The wealth management industry is increasingly defined by how it opens new accounts. From rapid expansions to bulk repapering, digital onboarding has been on everyone's minds in the field. However, considering this kind of software without adequate context can seem like a daunting investment.
Since each client contributes to your firm’s AUM, enabling you to earn and retain more new clients is the single most important way your software stack can contribute to your revenues. Digital onboarding is often seen as outside the sales process, but it is most definitely a tool that can bring you more business and scale faster if used properly. It can supercharge your sales cycle and provide an initial experience so good that your clients will stay with your firm longer.
This article will review the ROI calculations of digital onboarding, discuss elements to consider as you make a selection, and offer insight into how Mako’s worth is calculated.
According to internal research and analysis, wealth management firms, on average, spend a whopping $60 in fully loaded costs to process a single form, and this cost only goes up for large firms with added systems. These costs are so deeply blended and integrated within your operations that they can be hard to detect as an outlying cost.
The main fear with digital onboarding is an understandable one: what if no one uses it? No one wants to be stuck with a fixed monthly cost only to realize they should’ve chosen a different option. This is why Mako offers usage-based pricing models to ensure our clients pay only when we are driving value and new business for them.
Digital onboarding encompasses so many different tasks that it ends up suffering from external oversimplification. It’s easy to think this kind of software is too expensive if you see it as just a way to process PDF forms. A digital onboarding platform like Mako will end up taking over the following tasks:
Digital onboarding is a clear revenue driver, improving your sales process and optimizing your day-to-day operations. Its real value comes in its capacity to make your firm realize revenue much faster by bringing clients in at increased velocity and scalability.
While there are many benefits to digital onboarding, here are the top four best avenues to justify it via return on investment calculations:
Digital onboarding software like Mako allows you to respond to critical business needs and curve balls thrown at you by regulatory bodies.
Changing custodians often seems like too much of a hassle, even with significant price cuts, because it requires a significant time investment. Mako can help you process this type of operation in a matter of weeks.
With paper forms, form amendments, even minor ones, can be a long and arduous process. Mako’s forms can be changed in a matter of days and sent to all your advisors and clients instantly to be filled out and the data updated in your databases.
Every wealth management office must have a cybersecurity strategy in place, but adequately protecting data can be costly and complicated for organizations without the technical skills. Mako’s data-gathering process involves encrypted audit trails, Canadian-domiciled AWS cloud servers, and comprehensive cyber insurance and follows our rigorous SOC2 type II certification.
Digital onboarding increases the number of available working hours within your organization, which means more time for prospecting new clients and better serving the ones you currently have. Your clients will also feel like their time is valued because you offer a shorter, more efficient account opening procedure, and they will be less frustrated by cumbersome paperwork.
One of the biggest hidden costs of any wealth management office is rework. Inaccurate data collection, whether through paper or digital forms, incurs significant time and money costs. The lengthy email exchanges or in-person meetings required to refill forms and correct mistakes also often impact the client experience.
Mako’s validation of fields like SINs, bank accounts, addresses, dates, and more eliminates the most common mistakes made when filling out forms. Additionally, our platform allows for seamless form resends within the app and a robust comments system to point out required changes. No more management by email is required, and your clients get a consistent experience, all in one place.
The cost and return of digital onboarding are usually very easy to discern, but it must be based on a strong data collection process. You might already calculate some of these metrics for the purpose of your operations, but here are the best KPIs to measure digital onboarding ROI:
Other calculations might need to be taken into account for your specific case—for example, some firms might care more about customer experience and hence the speed of onboarding.
For firms focused on customer experience, Mako's typical time to complete a workflow (all signatories) is just 5 days instead of the typical 30-45 days. (The extremes make an even sharper contrast - whereas manual client onboarding can take up to eight months, Mako can onboard a client in as little as 15 minutes.)
A pure ROI calculation may make more sense for firms focused on the pure financial benefit of automating manual tasks. Based on our calculation of $60 per completed form for a typical firm, Mako’s ROI can be as high as 400%.
Many software companies incorrectly claim that their product pays for itself, but digital onboarding can proudly claim that. Human error, constantly changing form requirements, inefficient systems, and costly external AML checks are just a few of the reasons why paper forms are rapidly being phased out across the industry.
Digital onboarding is a powerful and convenient way to improve your client experience while kickstarting your digital transformation. Modern wealth management offices simply can’t afford to continue using paper forms.
If you’d like to see Mako in action or crunch some numbers to see how it would look for your firm, contact us here.
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.