Is Your Robo-Advisor Hiding Something?

Robo-advisor platforms are on the rise, and many of us are familiar with the pros and cons of these platforms. On the “pro” side, robo-advisors provide their customers with high-quality, low-cost portfolios that are generally tax-efficient and come in an easy to use website package. The “cons” of using a robo-advisor are in line with what most people would expect, namely: lack of personalization, no holistic financial planning, and perhaps most importantly, no behavioral coach to help prevent catastrophic mistakes when the markets take a dive.

To the “con” side of the ledger, it’s time to add another potential danger: conflict of interest. Early iterations of robo-advisors have stuck to a passive investment philosophy. They are not affiliated with any mutual fund or ETF providers, so they generally filled, and continue to fill, their portfolios with high-quality, low-cost investments. Hence, no conflicts of interest.

It turns out, however, even software-based financial advisors can have conflicts of interest. Lately, large U.S. banks have rushed to bring their own version of robo-advisors to market. Unsurprisingly, those old Wall Street ways appear to have found their way into these firms’ offerings. The culprit is an individual investor’s old nemesis: revenue-sharing, or paying for shelf space. This practice likely takes place at any firm not holding themselves out as a Registered Investment Adviser. It involves mutual fund or ETF companies paying brokers for things like seminars, meals, travel, and hotel expenses. The expectation, of course, is that their funds or ETFs will end up as an investment option for the broker’s clients.

Banks that are implementing robo-advisory services have released disclosures ahead of their launch that makes clear they will be accepting revenue sharing payments. Here’s the language: “these payments present a conflict of interest for. . . to the extent they lead us to focus on funds from those fund families that commit significant financial and staffing resources to promotional and educational activities.” A computer will determine asset allocation, but a human will decide which funds that computer can use in the allocation. Which fund/ETF families do you think will make the cut? When it comes to these latest entrants to the robo-advising individual investors would be very well served to pay close attention to the fine print.

Contact Claris with any questions on robo-advisors or your financial future.

Share Button
Tags:

A Great Night for Baseball at our 7th Annual Client Appreciation Event


No rain, cool temps, good food, great company and top that off with a 5-3 win for the St. Louis Cardinals to hold their National League Wildcard spot! Our client…
Read More.

Portfolio Design: Maximizing After-tax Returns


Even when we do everything right – listen to the evidence, invest for the long-term, tune out the market noise – we don’t invest in a vacuum. Ultimately, we need…
Read More.

Tax Changes Make Cash Balance Plans Even More Attractive


Small business owners interested in taking advantage of the new 20 percent qualified business income (QBI) deduction under the 2017 tax law should consider taking a look at pairing a…
Read More.

Spring Cleaning: A Financial Review


Every spring we shake off the winter tedium, set our clocks forward, pack up the flannel, and clean out the fireplace. All out of necessity and habit. But what about…
Read More.

Tuning Out the Noise


Tuning Out the Noise takes you on a journey through the “lost decade,” featuring the media’s amplified coverage of headline events and pointing to the positive outcome that a disciplined…
Read More.

David Goetsch’s Take on Dealing with Market Uncertainty


Check out the article written by David Goetsch, executive producer of The Big Bang Theory.  Dave reflects on how his transformed view of investing has helped him navigate this year’s…
Read More.