Phil Young: What can advisers learn from robos’ moral codes?

Advisers are right to be vigilant about how robos’ decisions work, but do they highlight a lack of clear thinking on their part?

Few people would argue that self-driving cars will become commonplace at some point in the future. The only question is when. But while the focus is on the technical capability of the machine entrusted to drive us safely from A to B, New York University professor of psychology Gary Marcus has posed a more interesting question. One which has relevance to financial advice in the UK too.

Imagine you are on a narrow bridge with no room to pass either side. A school bus full of children hurtles out of control towards you. Should your self-driving car drive off the bridge and kill you to spare the children if that is the only option?

For an algorithm to work, it needs clear answers to every scenario. Unlike us, it cannot rely on instinct or make a decision in the moment. Your driverless car will inevitably have scenarios like this programmed into it. Would you like to know what they are programmed to do? Do you want to decide if it is you or the school kids now?

Phil Young: The trust paradox in financial services

This example demonstrates how certain tech-driven solutions are not simply technical operations but moral ones too. Moral choices are built into them by design from the outset.

An IFA has always had the advantage of a great deal of freedom of choice, and for that reason the need to predetermine outcomes for situations which have not yet happened is not that pressing. It can wait until it happens.

Impact on revenue
A robo doesn’t have that luxury and, given the choices all have to be documented and coded into a system, the fingerprints of those moral choices are always there under the surface.

One robo takes the view that paying off debt is more important in certain circumstances than investing disposable income. Its typical customer is young, has little accumulated wealth and higher amounts of debt. As a result, it turns away more than half the people who visit its service and the revenue that would bring.

Another asks attitude to risk and basic capacity for loss questions and qualifies almost every visitor for one of its portfolios. The latter is more profitable, is a quicker and simpler buying journey and probably rates more highly in terms of consumer satisfaction. What incentive is there to enhance the algorithm in a way that is commercially less attractive?

Vertically integrated firms have a similar dilemma. If they are required to offer their in-house investment proposition first, they still can’t avoid the need for it to be suitable. This means they have to think about the potential clients for whom the service is not going to be suitable for and what their next option is when that happens.

It requires a lot more thought and effort than many IFAs have to bother with, and it is typically better documented because it is likely to be scrutinised. There is an assumption it will be reviewed at some point for evidence of bias.

Right to be vigilant
With both vertical integration and robo, the ability to secretly fix the results combines with extreme commercial pressures, and the history of financial services tells us that bad things happen when those things mix. We are right to be vigilant.

At the same time, though, it has prompted more thought into these areas than anyone had previously bothered with. Bias was and is no stranger to the IFA model, but it has always been harder to identify, given the more subjective case-by-case nature of independence.

Phil Young: How machine learning will shake-up advice

A fault in an algorithm is a visible, repeatable, systematic failure which a regulator should have no problem locating if it is looking for it.

As a result, some of the questions raised by robos are perfectly valid ones which an old-fashioned adviser might do well to consider, and some have touched on them in recent years.

Should I be turning away clients who are at the absolute extremes of risk tolerance? What should I do if a prospect is obsessed with unsustainable levels of performance? What do I do about insistent clients? Should I allow execution-only business in high-risk investments?

These are all issues many advisers have been bitten by in recent years for lack of clear thinking well ahead of the event.

A decision in the moment is not always the best one, as the present clouds the long-term view.

In my limited experience working with firms on advice algorithms, it has raised more ethical than technical and regulatory concerns, and those have prompted the most challenging and interesting debates.

A lot of firms will still be avoiding them, or at least hiding them, but once accidents start to happen, as with self-driving cars, people will want to know what moral choices are buried within them.

Phil Young is managing director of Zero Support

Recommended

The BWD/Money Marketing salary census 2019

The Money Marketing and BWD salary census is back! The seventh survey is now open and can be found here. Take the BWD/Money Marketing adviser salary survey 2019 Getting involved will help recruitment consultant BWD and Money Marketing decipher how qualifications, employment status, geography, gender and job title impact on the salaries and bonuses across […]

1

Tilney opens new office in Guildford

Wealth manager Tilney has opened an office in Guildford where it is also looking to establish partnerships with local solicitors and accountants. The London-headquartered financial planning and investment advice firm says the opening corresponds to its growing client base in Surrey and across east Hampshire. Tilney currently has 11 staff in the Guildford office, which […]

Business-Handshake-General-Hire-Appointment-700x450.jpg

Jupiter poaches from Schroders for new CFO

Jupiter has turned to Schroders’ global head of finance Wayne Mepham to become the firm’s new chief financial officer. Mepham, who has been at Schroders for the past nine years after stints at consultant PwC, will join Jupiter in September, and will take up executive responsibility and sit on the asset manager’s board. Mepham will […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 4 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. What an interesting and thought provoking article….well done Phil! What is up for debate is what are the key constituents of judgement? Can they easily be machine replicated or are ethical and moral questions the components that help define us as advisers? So for me robo advice is NOT an existential threat….yet!

  2. Lets hope they make a better job of robo cars and robo advice than Boeing did of the “Robo” 737 Max which crashed two airliners as it’s anti stall software overrode pilot controls. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/business/boeing-737-max-ethiopian-plane-crash.html

    • A very apposite analogy, Phil. We rightly get upset when an untested automatic system kills people.

      That said, I believe it’d be equally right to assert that (properly tested) flight safety systems have saved a lot of people who’d otherwise have been killed by pilot error.

      Neither people nor machines are error-free. The machines’ ability to reliably reproduce behaviour time after time means they’re less likely to make a mistake – unless the mistake is programmed in from the start.

      • Philip Castle 15th May 2019 at 6:11 pm

        I think with Boeing, were it Airbus who had done it the USA would have been requesting extradition of those who made a conscious decision NOT to tell the pilots that this had been installed, nor to put in the secondary system to avoid retraining costs.
        As it’s Boeing, a US company and with the USA’s current President they will not do much about this.
        Let’s hope Boeing (or some of the VW senior staff who were involved in the emissions scandal) don’t get involved in driverless cars or robo advice or we’re all in trouble.

Leave a comment

Close

Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm

Email: customerservices@moneymarketing.com