Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 158

Regulator demands robos understand clients

Quick and simple digital advice makes investing easy, but do the long-term consequences outweigh the short-term benefits? A new report by US market regulator, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), draws attention to this question by sharing the digital investment advice practices employed across the securities industry. It's a reminder of the obligations that come with robo advice and the standards FINRA expects to underpin a financial advice service.

FINRA CEO Richard Katchum questions the adequacy of robo risk tolerance practices when he contrasts them with personal advice delivered by a human advisor:

"The same requirements are in place — the same expectations that you understand your customer, both from the standpoint of what their risk appetites are, and also that you have asked enough questions to really understand their financial situation and that they can accept risk and the risk of loss."

Furthermore, advisors need to be able to explain both to clients and the regulator how their tools and products work. There is no defence in the argument that ‘I'm just following instructions from head office.’ Black-box solutions are not acceptable.

Undergoing a complete investor profile

Many robo advisors do not develop an appropriate investor profile of clients. One of the most fundamental aspects of delivering suitable advice is to ascertain the level of risk that a client is willing to take. This is referenced as ‘risk willingness’ in the FINRA report and is commonly referred to as risk tolerance. The regulator questions whether it's possible to accurately measure the amount of risk that an investor is willing to take by asking a small number of risk tolerance questions – in some cases just one.

There are no lower standards expected for robo advice compared to human advice. FINRA’s ultimate concern is investor protection, and the importance of accurately assessing risk tolerance cannot be ignored. When investors take more risk than they are comfortable with, they are more likely to bail-out of the market when the going gets tough and then wait too long to get back in. This pattern of buy high and sell low makes it difficult for investors to achieve their financial goals. Furthermore, over-exposed investors suffer adverse behavioural reactions to financial loss such as anxiety, loss of sleep, and relationship problems.

It is common industry practice to treat investment time horizon as a sub-factor of risk tolerance when, in fact, time horizon is an aspect of risk required (the level of risk needed to achieve your goals). Simply put, this requirement is a catalyst for change. Most risk tests used in the market place would be non-compliant according to these principles.

FINRA also makes a distinction between risk tolerance and investors’ capacity for loss, making customer profiling critical because it drives recommendations to customers. The message is clearly aimed at the executives at the top of the enterprise:

“Two other areas of digital investment advice - customer risk tolerance assessment and portfolio analysis - reinforces the need for broker-dealers to establish and implement effective governance and supervision of their digital investment advice tool. Good governance involves understanding if the approach to assessing customer risk tolerance is consistent with the firm’s approach. Firms must apply good practices across all distribution channels, not just robo advice.”

Analysis of seven robo recommendations

FINRA details seven robo advisors' portfolio recommendations for a young worker. Let's call him Michael. Of particular concern is the wide range of 60% to 90% in growth asset recommendations and how they match to his risk tolerance. If growth exposures are greater than what is consistent with risk tolerance, then the likelihood increases that the investor will be disturbed by a market correction. If not satisfied by the advice, clients may sell down growth assets at the wrong time, and in the worst cases, seek legal redress. Dissatisfied clients are a blight to all businesses, more so in financial services in the last few years.

Let's assume that Michael has a FinaMetrica risk tolerance score of 50 (out of 100) and is placed in Risk Group 4. Based on a score of 50, Michael would be comfortable with between 39% to 58% growth asset exposure. Most people in Michael’s Risk Group would typically be discomforted when the value of their entire investment fell by 20%.

If we look at the seven portfolios illustrated in the FINRA report from the standpoint of who would be comfortable based on risk tolerance alone, the riskiest portfolio with a 90% exposure to growth assets matches the risk tolerance score of just the top 5% of the population. This rarefied group generally includes hedge fund managers, bankers, entrepreneurs and high risk tolerant individuals.

When we map the seven recommendations (shown by the vertical bars below) on to Michael comfort zones, none of the portfolios is consistent with Michael’s risk tolerance and all but one are in the 'Too Much Risk' red zone.

To test sensitivity, we look at four broadly diversified portfolios with 60%, 70%, 80% and 90% growth assets. These portfolios were back-tested to 1972 using indices rebalanced once a year. Even the 60% equity-exposed portfolio exceeded the 20% drawdown that investors whose risk score is 50 typically tell us they are comfortable with.

We are regularly reminded that the past is not a precursor of the future in terms of investment performance, so we don’t need to be reminded that unhappy investors are a scourge on our industry's/profession's successful and profitable future. If we don't manage the matching of investments to investors' needs effectively, we can be assured that regulators will continue to do it for us. Risk tolerance is not hard to assess accurately, it just needs a little science and a dash of common sense.

 

Paul Resnik is Co-Founder and Director of Finametrica, a risk profiling system that guides ‘best-fit’ investment decisions.

