Tag Archives: robo-advisers

WealthBar takes robo-adviser service across the country

teanicola
Tea Nicola, Wealthbar (LinkedIn)

Since I expect robo-advisers will make great strides in 2015, it’s perhaps fitting that the first full week of the new year kicked off with an announcement that Vancouver-based WealthBar is rolling out it service across the rest of Canada.

WealthBar, which describes itself as the country’s “only full service online adviser,” issued a press release Monday advising that it has registered with each provincial regulator across Canada. The company uses low-cost ETF portfolios to deliver online personal financial planning.

Human advice alongside the “robo” advisor

And while it does use the inevitable term “robo-adviser” in the release, it hastens to clarify that the service also includes “access to a real live financial adviser for less than half the cost of most mutual funds.” This “personal financial adviser” will answer specific questions about investing and insurance and provide help with financial plans.

“We’d like to help all Canadians understand how to save money effectively and efficiently,” says Tea Nicola, CEO and co-founder of WealthBar (and daughter of well-known Vancouver financial planner John Nicola). “It’s about knowing how and when you will reach your goals as well as getting the right advice to make the best decisions whenever personal circumstances change.”

Ms. Nicola says WealthBar’s financial planning tool is free to use for everyone. Currently, anyone who signs up also gets a free planning session with a human financial advisor. “We understand that human touch is still important for good financial planning so we made the advisor a key part of the WealthBar experience right from the beginning.”

wealthbarlogo

For more, see www.wealthbar.com. And for more background on roboadvisers in general enter the term here at the Hub’s search engine on the top right of the main page. (While the release spells it as “roboadvisor” we at the Hub are sticking  with MoneySense’s use of the e in adviser and so robo-adviser).

 

Guest Blog: How to pick a robo-adviser

Sandi-Casual-Small
Fee-only Planner Sandi Martin

By Sandi Martin

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

In general, I don’t believe there’s ever much new under the investment sun; common-sense, low-cost, boringly well-diversified and regularly rebalanced portfolio management doesn’t sell newspapers, does it?

But the advent of online investment advice and management (robo-advisors, if you prefer) to the Canadian market is news, and — unlike much of what passes as financial “news” these days — it’s news that regular investors pursuing findependence should be paying attention to. For once, it’s an innovation whose promise to make common-sense investing cheaper and easier — and findependence closer — is believable.

I have only one caveat, and it’s for those of you close enough to findependence to start thinking about spending that money rather than saving it: the decumulation advice that these companies are offering now hasn’t had a chance to mature and develop as fully as it should.

It seems that the broad attitude is “yes, it’s important and we want to offer great withdrawal planning, but we’ll develop an advice framework and some good tools for that once we have more clients who are closer to needing it”.

How (and Why) to Choose between NestWealth, Wealth Simple, WealthBar, Shareowner and Steadyhand

The point of this post: Each online investment management company has a slightly different fee structure and value proposition. Calculating their relative cost for your circumstances will let you compare their relative value depending on the kind of service you want to pay for. (Includes a link to the Canadian Online Investment Advisor Fee Calculator.)

Canadian investors have traditionally had three choices for their savings:

  1. Open up a self-directed brokerage account and invest directly in stocks, bonds, ETFs or mutual funds.
  2. Go to the bank or invite that mutual fund/insurance salesperson you met while you were dropping your kids off at school over to your house, who will sell you mutual or segregated funds that cost in excess of 2% per year and pay her a commission based on the kind of funds they are and how expensive they are for you to own.
  3. Find a fee-only investment manager close enough to you to do business with, provided you have enough money (somewhere in the $500,000 to $1,000,000 range), and feel that paying 1-1.5% annually on that money is worth the management and financial planning advice you’ll get.
As a financial planner and occasional personal finance blogger, it’s really very tempting to look at each of these companies and declare a winner based on cost alone, or the combination (or lack) of services I value most, or what I think the average investor should want from portfolio construction.
But the reality is that each of us falls somewhere along parallel spectrums: an ability spectrum that moves from “comfortable with DIY” to “needs full-service advice,” and an asset spectrum that starts at “small nest egg” and runs all the way to “significantly large pile of money.” In short, you and I and the neighbour across the road might all need more or less help with more or less money, and while one provider might be a perfect fit for me, another might be just the ticket for you.

 

 

I unequivocally believe that — provided you have the relatively small amount of time necessary to set it up and maintain it and the relatively large amount of intestinal fortitude to stick with your plan no matter what the markets are doing — a self-directed, simple Couch Potato portfolio of low-cost, index ETFs is the best investment strategy for most Canadians.

A reasonably intelligent person should be able to follow an able guide like John Robertson’s soon-to-be-released The Value of Simple and do just fine, sometimes in combination with the service of an advice-only planner like me or most of the people on this list from MoneySense Magazine, or possibly by paying for the DIY Investor Service offered by PWL Capital to get set up.

 Advantages of getting your money managed
 

But there are valid reasons to want someone else to manage your investments on an ongoing basis for you. Sound asset allocation, rebalancing across multiple accounts, and tax-efficiency can be worth paying for if you’re not going to be up to bothering with it yourself.  And the value you get from having a calm sounding board when markets (or market noise) get crazy might actually be priceless if — like most of us — you’re tempted to get out of the market when you shouldn’t and question your plan just when you should be sticking to it dispassionately.

Really Important Sidebar

I want to be really, really clear about costs here: the lower you can get your annual investing costs, the better off you’ll be. This can’t be overstated. Seemingly small amounts add up over a lifetime of investing to very large amounts of your savings (see this post from Michael James on Money for a good set of charts). However, the question shouldn’t be “what’s the lowest cost?,” it should be “what’s the lowest cost that I will stick with?”

I also want to be clear that “investment management” and “financial planning” are not the same thing: financial planning is the context, the “what do I want my money to do for me,” and investment management is the tool, the “and this is how my money is going to do it.” It’s one of many tools, and (often) not the most important one. (End of Really Important Sidebar

Online Investment Option Calculator

If you’re seriously looking at what the online advisors are offering (and you should be), I’d invite you to use the Canadian Online Investment Option Calculator** as a starting point to calculate the relative cost of each service. With that information, you can compare the different services based on where you fall on the “how much money do you have?” spectrum. That’s the objective part of the choice.

The subjective part of the choice (although each provider would probably argue it’s not subjective at all) is all the rest of the information you should spend some time gathering, preferably by calling each provider available in your province or territory, telling them where you fall on the “needs little advice” to “needs lots of advice” spectrum, and simply asking:

  • how the portfolios are constructed
  • how often they’re rebalanced
  • what institution is the custodian for your money
  • whether financial planning is included in the fee, if it’s purely investment management, or if all you’re paying for is access to the model portfolio with no other advice
  • whether your money is managed across accounts as a single portfolio or whether each account is managed separately
  • how simple it is to give them your money and get on with your life, and how simple and jargon-free the statements, online dashboard, and any ongoing communications are
  • how often you’re able to talk to someone if you need to get persuaded off the ledge while the markets go crazy
  • how well-developed their retirement income and decumulation strategies are
Again, the answers to these questions and the results of the calculator should function as a guide to your decision. The decision itself is yours, and might be based on characteristics that I haven’t even mentioned.

If you’re investing at the bank or with a salesperson that comes to your door, and have decided against investing on your own, write this down on a piece of paper right now:

“I will give myself until (date — no more than a month from now) to investigate the different online invesment options, and then I will decide on one and start the transfer process”

If you’re investing with an asset manager who’s charging you a percent of your total assets to manage them, and have decided against investing on your own, write this down on a piece of paper right now:

“I will give myself until (date – no more than a month from now) to investigate the different online investment options, compare the service they offer to the service I’m actually getting from my asset manager, and then I will decide whether to continue with my asset manager, negotiate a lower fee, or start the transfer process”

Or you can make a decision by virtue of not taking any action at all, and continue to pay for an Advisor Six-Pack, pay a high price for services you’re not actually receiving, and be more susceptible to fear, error, bias, and fund-of-the-month-itis.

*Not to be confused with their build your own portfolio service, which – for the purposes of this comparison – isn’t a contender.

**I have to thank John Robertson, blogger behind holypotato.net and author of The Value of Simple for his invaluable assistance with the vagaries of conditional formatting and =if formulas, as well as Randy Cass of NestWealth, Tea Nicola of WealthBar, Michael Katchen of Wealthsimple, Bruce Seago of ShareOwner, and David Toyne of Steadyhand for their remarkably candid responses to my very wordy emails and many, many questions. Any errors in either the calculator or the information are purely mine.

