RBS Cuts Hundreds of Jobs As FCA Approves 'Robo-Advisers' (thestack.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) has announced that it will be switching customer advice services over to automated 'robo-advisers' as it cuts 220 face-to-face positions. Given the green light from UK regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) this week, the bank agreed that the move would lead to cheaper, more accessible financial advice. Those customers qualifying for personalised advice will now need to have at least £250,000 (approx. $350,000) to invest. Following the FCA's recommendations, it is expected that other UK banks will soon introduce similar 'robo' services.

Comments

It's about time we realize

[iserlohn]

Blind allegiance to profit is causing society's downfall.

Re:It's about time we realize

[Richard_at_work]

This is very very little in difference to the current concept of quote engines in the insurance industry where the resulting quotations are classified as "non-advised", meaning there is no opportunity for them to be miss-sold as the entire onus is on the purchaser and not the seller to ensure that what they are buying is correct for them.

In the UK the financial and insurance industry is heavily regulated, to the point where the authority will take something which has been deemed "acceptable activity" for many years and force the industry to refund premiums - the banks are currently in the tail end of refunding over £100Billion in Payment Protection Insurance premiums (and interest) because the FSA (now the FCA) suddenly deemed the way they were sold to be non-acceptable.

So, RBS is just using standard rating systems to present standardised options for low capital investors on a non-advised basis.

Re:It's about time we realize

[Aighearach]

I'm surprised somebody with such a low userid would use the word "realize" and then follow it with a bare conclusion, rather than an idea that leads somewhere.

And if they had blind allegiance to profit, it seems they would want to continue forcing the banks to use humans. Why does allowing them to give out less financial advice serve the interests of blind allegiance to profit?

Also, if just not getting personalized financial advice stands in for society's downfall, it seems you're the one with excessive allegiance to profit, did you consider that?

Re:It's about time we realize

[rainmouse]

Given they threatened these jobs to undermine democracy and influence the outcome of the Scottish independence referendum at the bidding of their Whitehall masters, it's a bit of a kick in the teeth to shed these jobs anyway.

http://www.theguardian.com/bus...

Re:It's about time we realize

[iserlohn]

Scotland would be left with a big gaping hole in the finances if Yes won. Oil prices aren't set to recover any time soon. If you don't like the Tories, hell, I don't like them either, but that's a bad excuse for blind nationalism.

Re:It's about time we realize

[Sir_Eptishous]

This is very very little in difference

WTF is this?!?

Re:It's about time we realize

[Anonymous Coward]

Not at all, it's blind welfare to parasites which is society's undoing.

Re:It's about time we realize

[ShanghaiBill]

Financial advisors are running a scam. Their "advice" is designed to maximize their own fees and commissions, rather than the interest of their clients. There was an article in the Economist last week that reported a significant percentage of financial advisors have been disciplined for misconduct, but most kept their jobs, including many repeat offenders.

A software program should be able to give better advice, since at the very least, it has no conflict of interest. Heck, a dart board should give better advice than most human advisors.

more squeezing by the 1%

[Anonymous Coward]

So I no longer have access to the advise of the human that I think is smarter than the rest of them (or the robots) and now I just get the same advise as everyone else? How am I supposed to win in that game?

Oh, but I can get the smarter human advise I need to make more money if I already have a significant amount of money, but not until then.

This is just the 1% squeezing more and more of the common-joe out of the game.

Re:more squeezing by the 1%

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> I no longer have access to the advise of the human that I think is smarter than the rest of them

I don't think you realize that UBS is actually doing you a service. Every time I worked with human financial advisers in the past they found ways to shave off a little here and there for themselves or their banks with transaction fees, fund sales, etc. Now that I have enough money to qualify for financial advice (at UBS and elsewhere) I only invest in a self-directed manner via brokers with minimal fees and in funds with minimal loads (e.g., Vanguard). Like the guy in the car rental commercials, "You don't have to talk to a human, unless you want to, which I don't."

Re:more squeezing by the 1%

[Anonymous Coward]

So you don't want advice and so this change does not even apply to you. Why are you even bothering to chime in then?

Re:more squeezing by the 1%

[sinij]

How am I supposed to win in that game?

