Computer As Confidant: Digital Investment Advice and the Fiduciary Standard

Nicole G. Iannarone
{"title":"Computer As Confidant: Digital Investment Advice and the Fiduciary Standard","authors":"Nicole G. Iannarone","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/8xwf6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Digital investment advisers are the fastest growing segment of financial technology (fintech) and are disrupting traditional investment advisory delivery models. The computer-led investment advisory service model may be growing particularly quickly due to a confluence of social and political factors. Politicians and regulators have increasingly focused on the standards of care applicable to investment advice providers. Fewer Americans are ready for retirement and many lack access to affordable investment advice. At the same time, comfort with digital platforms have increased, with some preferring electronic interaction over human interaction. Claiming that they can democratize retirement service by providing advice meeting a fiduciary standard at a fraction of the traditional pricing model, robo-advisers hope to capitalize on these social movements and argue that they provide a solution: conflict-free advice to investors with portfolios of all sizes. Though they have voluntarily subjected themselves to the requirements of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (1940 Act), questions remain as to how robo-advisers will meet the fiduciary standard required by such registration. The essay recommends a two-pronged approach for the regulation of robo-advisers in the near term. First, existing regulatory tools such as examination, enforcement, and disclosure should be deployed to robustly explore the sufficiency and malleability of their existing parameters before crafting any new regulatory schemes. Second, the disclosure device should be studied to determine whether the intended beneficiary of the disclosure, retail consumers, comprehend the information being disclosed to them and whether changes to the format, delivery, and/or content of disclosures would better protect consumer investors.","PeriodicalId":80917,"journal":{"name":"Chicago-Kent law review","volume":"27 1","pages":"141"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chicago-Kent law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/8xwf6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Digital investment advisers are the fastest growing segment of financial technology (fintech) and are disrupting traditional investment advisory delivery models. The computer-led investment advisory service model may be growing particularly quickly due to a confluence of social and political factors. Politicians and regulators have increasingly focused on the standards of care applicable to investment advice providers. Fewer Americans are ready for retirement and many lack access to affordable investment advice. At the same time, comfort with digital platforms have increased, with some preferring electronic interaction over human interaction. Claiming that they can democratize retirement service by providing advice meeting a fiduciary standard at a fraction of the traditional pricing model, robo-advisers hope to capitalize on these social movements and argue that they provide a solution: conflict-free advice to investors with portfolios of all sizes. Though they have voluntarily subjected themselves to the requirements of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (1940 Act), questions remain as to how robo-advisers will meet the fiduciary standard required by such registration. The essay recommends a two-pronged approach for the regulation of robo-advisers in the near term. First, existing regulatory tools such as examination, enforcement, and disclosure should be deployed to robustly explore the sufficiency and malleability of their existing parameters before crafting any new regulatory schemes. Second, the disclosure device should be studied to determine whether the intended beneficiary of the disclosure, retail consumers, comprehend the information being disclosed to them and whether changes to the format, delivery, and/or content of disclosures would better protect consumer investors.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
计算机作为知己:数字投资建议和信托标准
数字投资顾问是金融科技(fintech)中增长最快的部分,正在颠覆传统的投资咨询交付模式。由于社会和政治因素的共同作用,计算机主导的投资咨询服务模式可能会发展得特别迅速。政界人士和监管机构越来越关注适用于投资咨询提供商的谨慎标准。准备退休的美国人越来越少,许多人无法获得负担得起的投资建议。与此同时,数字平台的舒适度也在提高,一些人更喜欢电子互动,而不是人际互动。机器人顾问声称,他们可以通过提供符合信托标准的建议,以传统定价模式的一小部分来实现退休服务的民主化,他们希望利用这些社会运动,并声称他们提供了一个解决方案:为各种规模的投资组合投资者提供无冲突的建议。尽管他们自愿遵守1940年《投资顾问法》(1940年法案)的要求,但机器人顾问如何达到这种注册所要求的受托标准仍是一个问题。这篇文章建议在短期内对机器人顾问进行双管齐下的监管。首先,在制定任何新的监管计划之前,应部署现有的监管工具,如审查、执法和披露,以有力地探索其现有参数的充分性和延展性。其次,应研究披露手段,以确定披露的预期受益人零售消费者是否理解向他们披露的信息,以及改变披露的格式、交付和/或内容是否能更好地保护消费者投资者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Reflections on Constitutional Changes to the Global Trading System - The Institutional and Jurisdictional Architecture The Public Pension Crisis Through the Lens of State Constitutions and Statutory Law Computer As Confidant: Digital Investment Advice and the Fiduciary Standard Traces of Violence: Gadamer, Habermas, and the Hate Speech Problem: III. Hermeneutics and Critique in Legal Practice Dignity Takings, Dignity Restoration: A Tort Law Perspective
wanfang
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1