Wealthy investors choose traditional advisers over robo-advisers

Study finds affluent prefer face-to-face meetings, don't trust online advice platforms

Feb 19, 2015 @ 12:59 pm

By Alessandra Malito

Robo-advisers may be all the rage, but wealthy investors aren't buying into the trend.

On a scale of 1 to 100 (1 being low and 100 being high), wealthy investors rated their knowledge of robo-advisers at 15.47, according to a new Spectrem study. Meanwhile, only 6% said they have ever used a robo-adviser.

Of those, only 47% of respondents characterized themselves as being satisfied with their robo-adviser, compared with 85% of those who said they were satisfied with their traditional adviser, according to the survey.

The survey found that wealthy investors are more likely to use robo-advisers if they already have a traditional adviser with whom they can talk face-to-face about their finances.

“They're hesitant about the concept of sitting down, putting their information in and getting an answer,” Spectrem chief executive George H. Walper, Jr. said. “They would like a relationship with an adviser and then to utilize the technology in conjunction with that.”

In fact, robo-advisers may be an adviser's chance to build a stronger bond with clients or prospects if they implement it.

“At the moment, the introduction of any new technology, younger folks adapt faster,” Mr. Walper said. “It doesn't mean 20 year olds. It means 30 and 40 year olds, which is the sweet spot for financial advisers.”

Indeed, the survey found that 17% of investors 35 and younger and 11% of those ages 36-44 currently use a robo-adviser, compared with 6% of those 45-54, 4% of those 55-64 and 4% of those 65 and older.

Wealthy investors cited a number of reasons why they don't use robo-advisers. For example, 59% do not use them because they are too impersonal, while 36% simply do not trust them. Fifty-percent of wealthy investors prefer to meet their adviser face-to-face.

"Not every client wants the same sort of relationship with an adviser," Mr. Walper said. "But they still view getting help from advisers so advisers can provide the tools."

The Spectrem study broke down the 3,090 respondents in three categories: mass affluent, which is $100,000 to $999,999; millionaire, which is $1,000,000 to $4,999,999; and ultra-high net worth, which is $5,000,000 to $25,000,000.

“Advisers who don't take advantage of technology that is being created every year always runs the risk that they are not going to stay current,” Mr. Walper said. “It's an asset — not a threat.”

0
Comments

What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Featured video

INTV

How men and women think differently about philanthropy

Women are more emotionally connected to their gifts, and want to donate time as well, says special projects editor Liz Skinner.

Latest news & opinion

Cetera brokers may go elsewhere with no stay bonuses on horizon

Some may feel spurned and leave, while others will simply shrug off latest slight and stay.

Fidelity backs away from being 'point in time' fiduciary for 401(k) plans

Some advisers think this indicates other providers will pivot in light of DOL fiduciary rule's death.

Morgan Stanley CEO is happy that brokers are staying put

Firm has seen little attrition since it dumped the broker protocol last fall, Gorman says.

Bills to reform adviser regulation, increase sophisticated investors and protect seniors pass House

Measures included in package of 32 bipartisan bills meant to ease rules, spur investment

Genstar Capital buys majority stake in Cetera Financial Group

The private-equity firm has previously invested in such companies as Mercer Advisors and AssetMark.

X

Hi! Glad you're here and we hope you like all the great work we do here at InvestmentNews. But what we do is expensive and is funded in part by our sponsors. So won't you show our sponsors a little love by whitelisting investmentnews.com? It'll help us continue to serve you.

Yes, show me how to whitelist investmentnews.com

Ad blocker detected. Please whitelist us or give premium a try.

X

Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print