""Roboadvisors will go bankrupt "" ..this is not about trading . .is about "roboadvisors= numbers " mistake is when is not use artificial intelligence . . . real traders have risk management solution / platform / management and no emotions .."manual traders " or "advisers'.. .. have ...

Investing and advise has become a big box store game and as this article points out the fees you know about are high and what about the one you don't. Find a truly independent advisors who can and will serve you well.

@ John yesterday come a nice guy (27 years old ) and want to evaluate and make loan proposal to one of my managers .. I ask him to tell me what is his experience in Risk evaluations .. 4 months .. ?!! .. is a game / box :)

and a pure fundamental fund manager not?!?!?!

true allot of brilliant traders will be broke when the bears come to play.

......First and foremost, Robo-Advisors are not advisors at all. This is once again another example of a Wall Street marketing ruse designed to mislead the public into believing they will receive individual attention, help when they need it and optimal risk-managed portfolio design. Robo-Advisors are really “Robo-Portfolios” based on software programs that have been around for decades. The software is based on two principals: 1) Buy and Hold and 2) Modern Portfolio Theory – which isn’t quite modern since it was first developed in 1952 by Harry Markowitz. ....

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/pramod-udiaver/robo-advisor-stock-trading_b_8159924.html

Actually, 90% of roboadvisors going bankrupt during the next bear market might be an under-estimate. A lot will depend on the length of the bear. Great comments/thoughts by all.

So no one believes that a computer is better positioned to assess the markets, risk and potential future returns than an individual advisor with bias advice based on the institution that he serves?

FYI, Daryl robos have their biases, which aren't necessarily correct or aligned with the investing public's interest.

Robo portfolios are dressed-up target date portfolios but with slick packaging. And the track record of TDFs during moments of market stress is undeniably bad. Robos will have the same unavoidable fate because they're fueled by the same Kool-Aid.

Furthermore, charging an asset fee - of whatever amount - to a faceless and unaccountable algorithm is highway robbery. A Microsoft Excel spreadshhet can do the same task without the ongoing fee.

The multiplicity of roboadvisor faults - and this is hardly an exhaustive list- are hardly an endorsement of the traditional RIA model, which too is broken.

Finally, there's an inherent flaw with the dogmatic but mistaken belief algo-driven systems are "unbiased" or "unemotional." In truth, they - like Dr. Victor Frankenstein - fully reflect the deep seeded biases of the software designer. Or as Taleb might say, they are the essence of fragility.

maybe that is true of the first phase entrants but do we really think that is where the process is going to stop? today it is pretty dumb preference based etf portfolios (counting with an abacus let's say) but are we brave enough to think / believe that is where robo advisory is going to stop .......?

I have been a trader for 27 years - and a pretty successful one - nothing is more certain than the average human trader is ill informed and ill equipped to beat the system/the market - the debate is whether if you could build the robo advisor of the future would you? Or would you build Renaissance Tech instead? And make no mistake that excel it is nowhere near powerful enough versus the next wave of tools ....