In 2017, the Bank of Canada concluded that finance was among the group of industries least susceptible for automation because of the need for social skill, creativity, persuasion and more. Meanwhile, that same year, Global Finance Magazine was honouring more than 20 financial institutions for creating exceptional digital solutions that provide their clients with exceptional digital experiences.
The financial sector has never been known as movers and shakers, but the last 20 years have challenged traditional business models. Yet adoption at an international scale has been uneven. Fast forward to the last year of remote-first operations and the pandemic has put a defibrillator on the heart of digital transformation in finance. Relying on manual, in-person, paper-driven processes is no longer an option. As the head of a UK-based private banking institution said “The clients of tomorrow will simply not accept working with a wealth management provider that does not have top digital capabilities to let them access what they need at any time they want.” While most Canadians in financial services wouldn’t argue with this sentiment, they’re not rising to the transformation challenge at the same pace as the rest of the world. Canada is falling behind in the digitalization of wealth management.
Globally, digital wealth management trends are taking off. Investment in financial technology has risen above $100B in the last decade. The most common fintech trends in digitalization have been robo advisors and wealth management apps. Adding to this list, the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) has documented everything from the rise in machine learning analytics to digitized product component libraries, and even smart metrics that are client-facing, like what the impact of their investment has been. Many of these advancements help leaders of financial institutions and firms to protect their bottom line. While these trends are uplifting for what’s to come, on a global level, CEOs worldwide are still in the early stages of adopting technology platforms that could allow them to scale their operations:
Discrepancies in technology adoption are visible in the global market with Asia moving past North America. Yet, North America is home to the largest number of millionaires in the world and has the greatest concentration of high-net-worth individuals. However, they are not being served with high-end digital technology solutions for the most part. BCG says the wealth management industry “will have to keep an eye on big tech, especially in Asia, where clients are already more familiar with digital technologies than in the west.”
In the US, technology adoption hasn’t been overwhelmingly successful according to a recent JD Power study surveying over 3,262 employee and independent financial advisors. It reported that less than half of respondents found the technology in their firms “very valuable,” and less than one-fifth were using a system that was integrated.
North America appears to be slower than Asia at adopting wealth management technology, and the US is certainly part of that picture; however, Canada is well known for dragging its feet around technology adoption.
For years now Canada has been lagging behind the rest of the world’s wealth management technology advancements, but this trend isn’t isolated to finance. In fact technology adoption is a horizontal problem across Canada’s major economic sectors. In 2018, nearly 80% of retail companies in Canada had no strategy for technological innovation.
The BDC says Canada is falling behind because companies “are not investing enough in digital technologies.” The Institute for Research on Public Policy concluded the same thing, explaining that Canada’s business sectors are struggling to respond to technological disruptions.
According to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, Canadian technology adoption and investment are behind compared to other countries because of Canada’s unique geographic considerations, but also out of concern for security and privacy. They put forth that it is within the values of Canadians to act cautiously when it comes to technology. Since the department published these conclusions in 2016, it has released a “Digital Charter,” to help guide policymakers and regulators towards a digital economy.
These digital economy principles are supported by new Canadian privacy laws under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). Experts in finance are doubting the government’s ability to enforce these principles they’re putting forth like de-identification. The Managing Director of Refinitiv, a global provider of financial market data and infrastructure, says that “Canada has fallen behind the EU, the UK and the U.S. in terms of regulating digitized products and services,” and that “Canada’s financial services industry epitomizes a national dilemma.”
Capco, a global technology and management consultancy dedicated to the financial services industry, breaks down the current state of wealth management processes in Canada:
The finance sector in Canada hasn’t been able to embrace technology at the speed global markets have, and the implications of this lag are becoming increasingly obvious.
The Coronavirus is propelling new waves of automation in every industry, not just finance. The pandemic has not only highlighted the need for digital transformation, but it has also accelerated alternative investment avenues putting pressure on financial institutions. The CEO and Founder of deVere Group, a global financial advisory firm, says “Coronavirus is going to further disrupt the wider banking sector. It will act as another catalyst for people to seek fintech alternatives to access, manage, use, save and invest their money across the world”.
IIROC is bringing this message to Canadian wealth managers. In an interview with Bloomberg IIROC’s president explained that more than 60% of millennial investors wanted financial advice through digital tools, and “Providers shouldn’t underestimate their clients’ comfort and desire for digital engagement regardless of wealth level.” Ernst and Young warns Canada’s wealth managers are not immune to consumer behavioural changes. In fact, they estimate that up to 44% of Canadians are planning to change their wealth management provider, and firms should take advantage of the technology available to them to help facilitate trust with their clients.
While change has been slow, a growing number of fintech firms in Canada are rising to the challenge to rescue Canada’s financial sector from the dark ages. Wealth managers are taking action now too. RBC’s 2020 survey revealed that automating manual processes is the number one technology priority for Canada’s wealth and asset managers. Similarly, Deloitte revealed that client onboarding is the top technology priority for Canadian wealth managers and that remote teams will continue to be a reality post-pandemic. The government’s vision is starting to take shape as well with Canada’s new open banking initiative, aimed at levelling the technology playing field, now well underway. It appears that Canada’s wealth management sector is starting to come around to the burgeoning fintech opportunities beneath them, but there’s still a long way to go to catch up with the rest of the world.
Image Credits
So in my view an appropriately diversified portfolio should have enough exposure to different asset classes, that its able to withstand a wide range of market disruptions. Usually, it’s some kind of negative or positive event… they’ll affect different asset classes differently. So by having your eggs in different baskets you’ll be well insulated from major risk. For example, there’s some kind of change in the housing market… both by having some exposure to it, you won’t miss out on the opportunity to make money. But if it’s something negative, you’re also not going to lose all your money if all of it were in the housing market for example. So at a high level, a properly diversified portfolio should grow in a growing market and yet not be at risk of major losses in a declining market.