Unless you figure out how to do better than most, you won't win anything. Realistically, the best you could do is slightly under-perform market, which is still profitable. Now, if you intend to play - start educating yourself on how to do it. Good start would be index e-funds with sub 0.4% MER. If you want to get more sophisticated, get into diversified portfolio of dividend-paying large cap stocks - generally you will save MER but it will increase volatility of your portfolio.

No matter how you invest, stay away from any kind of investment that doesn't correspond to tangibles - if there are no services or goods produced, then this isn't an investment but speculation designed to make you lose.

Re:more squeezing by the 1%

[sinij]

He does have a point - you have no idea just how expensive and mediocre this advice is.

Re:more squeezing by the 1%

[Anonymous Coward]

This is your investment bank saving you money. If you're too stupid to play the game on your own given the same info that the human you spoke to before was provided, maybe you should hire someone to play the game for you.

Re:more squeezing by the 1%

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not the point. The point is that if I can find the right, knowledgeable advisor (and I really do mean advisor, not a sales person), I can come out ahead. I should be allowed to do this rather than having an army of robots that are all going to give the same advise to everybody else.

Now, the smarter advisor is being limited to only those who already have money, squeezing the people who don't out from being able to make that money.

Re:more squeezing by the 1%

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time I worked with human financial advisers in the past they found ways to shave off a little here and there for themselves or their banks with transaction fees, fund sales, etc.

Oh, good thing UBS would never program robo-advisors to suggest investments that charge higher fees or charges.,
For that matter, when do they start charging people fees to use the robo-advisors?

Re:more squeezing by the 1%

[Anonymous Coward]

if I can find the right, knowledgeable advisor, I can come out ahead.

How would you know, unless you have expertise to evaluate their advice (and in that case do not require their services). Unlike individual products, there isn't even ranking or performance metrics on advisors that is available to regular consumer.

Re:more squeezing by the 1%

[Aighearach]

LOL, no an index fund will beat any "investment advice" they could be giving out.

Investment isn't zero-sum, you don't have to "beat" anyone. Trying makes it likely though that you'll lose money.

The 1% are not using free investment hotlines for advice. That is actually kinda funny.

Re:more squeezing by the 1%

[Aighearach]

Advisors' advice under-performs the market.

Having a special poohbah doesn't help you.

His hat is just there to make you think he is important. It is a silly hat because anybody who looks it up knows that his advice will under-perform an index fund, which is the simplest easiest way to get into the market.

The robots can be programmed to give different advise to different people if that is actually useful, just like the humans can be told what advise to give out. In fact, if the humans are giving everybody different advise, that just guarantees that everybody is performing that far under the market. And in that environment, check the fees and commissions; the more highly personalized small investments are, the more you're being shafted. Include all the fees before calculating profit; you'll be way behind an index fund.

Pros generally do not beat the market. There is good advise to be had for small investors, but it is exactly the same for all of them; use an index, meet the market in the middle. Otherwise you are the little fish, and the system is designed for that.

Re:more squeezing by the 1%

[Anonymous Coward]

"So I no longer have access to the advise of the human that I think is smarter than the rest of them (or the robots) and now I just get the same advise as everyone else? How am I supposed to win in that game?"

How would you know the difference, since you apparently can't even spell 'advice'.

Re:more squeezing by the 1%

[Anonymous Coward]

Hrm. Comparing track records maybe? Oh, you don't have track record for me to compare? You probably don't have one worth keeping then. Next.

Re:more squeezing by the 1%

[magarity]

Oh, but I can get the smarter human advise I need to make more money if I already have a significant amount of money, but not until then

With modest amounts to invest your best strategy really can be summed up by a robot: buy index funds. You have to have serious capital to diversify enough to make more money reliably doing other strategies that need active management by a person.

Re:more squeezing by the 1%

[Baki]

If you call that squeezing by the 1%, I think you're overstating the value of human financial advice.
It has been negative in recent years mostly.

The human advice that is worth anything, has already been reserved for customers with $1m and more for a long time (at least at the swiss banks).
There are different types of products available above certain limits.
The rest get other types of human advice, namely the worthless type.

In fact, RBS is doing all customers below 250k pounds a favor.

The truely rich clients have their own staff and private financial advisors, that use the banks facilities for trading and deposits, but nothing else, by the way.
Those are the only advisors that have true benefit.

"Please repeat your statement"

[NotDrWho]

"Sorry, I didn't catch that last part. Please repeat it again or press 1 to end this call."

