The 11 leading robo-advisers—firms that leverage client
information and algorithms to develop automated portfolio allocation—had $19
billion in assets under management at the end of 2014. This is according to a
report from Deloitte titled, “Robo-Advisors: Capitalizing on a Growing Opportunity.”
“However, these new market entrants are still nascent and
represent a trivial amount relative to the $25 trillion retail investable
assets in the United States,” Deloitte says. “Their lack of distribution has
likely contributed to difficulties in reaching a large number of potential
customers.” But with large wealth management firms like Charles Schwab and Vanguard now
entering the fray, that might change, Deloitte predicts.
The reason why robo-advisers might gain traction is they typically provide advice for as little as 20 basis points and in some cases, at no charge, according to Deloitte They might also appeal to younger investors who are digitally savvy and
want to access their portfolios anywhere and anytime.
It also cannot be overlooked that some wealth management firms are investing
heavily in “big data and advanced analytics,” potentially leading to more
personalized advice. And, some wealth management firms are combining
robo-advice with their existing advisory offerings for a hybrid model. Finally,
technology has lowered the barriers for firms to offer robo-advice—and Deloitte
thinks “non-financial firms with access to large numbers of retail investors
and leading-edge technology firms will likely also enter wealth management
through a robo-advice model.”
NEXT: How adviser practices should
respond
Advisory practices that serve high-net-worth individuals who
can afford person-to-person advice may not want to embrace these new
robo-advice developments. However, those
that serve the mass-market “will likely need to embrace digital strategies and
tools to help maintain competitive advantage in this new market environment,”
Deloitte says. “Although it is only the beginning, wealth managers should
react, as this hybrid service model will likely become the new norm.”
Deloitte outlines three ways advisers can enter the robo-adviser field. They
can partner with an existing robo-adviser, which will help them avoid the costs
and risks of building a solution to fit their legacy systems. An example of
this is Fidelity Investments partnering with Betterment. They can go the
in-house route, which gives them the control to offer various functions. Vanguard
and Charles Schwab have taken this approach. Or, they can acquire a
robo-adviser, like Northwestern Mutual’s purchase of Learnvest.
“Robo-advice is here to stay and poised to
evolve into much more disruptive and wide-ranging forms of advice. All wealth
management firms should take notice,” Deloitte concludes. Deloitte’s report can
be downloaded here.
By using this site you agree to our network wide Privacy Policy.
With financial market headlines dominated by events in Greece
and China, market volatility has led to significant equity price swings in
recent weeks.
Despite the ups and downs, investment managers and
strategists overwhelmingly urge retirement plan advisers to counsel
participants to remain invested and level-headed. They also say it is critical
for advisers to consistently underscore the benefits of buy-and-hold investing
so that when fluctuations do occur, the rationale and unyielding approach to
investing has been firmly set.
“Volatility is the price you pay for good investment
returns,” says Paul Blease, director of the CEO Advisor Institute at OppenheimerFunds
in Dallas. “If you don’t want volatility, you will get a low, below-inflation
rate return. I tell my clients that the ticket to high returns is being able to
handle volatility.” In fact, Blease, along with Brian Levitt, senior investment
strategist with OppenheimerFunds in New York, have written a book, “Compelling
Wealth Management Conversations,” specifically to give advisers reasons they
can give to investors to stay invested based on three principles of sound
investing. These are “consistency, courage and balance.”
“If you cannot exercise courage, you will underperform in
life, and the same is true of your investment portfolio,” Blease says. “We want
to help clients understand that when you have those downdrafts, if you can’t
exercise courage, you don’t belong in the markets.”
Susan Viston, client portfolio manager at Voya Investment
Management in New York, agrees that managing the “psychological missteps” of
investing is an important function of advisers. “Investors are more susceptible
to that during heightened market volatility. Investors 10 years or less from
retirement are probably the most vulnerable to market events, and it is even
more important for them to stick with their long-term investing goals based on
their risk tolerance and horizon. While they need to significantly reduce their
equity exposure as they reach retirement, reacting to short-term headline news
can harm their long-term goals.”
NEXT: Chasing
performance doesn’t work
Viston points to a report from Dalbar published earlier this
year, “21st Quantitative Analysis of Investor Behavior,” which suggests the
average equity mutual fund investor underperformed the S&P 500 by 8.19
percentage points in 2014, with the average investor earning 5.50% compared
with the S&P 500’s 13.69% return. In 2014, the average fixed-income mutual
fund investor underperformed the Barclay’s Aggregate Bond Index by 4.81
percentage points (gaining 1.16% versus 5.97%).