Sandi Martin is an ex-banker and fee-only/advice-only financial planner who specializes in working with regular folks who suspect their money might be a bit of a mess. She lives in beautiful Muskoka with her husband and three children, and works online and by phone with clients across Canada. (You can also find her listed here at the Hub under the Getting Help tab).  This piece is adapted with Sandi’s permission from one that appeared on Nov. 18th on her Spring blog.)

Momentum not slowing for “Light Advice” model, (aka Robo-advisers)

A few days ago here at the Hub, we spoke on behalf of the new “Light Advice” startups in Canada and declared “Don’t call us Robo-Advisers.” That’s because most of them have plentiful access to real humans if clients so desire it.

I’ve updated that blog and noted that so far I’ve heard from clients of Wealth Simple, but not yet the other major players. Those willing to tell us about their experience (with or without your real name, as you wish) can email me at jonathan@findependenceday.com.

Just today, I wrote an update on this for the Investor Education Fund’s Getting Smarter About Money blog. The thrust of the piece is to describe what this model is all about and whether it’s appropriate for you.

Don’t call us robo-advisers, we deliver “light advice”

Cute Robot
DepositPhotos

Lots of ink for so-called robo-advisers in the press lately. With the unveiling of several new start-ups north of the border, this is a trend that won’t be stopping any time soon. One of the first pieces on it of which I’m aware was in the June 2014 issue of MoneySense, bearing the headline “Subscription-based Couch Potato.” I should know, since I wrote both the article and the headline.

Late in August, I wrote a piece on this for the Financial Post, and tried to make the case that “light advice” might be a better term since human advisers can and often do get involved in the process. “Light” suggests a half-way point between the “no advice” model of discount broker enthusiasts choosing their own ETFs, and the “full” advice model of full-commission stock brokers or investment counsellors or wrap programs that give plenty of human oversight, but also charge for it one way or another.

Dan Bortolotti of Canadian Couch Potato and PWL Capital also devoted his Index Investor column to robo-advisers in the fall issue of MoneySense. Dan sees plenty of benefits to them, one of them being lower investment costs, but another is that he believes they’ll force investment advisers (humans, that is) to do a better job.

Rob Carrick of the Globe has also weighed in as have, no doubt, a multitude of other personal finance writers and bloggers. In this September piece, Rob wrote that robo-advisers have arrived and “may be just what your portfolio needs.”

The past weekend, David Pett of the Financial Post wrote a good piece on the topic, with full portfolios generated for younger investors and retirees by four of the major Canadian robo-adviser — sorry, I meant light advice — firms.

And finally I wrote a piece on this today (Nov. 14) for the Investor Education Fund’s Getting Smarter About Money site.

I’d like to hear from new users of this model

I’ll certainly be doing more on this topic and would like to hear from readers who have actually used them. As a relatively new service, these early adopters presumably come from one of three camps: brand new money from those starting out in investing; those migrating “down” from higher-cost full-service brokerage, mutual funds, wrap programs or investment counsellors; and those migrating “up” from no-advice rock-bottom costs of choosing their own securities at a discount brokerage.

Presumably in the latter case, the investors have concluded they have done their portfolios a disservice by picking their own stocks, ETFs or sectors: I used to joke about “self-wrecked RRSPs.” For them, moving from no advice at all to “light” advice may be a compromise whereby they’re now willing to give up 1% or so in annual costs in return for some relative peace of mind about the big-picture topics of asset allocation, geographical and sector concentration, and rebalancing.

I’d welcome hearing from investors from any of these categories, although I doubt much new money has gone into these services yet. That may happen though, as lottery winners and those selling their businesses look for a home for a sudden infusion of cash.

If and when we get our commenting capability and discussion forums rolling, that would be one place to give us feedback. In the meantime, I welcome hearing the investor perspective from all three of the camps just mentioned: just email me at jonathan@findependenceday.com or @me at Twitter.

P.S. Have heard from several clients of Wealth Simple. How about clients from some of the other firms?

Putting robo-advisers to the test

Good piece by my former colleague and hockey teammate David Pett in the weekend’s Financial Post. David is a real double threat: a great business writer and a fabulous hockey player.  He asked four recent “robo-adviser” startups to provide portfolios for in the one case, young professionals, and in the other, a retiree. He concluded their recommendations are “anything but mechanical.”

Here’s his piece.