This is what has happened since Charles Schwab launched Schwab
Intelligent Portfolios last month, becoming the first major
investment company to leap into the so-called "robo-advisory"
market.
These automated portfolio management services use algorithms to
select a mix of mostly low-cost ETFs for clients who answer online
inputs, and then manage the accounts. The field’s early leaders are
Wealthfront (https://www.wealthfront.com/)and Betterment (https://www.betterment.com/).
Schwab Intelligent Portfolios' debut prompted an attack by the chief
executive officer of Wealthfront, Adam Nash. He charged in a widely
circulated blog post that the service marked a departure from
Schwab's core values of transparency, low cost and putting customers
first.
"Much to my dismay, I now find myself hoping we never lose our
identity the way Charles Schwab has. It's my hope that we always
place our clients first and show them the transparency they
deserve."
That prompted an angry response from Schwab: "Adam wishes he could
build a moat around Wealthfront and protect it against competition.
But misrepresenting facts isn't the way to do that."
The Wealthfront-Schwab food fight focuses on some specific
criticisms of the new Schwab service's fees and portfolio structure.
But it also illustrates a much broader phenomenon that retirement
investors should understand: the growing links between allegedly
independent, unconflicted advisory services and owners of those
services who push proprietary investment products.
CHANGE IN THE AIR
The Schwab launch is just one recent sign of change. Last week, the
Northwestern Mutual [NMLIC.UL] Life Insurance company bought
LearnVest, a tech-enabled registered investment advisory firm that
had tried to stake out turf as an independent player providing
holistic planning advice. Learnvest is not a robo-adviser; it does
not manage assets. But the acquisition will turn LearnVest into a
giant lead generator for Northwestern Mutual products.
Vanguard Group is beta-testing Personal Advisor Services, a
home-grown planning service that will offer only Vanguard funds.
The threat to upstarts like Wealthfront is real. Schwab is off to a
fast start, attracting more than a half billion dollars in assets in
just three weeks; Vanguard’s service already is managing $10
billion.
With big players moving in, the potential pitfall is home cooking.
This problem is at the crux of the criticism traditional brokerage
firms face.
[to top of second column] |
"On the one hand, you have unconflicted fiduciaries, from the
independent RIAs to the "pure" robo-advisers, and on the other hand,
you have brokerage firms in the business of manufacturing and
distributing financial products and using 'advice' as a vehicle for
selling product," says Michael Kitces, partner and director of
research for Maryland-based Pinnacle Advisory Group.
That's not new, he notes. "It's just 'new' when the companies using
advice to sell their proprietary products happen to be Vanguard and
Schwab, companies we've traditionally put on the 'other side' of the
self-interested-products line."
For investors, the biggest challenge is fee transparency.
Wealthfront charges an advisory fee of 0.25 percent on accounts with
more than $10,000 in assets, plus fees on Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs)
averaging 0.15 percent.
Schwab advertises Intelligent Portfolios as charging "no advisory
fees." Yet a portion of investor's funds are invested in the
company's proprietary "smart beta" ETFs, which carry higher fees
than market-weighted funds. A Schwab spokesman says those fees
actually are lower than Wealthfront’s total costs, ranging from 0.18
percent for a conservative portfolio to 0.26 percent for an
aggressive portfolio.
One big caveat: Cash is the other way Schwab will make money.
Customers will be required to hold 6 to 30 percent of their accounts
in cash. It's not possible yet to gauge how much extra cost that
will add.
And that's the key problem with home-cooked advisory services.
Technology has opened the door to bring low-cost planning and
investment advice to middle-market retirement savers. But if the
entry of big-foot players moves the field away from transparent,
independent advice and into selling, we will lose a great
opportunity to offer a square deal to small retirement savers.
(Editing by Lauren Young, Beth Pinsker and David Gregorio)
[© 2015 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2015 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |