View more on these topics

Leader: Double standards from the FCA on robo-advice

Natalie Holt, journalist with Money Marketing Photo by Michael Walter/Troika

In order to properly discuss the threat or opportunity that robo-advice poses, we have to set aside the notion that is anything to do with advice in the purest, regulatory definition sense of the word.

Many of these online tools and services are about signposting consumers to default funds, recommended buy lists, or perhaps multi-asset portfolios based on fairly crude “risk buckets.” They are not about advice.

While it is certainly true that robo services can dovetail neatly with advice, maybe through white-labelled offerings, signposts to advisers, or perhaps just automated fact-finds, no one is under any illusion that advice is being given. Except perhaps the investor.

A lot of regulatory chips have been staked on the success of robo-advice. If it continues to take off in the way that is hoped, at least then the FCA will be saved from having to make the fatal admission that an unintended consequence of the RDR was to choke off access to advice.

Concerns have started to bubble up among those in the financial technology space that robo-advice may not be all it is cracked up to be. And a lot of those anxieties – such as inappropriate risk-profiling, questions over suitability – are ones that the regulator has long been banging on about.

“The FCA should take some time out before launching its fêted robo-advice unit to think about the kind of consumer outcomes it is actually looking to achieve”

So it is strange the FCA has chosen not to apply the same rigorous scrutiny to robo-advice firms that it is currently bringing to bear on advisers. Instead, the approach the regulator is adopting on robo-advice is not just hands off but one of actively encouraging new entrants to market.

If it is accepted that robo-advice has little to do with advice, it follows that any potential collapse would not be advisers’ responsibility. In fact, the opposite looks to be true, with an expectation that were a robo-service to fall over, claims would fall on advisers via the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

As advisers well know, this would not be the first time a provider failure ended up at advisers’ doorsteps. The decision to allocate Keydata recoveries to the adviser funding class was a spectacular error of judgement, and one not to be repeated.

The upcoming FSCS funding review needs to address where potential claims will fall, and before too many investors pile in to robo-advice services without adequate support. In the meantime, the FCA should take some time out before launching its fêted robo-advice unit to think about the kind of consumer outcomes it is actually looking to drive, rather than rushing in blindly and hoping for the best.

Natalie Holt is editor of Money Marketing. Follow her on Twitter: @Natalie_Holt_MM

Recommended

Fidelity: The pensions challenge faced by employers

We welcomed the launch of the Lifetime Isa, not least because of the generous tax benefits it offers, especially to those on lower earnings. These tax benefits are better than those available on pensions for many people, which raises the question of whether the Lifetime Isa should replace pensions as the preferred way of saving […]

Magnifying-Glass-And-Text-Kindle-Contract-700x450.jpg
1

Banks bear brunt of FCA skilled persons reports

The FCA issued 10 skilled persons reports in the fourth quarter of 2015/16, half of which related to conduct around client assets. In a document published today the regulator revealed that four skilled persons reports in Q4 were commissioned for banks, two for consumer credit firms, and one each for an investment management firm, a […]

Oil industry: only the fittest will survive

The actions of OPEC have forced the oil supply to fall and producers to cut costs and rationalise, says Richard Hulf In an interview with journalist Alexis Xydias, Richard Hulf, manager of the Artemis Global Energy Fund, explains the impact of the fall in the oil price on energy companies. Alexis also quizzes Richard on […]

A modern horror story

Every day a quick scan of the news reveals some new horror that will change the lives of those involved forever – the unlucky accident on the way to work, a tragic illness that cuts a young life short or the holiday accident that leaves more than just a scar to cope with. We barely […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 3 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. We want nothing to do with robo advice, none of the associated regulatory costs. Our decision because it does not benefit our clients and indeed presents an additional cost to them.

  2. Natalie: Good point well made.

  3. I think that one of the biggest problems with robo-advice is that in order that a computer algorithm can give the right answer it has to be assumed there is a right answer – in most cases there is not an obvious right answer but a range of possible answers.

    The final decision is based on a number of non-algorithmic factors – let’s call these personal preferences.

    It is lazy thinking to that robo-advice is solution when the real solution lies with making it easier for people to speak to an expert who can weigh up the analytical and personal factors.

    Put it another way good advice is more of an iterative (nonlinear) process than a linear process – or as one of my clients put it “two handed process” – has anyone seen a computer with two hands?

Leave a comment