To date, very few Canadian wealth managers have gone fully digital. Many still employ a hybrid business model which involves using digital solutions for some tasks and manual processes for others. Those failing to embrace digitalization risk losing clients to more tech-savvy competitors. According to The Race For Digital Differentiation, 20% of advisory clients would consider switching providers because the service doesn’t meet the expectations that come with the fees they pay. 63% claimed to be neutral or unsatisfied with the digital experience they currently receive.
Wealth managers face several challenges when it comes to digitalization. Let’s explore some of the factors delaying tech adoption.
Data plays an essential role in the financial industry. As the volume of information gathered has soared, privacy has turned into a major concern. Regulators have taken note, and Canada has proposed some of the world’s strictest rules through the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, part of the Digital Charter Implementation Act (DCIA). Meanwhile, the government recently announced an open banking regime should be in place by 2023. Wealth managers are also keeping an eye on changes to the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada and the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada who announced a merge earlier this year to create a single self-regulatory organization.
Evolving regulatory conditions complicate digital transformation. For instance, legislation typically takes time to work its way through parliament. The Canadian government introduced the DCIA in November 2020, but when it eventually comes into force, and how closely it resembles the original version, remains to be seen. As tech-specific regulations struggle to keep up with the speed of innovation, they can quickly become obsolete.
Data security is another challenge, as cybercrime is a serious threat. According to Statistics Canada, the number of reported cybercrime incidents jumped by over 30% between 2019 and 2020. The threat is even higher for financial institutions (FIs) considering the sensitivity of the information they hold about clients. Authorities fined BMO and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce $23 million for a breach in 2018, which saw the data of 120,000 customers stolen over the course of a weekend. As criminals leverage technological advances to launch more sophisticated attacks, the threat of cybercrime becomes more pervasive.
Wealth managers face internal challenges too. They have unique workflows, use their own sets of forms and stick to well-established processes. For the few tasks already automated, they typically rely on standalone applications to record a client’s personal details, to manage their portfolio and to gather market data. Taking such a fragmented approach to servicing clients isn’t just inefficient. Research by the Harvard Business Review shows that 52% of executives consider legacy systems one of the biggest barriers to digital transformation, while 51% blame siloed data.
Digital transformation was already complicated before the COVID-19 pandemic forced wealth managers to rapidly adopt tech solutions allowing them to work remotely. However, many weren’t set up adequately. In some cases, they couldn’t access the necessary data from their home office, which prevented them from servicing their clients effectively during the market turbulence in 2020. Others had to learn how to protect clients while working from home as the government released new guidelines.
In-person meetings may have resumed following the easing of restrictions, but not everyone is heading back to the office. In a study by PWC, finance industry executives explained what remote working looked like and their plans for the future:
It’s unlikely the need to operate remotely, or even efficiently for that matter, will change any time soon. If so, advisors and clients will continue to lean on support from tech solutions. As in other sectors forced to rapidly adapt to the pandemic, reverting to manual processes or the old way of operating doesn’t make sense once the benefits of remote working have been realized.
While the pandemic has rapidly accelerated the adoption of technology solutions that allow wealth managers to work remotely, the challenges around digital transformation persist. Despite these challenges, wealth managers are recognizing that unnecessary friction can turn off clients, and adopting technology solutions can help ease these interactions.
The industry has made some headway around onboarding new clients, recognizing this is a crucial stage in the customer journey. Advisors are starting to leverage several innovative solutions to help them automate the process, including workflow automation, AML screening with AI, remote ID verification and e-signature solutions. These technologies leverage algorithms, facial biometrics and more to deliver sophisticated solutions that help wealth managers keep up with client behaviour and remote working conditions. Although these types of digital solutions are emerging, they don’t always tackle the entire onboarding experience. For example, even when using e-signature tools, a lot of manual effort goes into sending forms back and forth through the complex workflows relied on by wealth managers.
Digital transformation can become more complicated when trying to combine many different technology providers for each task. Consider that each system must be maintained and protected. Similarly, fragmented solutions don’t scale well and leave employees having to constantly fill in the gaps.
Wealth managers need a unified and flexible solution that integrates with their existing systems and processes, maintains security and compliance, adapts to distinct workflows, facilitates remote operations, onboards clients more efficiently, and removes friction from the customer journey. Given the complexities around digitally transforming the Canadian wealth management industry, Mako is proud to offer a way forward that checks all the boxes.
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.