Is a Robo-Adviser Right for You? The Pros and Cons

2 4 minutes read

Is a Robo-Adviser Right for You? The Pros and Cons

Robo-adviser platforms began to emerge in 2008 during the Great Financial Crisis. The initial hype created widespread speculation that they would replace traditional human financial professionals.

However, the idea has since faded, and many of the original entrants in this space have either been acquired or shut down. Today, most of the remaining robo-adviser platforms are run by the largest and most well-known U.S. asset managers, with only a few independent providers remaining.

As of November 2024, Vanguard runs the largest robo-adviser platform, with $333 billion in assets under management (AUM) and 805,000 users. Betterment and Wealthfront round out the top three robo-advisers.

Subscribe to Kiplinger’s Personal Finance

Be a smarter, better informed investor.

Save up to 74%

Sign up for Kiplinger’s Free E-Newsletters

Profit and prosper with the best of expert advice on investing, taxes, retirement, personal finance and more – straight to your e-mail.

Profit and prosper with the best of expert advice – straight to your e-mail.

The Kiplinger Building Wealth program handpicks financial advisers and business owners from around the world to share retirement, estate planning and tax strategies to preserve and grow your wealth. These experts, who never pay for inclusion on the site, include professional wealth managers, fiduciary financial planners, CPAs and lawyers. Most of them have certifications including CFP®, ChFC®, IAR, AIF®, CDFA® and more, and their stellar records can be checked through the SEC or FINRA.

Many investors question whether a robo-adviser is right for them. This article explores the pros and cons to consider when comparing whether you should try a robo-adviser or work with a traditional financial planner.

The benefits of robo-advisers

Traditionally, robo-adviser platforms offer portfolio management and rebalancing for a low fee. Robo-advisers typically offer low account minimums and charge less in fees than financial advisers.

For example, Vanguard, known for its low-cost mutual funds, charges 0.15% (or 15 basis points) on assets under management (AUM) in its basic digital robo-adviser program. Betterment, another major platform, charges 0.25% for its service.

In these cases, investors are mostly paying for a model portfolio, a collection of five to eight exchange-traded funds (ETFs) curated based on a predefined investment strategy, and automated trading of that portfolio.

For investors who aren’t comfortable constructing a portfolio on their own but don’t need personalized financial planning, robo-advisers can be an attractive solution. Some robo-adviser platforms also advertise tax-loss harvesting, but this feature is often limited to larger account minimums.

Additionally, many robo-advisers offer mobile applications, making it easy for investors to manage their accounts, monitor account balances and track performance. The onboarding process is typically quick and walks the investor through a risk tolerance questionnaire to fit them with a recommended asset allocation.

Based on the investor responses, they may be assigned an aggressive growth strategy, a balanced portfolio or a conservative allocation. Once that allocation is approved, the funds are normally invested in low-cost ETFs or mutual funds and then rebalanced as needed.

One benefit of a robo-adviser for investors is access to institutionally designed portfolios that may be more diversified than what they would have built themselves. Therefore, managing risk is also a key benefit of the robo-adviser experience.

The downsides of robo-advisers

While robo-advisers are low-cost and easy to use, they come with limitations. Their simplicity often means they are unable to handle complex financial situations.

For example, an investor with multiple accounts who wants to take advantage of more advanced asset location strategies, such as placing equities in a Roth IRA and more tax-efficient assets in a taxable account, may find a robo-adviser platform inadequate.

Similarly, investors with more complex asset allocation needs won’t be well-suited for a robo-adviser.

For example, if an investor has some low-basis concentrated stock positions or legacy assets they don’t plan to liquidate and need to build a portfolio around, this will be difficult with a robo solution.

Additionally, an investor who owns stock options or a business will require more than an off-the-shelf asset allocation model.

High-net-worth investors looking for additional portfolio enhancements, such as alternative asset classes and private equity, won’t be able to access these in a typical robo-adviser portfolio. A robo-adviser trading model isn’t equipped to accommodate illiquid positions, which many newer investment alternative strategies involve.

The robo-adviser trading algorithm typically requires all positions to be tradable or it cannot propose and process trades automatically.

The major providers, like Vanguard, Schwab and Betterment, seem to be very aware of these platform limitations, as they all offer some form of enhanced service with their robo platforms to access human financial professionals — but for an additional fee.

Looking for expert tips to grow and preserve your wealth? Sign up for Building Wealth, our free, twice-weekly newsletter.

More and more, investors need financial planning advice in our rapidly changing world. While an algorithm can propose a portfolio based on risk tolerance, it lacks important contextual information.

Additionally, there could be important situations where a financial adviser, through direct interaction, can better assess a client’s comfort with the market than an online questionnaire.

In many situations, a financial adviser would recommend a specific allocation based on comprehensive financial planning with the client, which may be different than what the trading algorithm would recommend.

Conclusion

Paying a robo-adviser platform and then adding the cost of working with a financial professional may put your total cost closer to the cost of hiring a traditional financial adviser.

When robo-advisers originally launched, the industry expected investors to abandon human advisers and fundamentally change the financial industry. That has not come to pass.

More likely, robo-advisers appealed to a small subset of investors seeking low-cost portfolios without additional advice.

However, as those investors age and plan for future life transitions, there will likely come a point in time where robo-adviser clients actively seek out more comprehensive and full-service financial advice.

This article was written by and presents the views of our contributing adviser, not the Kiplinger editorial staff. You can check adviser records with the SEC or with FINRA.

Source link