Robo-advice firms need to manage risks

1 September 2017
| By Jassmyn |
image
image
expand image

While robo-advice could provide financial advisers with scalability and affordability, it is not without risk, according to Marsh Australia’s financial and professional risk practice, FINPRO.

In a blogpost by FINPRO, its national development leader Andrew Dawson said there were risks involved with two choices firms looking to provide robo-advice would have to make.

The choices were either to enlist a third party to establish and operate the service on the firm’s behalf, or develop proprietary software and dedicate an internal team to running the services.

“In both instances, ASIC [the Australian Securities and Investments Commission] has mandated several requirements within RG 255 [Regulatory Guide 255] that seek to manage the risks inherent with this field,” Dawson said.

Dawson highlighted that among other rules, under RG 255 robo-advice providers must:

  • Be able to demonstrate they had adequate resources;
  • Have adequate business continuity backup and disaster recovery plans for any systems that support the delivery of digital advice to clients;
  • Ensure that when outsourcing functions that relate to digital advice:
    •  There must be measures in place to ensure that due skill and care are taken in choosing suitable outsourced providers, and these providers will be monitored;
    • The licensee that outsources any functions must remain responsible for the financial services provided; and
  • Establish and maintain adequate risk management systems and to have a structured and systemic process for identifying, evaluating and managing risks.

Dawson noted that on cyber risks and information security ASIC was mandating among other things that:

  • You are expected to assess cyber security using recognised frameworks;
  • You must assess IT security arrangements against recognised standards; and
  • You must have in place adequate security compliance measures in regard to cloud technology.

“RG 255 reiterates the need for robo-advice firms to have appropriate professional indemnity (PI) and compensation cover, matching those set out for financial advisers in RG 126,” he said.

“Insurance brokers have a key role to play in helping robo-advice firms to manage these risks.” 

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

GG

So shareholders lose a dividend plus have seen the erosion of value. Qantas decides to clawback remuneration from Alan ...

2 months 1 week ago
Denise Baker

This is why I left my last position. There was no interest in giving the client quality time, it was all about bumping ...

2 months 1 week ago
gonski

So the Hayne Royal Commission has left us with this. What a sad day for the financial planning industry. Clearly most ...

2 months 1 week ago

A Sydney-based financial adviser has been banned from providing financial services in the interest of consumer protection after failing to act on conduct concerns. ...

3 weeks 3 days ago

ASIC has cancelled the AFSL of a $250 million Sydney fund manager, one of two AFSL cancellations announced by the corporate regulator....

3 weeks 1 day ago

Having divested its advice business in August, AMP is undergoing restructuring in at least four other departments amid a cost simplification program....

2 weeks 5 days ago