I am not surprised by the findings of a new survey which suggests that the over-50s are cold-shouldering robo advice.
The study found that 8 in 10 over-50s would avoid financial advice from a robo-adviser and nearly 9 in 10 would be unwilling to give details of their finances to a robo.
One assumption here might be that the over-50s are less tech savvy than younger generations and therefore nervous about trusting potentially life-changing financial decisions to an online-only provider.
Not so, says the survey by fintech firm Visible Capital. In fact the over-50s are pretty tech savvy these days, quite happy to spend hours online to save a fiver on their car insurance or home energy.
So what’s really going on here? On the face of it the robo-adviser experiment has failed dismally to become a mass proposition although I think it wise to say it is too young for prime time. As technology evolves and the tools get better there is potentially scope for robo to find a bigger niche but at present consumers are lukewarm at most on a purely automated, online offering.
{loadposition hidden2}
For many people, over-50s or those under 50, what they really want is a financial adviser they can trust, who will not scam them and will make life easier for them, in whatever form that is provided. Most savers and investors like technology that is reliable and quick but they also want to know they can talk to a human being if they need to.
One obvious solution to this need is a bridge between robo and full service Financial Planning or, in other words, hybrid advice, a blend between robo and in-person advice.
Some wealth managers and Financial Planners are waking up to the potential of hybrid and the next 10 years could see several providers having a go to make this proposition work. I believe it is that likely some will be successful.
One route for the robos is to develop hybrid solutions but at the same time wealth managers are also heading down the same road. Competition will intensify.
One interesting fact that has rarely been reported is that most financial providers and investment houses already have stakes in robo firms. Keeping their options open might be one way to look at this.
Financial Planners should also keep their options open and keep a watching brief. Their personal, friendly, full-service proposition is difficult to beat or replicate but it is costly to deliver. It is potentially at risk of price competition.
Some clients in the future may be willing to sacrifice the long, in-person chats in the office over a nice cup of coffee for a cheaper option that includes a video call once or twice a year. Not all but some.
One interesting new development in the hybrid space, I noticed recently, is the recently-launched NatWest Video Banking service offering customers a friendly video chat to discuss their finances. The banks have not given up the battle just yet.
Kevin O’Donnell is editor of Financial Planning Today and a journalist with 40 years of experience in finance, business and mainstream news. This topical comment on the Financial Planning news appears most weeks, usually on Fridays but occasionally other days. Follow @FPT_Kevin
{loadmoduleid 444}
Leave a Reply