advice can offer in comparison to full face-to-face advice sheds light on concerns raised from some corners that robo-advice could place greater pricing pressure on the advice market.

      Robo-advice businesses have largely stuck to comparing themselves with direct-to-consumer propositions thus far, despite the fact for those automated services offering advice, the most direct comparison would arguably be with a full advice model.

      PAGE 3 OF 4