Robo
advice has become a buzzword in the financial services domain, and robo
advisory firms are mushrooming at a furious pace in India. A combination of
factors—growing financial literacy among investors (especially in urban
areas), internet penetration, and enhanced awareness about mutual funds, among
others—has contributed to this phenomenon. It can be safely stated that robo
advice is an idea whose time has come.
As
the name suggests, robo advice eliminates human intervention. Instead of an
adviser, the investor is guided by algorithms run on a website. Typically, the
investor feeds in information about his age, risk-taking ability, income and
expenses, current assets and liabilities, financial goals, expected inflation
et al. The robo adviser uses the data to produce a suggested
asset-allocation and a list of mutual funds that can
aid the investor achieve his financial goals while adhering to his risk
appetite. Furthermore, robo advisory firms also enable investors to make
online mutual fund investments thereby acting as distributors too.
To
my mind, several of the robo advisory firms do a decent enough job when it
comes to risk-profiling and arithmetic calculations. Likewise, it is evident
that some have paid due attention to areas such as user interface. It is the
last mile—recommending mutual funds—where most err.
It
is commonplace to see funds being recommended based solely on
performance. Typically, the three-year period is
considered, and top-performing funds make it to the robo adviser's list.
Recommendations are also offered in the form of a portfolio of mutual funds.
Yet again, the three-year showing is the primary factor for picking funds from
various categories. Given the strong showing posted by small/mid-caps in the
recent past, it comes as no surprise that at present several
recommended portfolios have a strong small/mid-cap bias.
A rule
of thumb approach is perceptible in the recommendations. For
instance, investors with a moderate risk appetite are offered large-cap funds.
However, no thought is applied to the nature of the fund. For
instance, a large-cap fund wherein the manager aggressively churns the
portfolio, and draws on factors such as news flow, market sentiment and
momentum while investing might not be suited for a moderate risk-taker. Yet
such funds make the cut thanks to their performance and large-cap classification.
Not
only is making recommendations based solely on performance a
fundamentally flawed approach, it also reveals a poor understanding
of the basics of investing. When the present top-performers are replaced by
others (as it can and does happen in the case of market-linked investments)
will investors be expected to churn their portfolios? Robo advisory firms can’t
take refuge under the premise that their advice is bound to be ‘formulaic’.
There is a difference between formulaic advice and flawed advice.
Don’t
get me wrong. I’m not questioning the utility of robo advice. For
first-time investors and those with uncomplicated investment needs, robo advice
can be the way to go. But robo advisory firms must realise that there
is more to investment advice than just running calculations. Indeed, flawed
advice can significantly hurt investors' interests.
Robo
advisory firms have a huge opportunity at hand. If tapped well, robo advice can
prove to be a game-changer for both the mutual fund and distribution industries.
However ignoring the ‘advice’ aspect of the business will prove to be a
costly miss.