The Australian regulator, ASIC, recently completed its consultation feedback for its own policies on robo advice.

 

2 Comments
Ramani
June 02, 2016

Instead of thinking human and robo advisers as totally compartmentalised, let us think of one as less robo and the other as more human. After all, human advisers do not start from first principles but use a range of established tools and templates, which tend to make the analysis routine and automatic - almost robotic. And to the extent robo conclusions are derived from generalised templates that have withstood experience and critical scrutiny, they replicate human interaction and advice.

On the positive side, unless programmed so, robos would not on their own push their own interests. Humans are notoriously prone in this regard as every major planning disaster has shown.

The very human conflicted advice, the shared inability to predict the future and often remember the past and product complexity are what trip investors most. Either alternative must grapple with it.

Ironic that the US regulator FINRA would like robo advisers to be more like humans. Apart from the dreary record of US regulators (which triggers the circumvention genius of lawyers, accountants and advisers), they must beware of getting their wish: robos may descend to the lowest common denominator of conflicted advisers, who excel in building a secure retirement ( just for themselves), if they do not spend their twilight years in prison - all taken care of!

Ashley
June 02, 2016

Well argued, Paul. It assumes the FINRA case study had a Finametrica score of 50. I wonder what other profiles would have done?

I have a different view on 'risk tolerance. The article perpetuates the flaw that ‘risk tolerance’ is all about ability to stomach temporary falls in portfolio value on the way to the end result (balance at retirement or income stream in retirement). Instead, it should be about the ability to stomach a lower end result - ie permanently lower retirement cash-flow/lifestyle.

The table of numbers at the end also assumes single point outcomes being assured, with the temporary drawdowns (‘worst fall’) being just the occasionally painful path to the assured single point end result. But in the real world it is the end result (retirement balance and retirement cash-flow) that is very rubbery and not assured.

It's a different point of view on what ‘risk’ means.

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

What is robo-advice?

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Is it better to rent or own a home under the age pension?

With 62% of Australians aged 65 and over relying at least partially on the age pension, are they better off owning their home or renting? There is an extra pension asset allowance for those not owning a home.

Too many retirees miss out on this valuable super fund benefit

With 700 Australians retiring every day, retirement income solutions are more important than ever. Why do millions of retirees eligible for a more tax-efficient pension account hold money in accumulation?

Is the fossil fuel narrative simply too convenient?

A fund manager argues it is immoral to deny poor countries access to relatively cheap energy from fossil fuels. Wealthy countries must recognise the transition is a multi-decade challenge and continue to invest.

Reece Birtles on selecting stocks for income in retirement

Equity investing comes with volatility that makes many retirees uncomfortable. A focus on income which is less volatile than share prices, and quality companies delivering robust earnings, offers more reassurance.

Comparing generations and the nine dimensions of our well-being

Using the nine dimensions of well-being used by the OECD, and dividing Australians into Baby Boomers, Generation Xers or Millennials, it is surprisingly easy to identify the winners and losers for most dimensions.

Anton in 2006 v 2022, it's deja vu (all over again)

What was bothering markets in 2006? Try the end of cheap money, bond yields rising, high energy prices and record high commodity prices feeding inflation. Who says these are 'unprecedented' times? It's 2006 v 2022.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

Superannuation: a 30+ year journey but now stop fiddling

Few people have been closer to superannuation policy over the years than Noel Whittaker, especially when he established his eponymous financial planning business. He takes us on a quick guided tour.

Survey: share your retirement experiences

All Baby Boomers are now over 55 and many are either in retirement or thinking about a transition from work. But what is retirement like? Is it the golden years or a drag? Do you have tips for making the most of it?

Interviews

Time for value as ‘promise generators’ fail to deliver

A $28 billion global manager still sees far more potential in value than growth stocks, believes energy stocks are undervalued including an Australian company, and describes the need for resilience in investing.

Superannuation

Paul Keating's long-term plans for super and imputation

Paul Keating not only designed compulsory superannuation but in the 30 years since its introduction, he has maintained the rage. Here are highlights of three articles on SG's origins and two more recent interviews.

Fixed interest

On interest rates and credit, do you feel the need for speed?

Central bank support for credit and equity markets is reversing, which has led to wider spreads and higher rates. But what does that mean and is it time to jump at higher rates or do they have some way to go?

Investment strategies

Death notices for the 60/40 portfolio are premature

Pundits have once again declared the death of the 60% stock/40% bond portfolio amid sharp declines in both stock and bond prices. Based on history, balanced portfolios are apt to prove the naysayers wrong, again.

Exchange traded products

ETFs and the eight biggest worries in index investing

Both passive investing and ETFs have withstood criticism as their popularity has grown. They have been blamed for causing bubbles, distorting the market, and concentrating share ownership. Are any of these criticisms valid?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2022 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.