• Revenue Cycle Management
  • COVID-19
  • Reimbursement
  • Diabetes Awareness Month
  • Risk Management
  • Patient Retention
  • Staffing
  • Medical Economics® 100th Anniversary
  • Coding and documentation
  • Business of Endocrinology
  • Telehealth
  • Physicians Financial News
  • Cybersecurity
  • Cardiovascular Clinical Consult
  • Locum Tenens, brought to you by LocumLife®
  • Weight Management
  • Business of Women's Health
  • Practice Efficiency
  • Finance and Wealth
  • EHRs
  • Remote Patient Monitoring
  • Sponsored Webinars
  • Medical Technology
  • Billing and collections
  • Acute Pain Management
  • Exclusive Content
  • Value-based Care
  • Business of Pediatrics
  • Concierge Medicine 2.0 by Castle Connolly Private Health Partners
  • Practice Growth
  • Concierge Medicine
  • Business of Cardiology
  • Implementing the Topcon Ocular Telehealth Platform
  • Malpractice
  • Influenza
  • Sexual Health
  • Chronic Conditions
  • Technology
  • Legal and Policy
  • Money
  • Opinion
  • Vaccines
  • Practice Management
  • Patient Relations
  • Careers

Robo-Advisors Revisited: Why Automated Advising Isn't Flourishing


In an earlier column, we looked at what appeared to be an unstoppable trend: The move toward automated investment advice, also known as "robo-advising." Lately, however, the concept has hit a rough patch.

Though robo-advisors may fade in future years, they could leave us with a valuable legacy.

Can investors give up the good feelings a mortal imparts in exchange for paying less for financial advice?” That is a question I asked in an earlier column about the use of robo-advisors, Internet services that deliver programmed computer-generated portfolio management, some with minor human intervention and others with none. My conclusion, “When people can make money by saving it, they frequently choose that option; they (robo-advisors) are here to stay.”

As it turns out, this conclusion may have been premature. Robo-advisors may not be here to stay. This is according to Michael Kites in his May 2 column, “The B2C Robo-Advisor Movement Is Dying, But Its #FinTech Legacy Will Live On!” “B2C” refers to business-to-consumer marketing as opposed to B2B (business-to-business) marketing. Firms that offer robo-advisors advertise directly to consumers; thereby, they are B2C. FinTech refers to financial technology that strives to make financial services more efficient.

Kites tells us that the cost of gaining a client for robo-advisors such as Betterment and Wealthfront is higher than the value of the client to the company over the client’s lifetime (meaning that they are losing money). This is because their customers tend to be weighted toward small accounts, which do not produce much revenue for the companies in their lifetime. As an example, Betterment’s average account size has remained about $20,000 since the fourth quarter of 2014. Evidently, Wealthfront has not done much better. Without the streaming revenue from larger accounts, robos will be forced to fade and almost certainly finally die out.

Nevertheless, Kites says, even if robos perish, they will have a place in the history of financial planning. This is because they challenged the investment industry with their novel computerized approach and thereby jolted it into investing in new software similar to that of robo-advisors. This created a revolutionary product for clients which Vanguard and Schwab are already using. Thus, in combination with the traditional touch of established investment companies, a morphed robo-advisor software is making an impact on the industry, though not in the package in which it was originally conceived.

For More:

What is Your Advisor Charging You?

Your Advisor's Compensation Has Increased Dramatically

Taking Control of Your Finances

Contain Expenses to Increase Returns

Related Videos
Victor J. Dzau, MD, gives expert advice
Victor J. Dzau, MD, gives expert advice