I think some of the earlier comments about the need for programmers with a finance background is plausible, but the problem I have is that programmers are nothong more than a glorified version of a ‘construction worker’.
Robo advisors are fine for just manging a straight-forward 4 family member middle class american’s retirement account.
It is, however, not an all-round great solution for high-wealth clients who’s situation is much more complex and needs to be babysat. Do we really care about the $500k-750k client who just wants the lowest cost and most straight-forward approach?
No, We don’t. Get up to speed on actually managing wealth vs. selling mutual funds with fees >100bps and you’ll be okay.
Demand but low-cost demand. No one really wants to reinvent a manual process for more than the benefit they’re receiving from the actual automation. If the cost to automate, including execution risk, is more than a couple years worth of a manual workers salary, it will not be automated. No exeutive would take on that career risk.
Additionally, a lot of these jobs that are being automated are already performed by low cost workers in Asia. In some cases, these same low cost workers are the one’s who are automating their own processes, effectively laying themselves off.
If this isn’t true and the work is still being done onshore in the US, then that company is a decade behind already and has a lot of catch up to do.
^ i am more talking about programmers/developers that have backgrounds in finance than can fill 2 positions at any firm/fund.
a lot of shops demand that over just a standard programmer/developer.
i am not talking about automation since you cant do that yet with these jobs.
quants with finance backgrounds are in demand for sure
I don’t that there’s any substitute for real human advice, IMHO. As much as it shouldn’t be, investing is still a very personal and emotional process for most people.
Ah, but in the land where buildings are being built and demand is high, this is not a bad prospect. The problem I have with non-programmer, qualitative-only types is that they are nothing more than a glorified “bullshitter / storyteller.”
It’s true that a certain amount of financial advising is “glorified hand-holding.” Usually with the other hand deep in the guy’s pockets.
+1,000. If one needs a counselor, they should get a counselor. Much cheaper visits in the long run compared to a financial advisor. If someone wants financial advice, they can select any number of reasonable asset allocation templates and fill up the asset classes with a combination of passive and active strategies; i.e., what any roboadvisor can do and will suffice for 99% of the general investing population.
Oh, and Mr. Fifty-K-A-Year, please also turn off CNBC and Bloomberg, and stop bothering me at family functions for a “hot stock tip.” You are not Carl Icahn.
This is usually when investors need the most help as to prevent them from doing something really stupid like selling their entire portfolio and going to cash.
^ I agree that this has value… it’s just that that amount of value often does not justify the part of my quote that you left out…
Ultimately, if people want to be stupid, they will be stupid. A financial advisor is a person’s advisor, it’s not their dad.
Carl Icahn bothers you at family functions for stock tips?
Well for alot of investors, preventing them from making the big mistake has value as they would likely not be able to ever recover financially.
How do you think that old coot has been so successful?