Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on from the it-puts-the-money-in-the-basket dept.

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.

3 of 78 comments (clear)

  1. How are they going to justify MER? by sinij · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

  2. Funny thing by MrKrillls · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.

    --
    Don't step on the baby.
  3. Income inequality growth related by millertym · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.