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

Pouring Cold Water on the Bucket Investing Strategy

The bucket strategy is a commonly used investment strategy, dividing a retirement portfolio into at least two different accounts. One account is invested in a more aggressive manner for future…
Read More.

Ask Claris: Why Do You Use Only One Mutual Fund Company to Manage Portfolios?

It’s not unusual for someone to ask us why we exclusively use one mutual fund company to manage our clients’ portfolios. The simple answer: it’s based on planning and implementation.…
Read More.

For Every Seller, There’s a Buyer

“Sellers were out in force on the market today after negative news on the economy.” It’s a common line in TV finance reports. But have you ever wondered who is…
Read More.

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.