"I'm out of work and me kids are STARVING!"

Re:"Please repeat your statement"

[AmiMoJo]

The UK is often used as a testbed for new ultra low quality service, because we don't complain much. We will put up with all sorts of crap, making us a good proving ground for new customer service ideas because even if it sucks we don't actually go as far as taking our business elsewhere.

Re:"Please repeat your statement"

[Anonymous Coward]

Testbeds should not be based on the most complaint people but the opposite. If you can please the most picky people, then you will make everyone happy.

Running a test and saying "it's a success, this group of spineless-non-complainers didn't complain once!" is a false result.

Re:"Please repeat your statement"

[BigT]

That depends on what the desired result is.

Re:"Please repeat your statement"

[Aighearach]

You're right, this will save 200 humans the indignity of having to answer prank calls all day for a living.

If you're out of work and starving, I don't calling an investment hotline is really a good use of time. Maybe digging up earthworms to eat is a better plan.

Re:"Please repeat your statement"

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, of course. If your desired result is for a sham, then yes.

But my previous statement about testbeds was predicated on looking for an honest result.

Re:"Please repeat your statement"

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not familiar with the British culture, are you?

Re:"Please repeat your statement"

[magarity]

"I'm out of work and me kids are STARVING!"

They wouldn't be starving if Dad stopped prank calling the investment hotline and went to apply for Child Benefit.

Robo advisers?

[Anonymous Coward]

So won't the robo advisers make sure that the robots make money? It may start out by having people invest in Cyberdyne Systems. From there it will get worse as they build a bunch of those "big dog" bots... Robo advisers. FTW.

How are they going to justify MER?

[sinij]

Majority of people are financially illustrate, or at least that how banks justified loot-and-pillage MER (management expense ratio) for most consumer-facing mutual funds. Now that they are switching to robo-advisers, how are they going to justify charging that?

Re:How are they going to justify MER?

[__aaclcg7560]

Majority of people are financially illustrate [...]

I'm sure the new robo advisors will provide crayons for customers to draw pictures while their pockets are picked clean.

Re:How are they going to justify MER?

[chaoscustard]

MER is associated with the product, not the advice that leads to the product.

If the advice is to take an index tracker then MER is anyway going to be low.

Re:How are they going to justify MER?

[retchdog]

well, they need highly trained specialists to program the robots, after all. also these specialists must be third-world imports, because the requisite talent doesn't exist in the coddled west. win-win!

Re:How are they going to justify MER?

[sinij]

Yes, MER is associated with the product, but managers of said 'product' set MER based on its sales model. When you invest into a mutual fund based on advisor recommendation, they have to pay commissions to your guy. These fees get baked into MER.

Good luck getting advise to invest into index tracker e-fund that doesn't pay any commissions. Unless you work with a fixed-fee advice you will never hear about these.

Re:How are they going to justify MER?

[chaoscustard]

This quickly becomes a jurisdiction specific discussion. "Independent Financial Advisers" in some jurisdictions are required to advise against the "whole of market", meaning that index trackers will be included in the advice.

Further, "fixed-fee" advice is unlikely to be the target for initial "robo" advisers, it's the individuals getting "free" advice who will first experience this type of service. As a result I believe that the end result will be an improvement of the qualty of advice since the remaining "free" human advisers will need to at least better the advice offered by the robot to remain in business.

Re:How are they going to justify MER?

[scamper_22]

Most are switching to lower cost MERs anyways. I know I switched a long time ago to ETFs for pretty much this reason.
The thing is the lower-level advisors weren't doing very much anyways. Pretty much why they could be automated.
They just asked some basic pre-set questions and tossed you into one of the general recommendations.
At best, their sales skills came into play.

You're pretty much only getting useful advice if you get real custom advisor, which is more for the wealthy.

The reality is that a lot of white collar jobs are not as 'thinking' as people like to think.
In the end, they're as automatable as many of the manufacturing jobs.
Never take someone's job loss as a joke. It's a person trying to make a living at the end of the day.
But the sheer number of people who take a dismissive view of manufacturing or blue collar work because it is not 'educated' sometimes sickens me.