The gap between the 20-year annualized return of the average
equity mutual fund investor and the 20-year annualized return of the S&P
500 widened for the second year in a row from 4.20% to 4.66% due to the large
underperformance of 2014, Dalbar said. “No matter what the state of the mutual
fund industry—boom or bust—investment results are more dependent on investor
behavior than on fund performance,” Dalbar says. “Mutual fund investors who
hold on to their investments have been more successful than those who try to
time the market.”
John Kulhavi, managing director with Merrill Lynch in Farmington
Hills, Michigan, agrees that remaining invested in the stock market is a sound
approach, especially for those retirement plan participants with a long time
horizon. “Historically, over any reasonable period of time, stocks outperform
bonds,” Kulhavi says. “Earnings drive stock prices. In between earnings, we may
face economic and international challenges, but they are historically short
lived and are good buying opportunities.”
As far as what is transpiring in Greece and China, Kulhavi says that Greece represents 1% of the Europe’s GDP and 0.03% of the world’s
GDP. “What happens there is negligible,” he says. While the Greek economy
contracted 25%, unemployment has risen to 20%, and it will be hard for it to
pay back the $352.7 billion in debt that it owes to the European Union and the
International Monetary Fund, “it has little impact on our country.”
China is a bit of a different story because of our exports
to its neighbors, Kulhavi says. Putting fears of the economic contraction in
China in perspective, he notes that “everyone is worried that their GDP growth
will drop.” China only represents 7% of our exports, he adds, but 50% of our exports
go to emerging markets. “They do business with China, so it could have some
impact.”
NEXT: Volatility is
here to stay
Whether it’s Greece or China, markets are always going to
face volatility, Levitt says. “There has been a greater than 5% market
correction every year going back to 1980,” he says. “Yet if you look at most
calendar years, 26 out of the past 34, the stock market has been positive.
Investors get worried, yes, but long-term investors who overlook political and
economic factors and who stick with the principles of investing do quite well.”
Kulhavi notes that in the 10 years between 1995 and 2014,
there was a lot of volatility, the worst of which was the 37% decline in the
S&P 500 in 2008. “Yet, if you stayed fully invested, $1 then would be $6.50
today,” he says. This is why Merrill Lynch advisers spend 75% of their time
managing portfolios and the rest managing emotions, he says.
Blease concurs: “There is always headline risk. You can’t
find a six-month period of time in the country’s history when there wasn’t a
reason to worry. Don’t allow the headlines to drive your investments.”
There will always be factors threatening the market, agrees
Judy Ward, senior financial planner with T. Rowe Price in Baltimore. That’s why
it is important that “investors focus on the factors they can control: how much
they are saving and to be properly allocated according to their time horizon
and risk tolerance,” Ward says. Advisers are in a great position to help
investors have a balanced allocation they can stick with during periods of
stress. “Advisers should tell them they have their best interest at heart and
can help them through these periods of volatility.”
However, Mike Chadwick, president of Chadwick Financial
Advisors in Unionville, Connecticut, is not a big proponent of buy-and-hold. In
the event of a market downturn, he may reallocate his clients’ portfolios. “I
will not sit back and watch a client’s portfolio get decimated,” he says. He
also approaches investing for those who are 10 to 20 years away from retiring
more cautiously. That said, Chadwick notes that market downturns present buying
opportunities. “Volatility is a double-edged sword. That is when the best
opportunities are available,” he says.
NEXT: The challenges
of a 30-year retirement
While some advisers like Ward and Chadwick say that plan
participants with only 10 or 20 years until they retire should scale back their
equity exposure, others, like Blease, point out that as longevity is
increasingly, investors may have no other choice but to maintain a fairly high
exposure to equities. A 65-year-old retiring today needs to support a 25- or
30-year-long retirement, he observes.
And as to whether a severe market correction like 2008 could
threaten investors’ and retirees’ portfolios again, Kulvahi doubts it for two
reasons: “The derivatives that the banks traded are now restricted, and the
government has raised capital requirements on the banks.”
The government also exercised sound fiscal and monetary
policies in the Great Recession, having learned lessons from the Great Depression,
Blease says. “During the Great Depression, the Fed withheld capital from the
system. As a result, 50% of all of the banks in the country failed. Businesses
couldn’t operate, leading to massive unemployment,” he says. “In the Great
Recession, we liquefied the market and kept the banks open. Only 0.6% of banks
closed. This kept people employed. Compared to the Great Depression, it was a
cakewalk.”
The bottom line is that because downturns and market pressures
do occur, advisers must address the need to stick with the markets with their
participants “throughout market cycles, so that when the bout of volatility
occurs, those conversations have already taken place,” Levitt says.