Robo-advice firms need to manage risks

robo-advice alternative finance

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

Completely agree Peter. The definition of 'significant change is circumstances relevant to the scope of the advice' is s...

3 weeks 4 days ago

This verdict highlights something deeply wrong and rotten at the heart of the FSCP. We are witnessing a heavy-handed, op...

1 month ago

Interesting. Would be good to know the details of the StrategyOne deal....

1 month ago

Insignia Financial has confirmed it is considering a preliminary non-binding proposal received from a US private equity giant to acquire the firm. ...

1 week 2 days ago

Six of the seven listed financial advice licensees have reported positive share price growth in 2024, with AMP and Insignia successfully reversing earlier losses. ...

5 days 6 hours ago

Specialist wealth platform provider Mason Stevens has become the latest target of an acquisition as it enters a binding agreement with a leading Sydney-based private equi...

4 days 10 hours ago