Some jobs are kind of protected by government, but even our most 'people' jobs could have parts of it largely automated. Does anyone think every teacher should be building their own lesson plans. Is every class that unique? Nope. Most of that could be automated and largely speaking, a teacher can be more of a class supervisor with premade lessons plans/tests. There might still be specialized courses for kinds with disabilities or something, just like their are special financial advisors high net worth people, but the general case is automated.
Large parts of accounting, law, even medicine can be automated with just special cases being left to professionals were it not for legal issues.

You get the advice you pay for

[chaoscustard]

First of this looks more like a decision tree or "spreadsheet" analysis than actually automated or "AI" advice. However it's an interesting step.

Offering good advice is difficult, takes time and is always subjective. As a result the quality of "free" advice has to be suspect - it's provided by low skilled individuals with low levels of experience, to people with poor ability to assess the quality of the advice they receive.

Sure, it's unlikely that automated investment advice is going to outperform the market, but I'd expect it to quickly outperform the human advice offered by inexperienced or low quality advisers. Either that or "AI" advice will fail to gain market share for companies that offer it.

Net result: overall quality of advice is more likely to go up from this than down.

Re:You get the advice you pay for

[Aighearach]

In what way is a spreadsheet not automated?

And nothing is AI, not even AI, if you're going to get hung up on definitions. That is why "AI" is a general term that doesn't have technical meaning. It just means all the classes of computer automation with multiple behaviors.

Offering good advice isn't hard, it is horseshit. Good advice won't beat the market. The only good advice that won't underperform the market is to use an index.

If you have enough money to buy property outright, then that adds another way to invest. There are other options too, if you have a lot of money. If you only have a little bit, advice just means you lose money compared to an index. And if you have these low amounts to invest you can't differentiate or anything, so again, you end up with an index because that is pre-diversified for you.

Funny thing

[MrKrillls]

I have no idea how well or badly the low end investor will be robo-advised ar RBS, but I'm pretty sure that a few pieces of financial advice, that could practically be dispensed on one side of a small piece of paper, would be the core of excellent advice for 99.9% of everyone.

Set aside a little to invest on a regular schedule.

Don't sell on market panic. Instead, consider purchases.

Stick with simple, low cost diversified instruments.

And so on.

A robot could do the majority. My concern is the folks with unusual circumstances who need differing advise, or more handholding.

Re:Funny thing

[BarbaraHudson]

The human advisers have no skin in the game - they make money whether you do or not. At least with a robo-adviser, you'll pay less in fees.

Re:Funny thing

[MrKrillls]

True. Any time one has such advisers, one's bullshit detector should be set on full power. They can be very good and guide and educate, or they can be thieves or anything in between.

banks will soon introduce similar 'robo' services

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if they'd be as eager if the technology was for a 'robo-CEO' or 'robo-Board' ...

Thin end of the wedge

[Coisiche]

Next up, perhaps, "robo-lawyers". Just for the poor people, obviously. There will be a minimum threshold to qualify for human lawyers as we diverge further into there being "one law for the rich".

There will be a minimum financial threshold for more and more things. "Doctor" Watson for the poor, human doctors for the rich, etc.

Re:Thin end of the wedge

[qbast]

Oh call the fucking waaaambulance. Human lawyers are expensive anyway, this will add low-cost alternative. You still will be able to pay through your nose for human lawyer.

Re:Thin end of the wedge

[mentil]

So long as my own robo-lawyer doesn't laugh at me as the judge bangs the gavel and declares 'guilty!', I think I'm ok with that.

Re:Thin end of the wedge

[magarity]

Next up, perhaps, "robo-lawyers". Just for the poor people, obviously.

What do you mean, next up? Legalzoom and similar have been around years now.

Re:Thin end of the wedge

[barc0001]

> Next up, perhaps, "robo-lawyers"

You joke, but article research is a huge part of the job of lawyers and their clerks and it is swiftly being replaced with automation, and more automation is on the horizon - to the detriment of a lot of the new crop of lawyer grads.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/28/technology/innovation/robot-lawyers/

"Watson the lawyer is coming," said Ralph Losey, a legal technology expert at the law firm Jackson Lewis. "He won't come up with the creative solutions, but when it comes to the regular games that lawyers play, he'll kill them."

That means potentially huge cost savings for clients, though it's not so promising for law school graduates looking for work.

The good news for lawyers is that no one thinks the profession can be automated entirely. But lots of legal work is already being computerized by some firms, including the drafting of simple contracts and the search for evidence in reams of documents.