You asked also about an efficiently diversified portfolio, and I would say that that’s a portfolio that achieves those goals with a minimum of different positions. There’s a lot of good reasons to have fewer positions in your portfolio. Being less complex means a portfolio is easier to rebalance and administer. Every time part of your portfolio goes up or down, you're going to need to rebalance it a little to make sure that it stays with the right allocations and the fewer positions you have, the easier it is to do that..the less trading fees you incur doing that.
There is a tradeoff between being completely diversified and being efficiently diversified. If you were completely diversified then you’d have a proportional segment of absolutely everything you could invest in under the sun, like shares of palm oil futures or something like that. I don’t think everyone should have palm oil futures in their portfolio but I’m not a wealth manager. I think it comes down to your portfolio and how large it is (probably the Canada Pension Plan has a proportion of palm oil futures in it). You’re going to have to talk to your advisor and choose a degree of complexity that’s right for your portfolio.
CN: Let’s just take a step back - what does a typical portfolio look like and has that changed over time?
RB: Yeah, so I'm not entirely sure what a typical portfolio looks like these days because it's actually changed quite a lot over time. I think common wisdom used to be that the classic balanced portfolio was 60% public stocks and 40% bonds. These days that's ancient history. Most would say that the bond allocation should be a lot lower these days in this age of unprecedented low-interest rates. These days it’s the stock portfolio that’s been driving a lot of the growth. I think a well-diversified portfolio in the modern era should absolutely include exposure to all kinds of alternative assets (that aren't even really that alternative but still kind of fall out of that traditional bucket). So you know I mentioned real estate, private companies, maybe for example commodities or other types of investments. So I think that there are a lot of things that you can invest in and your advisor can guide you on what’s appropriate for you.
CN: Yeah that makes a lot of sense. Talking about alternative investments, we’ve heard a lot this year about ESGs, impact investing, alternative investments… do you think there’s more of an appetite today for these types of investments than in the last ten years?
RB: Yeah that’s a topic that’s close to my heart having previously started an impact investment company. It’s definitely been a gigantic increase in interest. I think when I started my previous company we were speaking to large wealth managers and having them say “we’re barely getting a grip on early ideas.” Like not including gun manufacturers or tobacco companies, and now these same companies are launching impact portfolios and marketing this aggressively. So there’s definitely been a seat change, it’s a real industry, and there’s a lot of studies out there and data showing that ESG or impact investing can equal or outperform non-impact investments. So I think it’s a huge part of the market these days. That said, one of the things that’s driving it is people’s interest in it. I think that one of the stories of the investment industry has been the personalization of it. People’s portfolios are being tailored to their own needs and circumstances. Impact investing is definitely a piece of that. People are environmentalists, but an institution is not an environmentalist. It doesn’t live and breathe the impact on the environment the way an individual does. The person who is active in the David Suzuki Foundation for example is going to be active as an impact investor and it’s appropriate for them to be.
That’s a great question. I think there's a lot of advantages and you gain a lot with an automated platform. For me, it's a lot easier to manage. I have some of my money in one of these platforms and I barely think about it. It's being rebalanced all the time. The costs are much lower in terms of expense ratio for the same kind of rebalancing. Again you're missing a lot with that, but on just the mechanical portfolio rebalancing you're getting a great deal there. I would say that two other advantages are up-to-the-minute reporting, so you always have that login where you can see your position, see how your portfolio is doing historically. And finally, this is an advantage for me and anyone who doesn't love doing taxes, but typically they’ll take care of your tax forms for you, and end up with much simpler tax forms, so it kind of works out what your cost basis was and how much you have to report.
CN: So let's talk about the other side of the coin then...what are the risks of not having a seasoned professional managing your money?
RB: I wouldn’t exactly phrase the question that way. You know it's more what’s the benefits of having a real wealth manager? Some of the clients of robo advisory firms may not even be aware that they're missing out. A wealth manager isn't just balancing your stocks and bonds, that's kind of the very lowest mechanical level of what you get out of the wealth manager. Really they're your advisor on your life. Intimately intertwined with you because you're thinking about retirement planning, on planning for college for your kids, when is the right time to buy a house, and when should you get life insurance, for example. An advisor can help you with all of those decisions and they can connect you with service providers like a mortgage broker when you may be in need of one. So I think that you get a lot of value out of having one of these advisers, particularly when you get to a stage in life when these kinds of services are more about the long-term and your life circumstances are far more critical.
CN: There are clearly pros and cons and two sides of the story depending on who you're asking. Like you said, what stage of their life they’re in ...but do you think the platforms that we’re seeing emerging like to Qtrade, Wealthsimple, and all the rest will ever become status quo?
RB: Yeah, I do actually. I think that similarly to how you know we’re using online platforms to automate everything for us (I can’t think of the last time I used to travel for example), everything you’re going to be trying to do with your money is going to be automated, and it’s going to be appropriate to be handled by one of these one of these platforms. In particular, for most people at an early stage in their lives that have few assets to manage, not a lot of complexity, not a very extended personal family circumstance, it’s gonna make a lot of sense to have a low fee robo worry about it. But at some point their life circumstances are going to get more complex and you’re gonna get married, or maybe you’re not, or you may have other objectives that you may want some advice on and at that point it may make sense to either supplement the robo advisory portion of your portfolio, or graduate to a more holistic wealth management view.
CN: Thank you so much Raph, these answers were great. It’s always insightful chatting with you so thanks for sharing those answers with us today.
RB: It’s my pleasure.