Re:Thin end of the wedge

[Anonymous Coward]

Next up indeed:

https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/01/04/2242251/will-advanced-ai-spell-the-end-of-lawyers
https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/02/20/1823241/a-19-year-old-made-a-free-robot-lawyer-that-has-appealed-3m-in-parking-tickets#comments

Firefox devs should be getting scared!

[Anonymous Coward]

If anyone should be scared by this kind of automation, it's the developers of Firefox.

I think the first generation of automation to replace them will just take the Firefox UI and make random changes to it. It will remove widgets, move others around, add random widgets, and so forth. A possible enhancement would be for the automated process to randomly break extensions in some way.

It's the second generation of automation that I think is really worrying. It will just check out the Chromium source code, change all "Chromium" string values to "Firefox", generate a large random number as the version number, perform a build, and offer it up as the latest version of Firefox.

My suspicion is that the third generation of automation will be much like the second, but it will be able to randomly mark bug reports as WONTFIX or WORKSFORME.

The most interesting thing is that most Firefox users won't even know that the automation has taken place! It will be business-as-usual for them.

Re:Firefox devs should be getting scared!

[RabidReindeer]

They cannot do that. Microsoft has already patented that.

Now what's the "Network Neighborhood" called in this release again???

Re:Firefox devs should be getting scared!

[Sir_Eptishous]

The hate is strong with this one...

Re:Firefox devs should be getting scared!

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't forget to put the bee back in your bonnet when you're finished shoehorning the subject we're actually discussing into that contrived piece of "satire".

It's all about you

[Anonymous Coward]

You will get the best financial advice the RBS can offer, if you give them $350,000 to manage. The rest of the population is not privy to these recommendations.

However, you can continue to receive face-to-face personalized service through many financial investment companies. Most of the now redundant 220 "smart" RBS advisers will probably be migrating in that direction.

Of course, in light of the fact that they didn't foresee their own financial future, you might want to question the advice they offer.

Cheers!

Are you kidding me?!

[the_skywise]

What should I do with my 5000 shares of occidental petroleum?
MY SUGGESTION IS TO -BUZZ- -CLICK- SELL.

Or is it going to be like:

Cortana, I want to buy 5000 shares of occidental petroleum.
I'm sorry, I can't find the stock for irradiated pablum.
No, I want to buy 5000 shares of OCC-I-DEN-TAL PETRO-LEUM.
Ok, I have just put in an order to buy 5000 shares of dental linoleum. The shares have been purchased. Is there anything else I can help you with?

Looks like another niche just opened up for FLOSS

[c0d3g33k]

Why pay expensive fees for "Robo-Advice" when you can just as well run your own. Maybe the advice isn't quite as good, but if you do just about as well within a range, the savings on fees is still a net gain. I wonder if something like Mycroft (https://mycroft.ai/) driving an appropriate engine with input from a wide community with the right expertise could produce a 'good-enough' robo advisor to deal with the same situations the RBS ones do.

Actually decent advice for most people

[yogibeaty]

is that they do one of a very few smart things when it comes to investing: brand market funds, low cost, low load. Having a commission-paid advisor for this info just cuts into your returns.

And I would venture that until you have well over $1M US, this advice would serve you pretty well. Stock picking is for fools and people with a lot of money.

just kek'd a bit in my pantaloons

[Anonymous Coward]

 

Re:Looks like another niche just opened up for FLO

[Richard_at_work]

You realise that you still need products to sell, right? The advice being given isn't "buy stocks in company x" or "sell now!", its "from the answers you have given, these investment products would suit your requirements".

If this is implemented anything like insurance quotation engines, then each financial advice system will only quote from a restricted set of investment products, and not every investment product available in the entire industry.

The automated decisions on which products to offer is entirely done based on a rating system, the guts of which are determined by the fund managers of the products on offer.

Income inequality growth related

[millertym]

Outside of the just the concern about robotic systems replacing formerly human jobs is the expanded conversation about growth in income inequality. You know the board of directors aren't going to AI themselves out of their jobs. At least not before everyone else is. Which means all that same corporate profit is funneling to fewer and fewer people.

If there is going to be a serious discussion about how to try to keep free, modern cultures in a healthy state in relation to income inequality, then automation needs to be a part of that discussion.

Re:Income inequality growth related

[Anonymous Coward]

While not a cure-all for income inequality, better social safety nets would be nice.

American in the U.S. here.

I would propose, in the U.S. at least, the following...
$500/month/adult (22+ years old)
$250/month/child (21- years old)
Not an additional to Social Security. It's be an expanded version of it though.
If we scrap S.N.A.P., increase the above figures by $200/month.
Adjust the above figures for inflation on an annual basis.
It may be not seem like much, but for the working and non-working poor, it could go a long way. And while it won't benefit financially-well off people who suddenly lose their jobs, it's a partial fall-back.
Paid for by higher taxes. Also paid for in part by a 10% tax on income (federal AGI) earmarked for this program. Someone who makes $60k per year by themselves will break even regarding this special tax.

Two adults, two children would get four checks, but would net: $1500/month or $18k/year with this program. But of course, if the parents and children work, they'll lose 10% of whatever they earn plus any higher taxes they may be subject to-to help fund this program.

I, Robot

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have not read it yet, do yourself a favor ;-) Azimov, was right... The machine is running us now.

This will bomb

[Anonymous Coward]

Because when I am a rich person, I want *MORE* robotic phone interaction, and less actual people to talk to.

I was told

[s122604]

6 months of liquid assets for the short term. Retirement savings as follows: 110 - your age% in a S and P 500 index fund, the rest in a bond-index fund high rated corporate bonds and/or treasuries.

It's what I've stuck with, don't feel like paying for managed funds, or high cost "advisors".

Voyager

[ThatsNotPudding]

"Please state the nature of the financial emergency."

Re:Voyager

[Sir Holo]

"Please state the nature of the financial emergency."

"You have selected 'Regicide'. Press 1 if the Monarch is a King. Press 2 if the Monarch is a Queen. . . "

Crap, biased advice no longer available.

[Anonymous Coward]

RBS seems to be heading in the right direction. "Independent Financial Adviser" and "Retail Bank" don't go together.

Wow, look at what this is doing..

[Anonymous Coward]

Disney, Hertz, RBS..

the list goes on as Humas are being displaced by other humans or other things..

It's sad, when the Suit actually wins..

I mean someone has to manage the quandry, right.. why not a suit I mean some one has to make money..

"Advise" means "Advertisement" in banks.

[ffkom]

There are no "advisors" talking to you from banks, these are sales people. Their "advise" is aimed at you buying what's most profitable for the bank. Whether those advertisements are dispensed by humans or robots does not really make any difference.

lower fees

[Anonymous Coward]

At least with a robo-adviser, you'll pay less in fees.

Hahahahaha!! That's a good one.

(In Capitalism efficiencies are pocketed by Capital, not Labour (or the customers).)

Re:Looks like another niche just opened up for FLO

[Anonymous Coward]

So the FLOSS adviser would be superior to the proprietary one, then, because it would only be privy to financial "products" that aren't designed to fleece the customer as determined by a fund manager. Sounds good to me.

That's not what 'advisors' do

[rsilvergun]

Advisors in this context are really just salesmen. Most folks involved in the Stock trade are either salesmen trying to get you to buy stocks they get a kickback on or "Vulture Capitalists" who do what are called "leveraged" buyout where you borrow money to buy a company's assets, sell the assets to pay the loan, pocket the difference and shut down the company.

The best quote I've ever heard is this: "Stocks are no longer a means of getting capital into a successful business but of getting it out".

Anyway the real news is there's so little profit in these investors that RBS isn't even going to bother with salesmen anymore.

Those are comming

[rsilvergun]

it's why here in the states we just passed a law (which our highest court OK'd) to allow companies to force you into private Arbitrage w/o lawyers.

You idiots don't know what's good for you

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a financial adviser? No. Do you do something software related? Probably.

Then they are taking other people's jobs... and giving them to people like you. Same thing with 'robo-trading' (thuggish pit traders get replaced by machines... that you program and administer). But you bitch and moan because you see business doing it and everything business does must be bad for you. So you fight what is good for you because you can't tell the difference.

And from the client side: bad advice at a high cost is being replaced with good advice at a low cost... but you complain because you were stupid enough to both need financial advice and to trust these used-car-saleman shysters that offered it to you.

Who bothers phoning a bank nowadays anyway?

[tehcyder]

It's much easier doing everything online.

And I'm pretty sure that if you were after investment advice for your $350,000+ you wouldn't be ringing a general help line.