Community

Human Advisors are likely to work on traditional PLBS business model where they need to make revenues and profits in the medium, if not short, term. Whereas Roboadvisors are likely VC-backed companies who are under no compulsion to make revenues and profits in the short, or even, medium term.

So, unlike Human Advisors, Roboadvisors can operate without incentives and gesture to safeguard investors' interest rather than their own, which is secured by VC. 

Ergo, on second thoughts, Roboadvisors can be unbiased for way longer than Human Advisors - maybe even forever.

I'd think that it's just a matter of incentives. A roboadvisor may just as readily shill some financial products over others if the roboadvisory company gets more commissions on them compared to the others.  

We've been talking about several use cases for PFM / MoMMA apps for years e.g. Move money to higher yield accounts, premature breaking and reopening of fixed deposits if interest rates go up, never let credit card reward points lapse, and so on. More in my blog post entitled A Killer Feature For PFM On The Eve Of PSD2. However, maybe due to technical constraints or whatever, we haven't seen too many roboadvisors delivering such functionality. 

I still think the crypto OBCoin I proposed in Open Banking Needs A Blockchain Boost will give a big boost to Open Banking directly and indirectly to Roboadvisories. 

From "Branchless Neobanks will kill Banks stuck with branches" to "Banks must let Neobanks take over branches".

This would sound extremely funny if it weren't so surreal!

LOL The "ISO 20022 Waiting for Godot" effect just went up another level.

You've answered your own question: The regulator stopped said fintech from using the term "bank" because the term can only be used by regulated entities, which the said fintech is not.

Moving on to Automated Savings fintechs like Jar in India and Acorn in USA. I contend that they're unregulated. 

My company partners with banks but it is not regulated. Jupiter and Chime partner with banks but that does not make them regulated.

But let that not stop you from claiming that they're all regulated and saying something in support that  eventually contradicts your claim.

Evolve. Tweak in progress. All future tense terms.

So you accept that slice and UNI are *currently unregulated* for their activity of lending. Good. That's what I've been saying all this while.

Moving on, try Neobanks like Jupiter in India, Chime in USA. I contend that they're unregulated fintechs.

Do you still contend that all fintechs are regulated?

As I said earlier, RBI recently mandated that loan should go directly from regulated entities to borrower and should not pass through loan  provider fintechs slice UNI et al. That shows that slice UNI are not regulated. 

This was implicit in my previous reference to Indian regulator's recent mandate re. Loan flow. Anyway, to make it explicit: Slice & UNI. 

You can clarify all you want but the only thing that matters is what the regulator says and, as I mentioned, its latest announcement clearly implies that fintechs are unregulated entities.

Your article opens with "Fintech is a highly regulated sector".

I made a specific comment that your premise is false. In fact, your premise goes against the founding principle of Fintech, which is that it can do what regulated entities can do but do it faster, better and cheaper than regulated entities because it is not regulated.  

Since I didn't see evidence that you got my specific comment, I gave additional context in my subsequent comment. 

Let me try with some more context.

According to the Indian banking regulator's recent mandate, "Loans must go directly from regulated entities to customer accounts. Loans cannot pass through fintechs."

It follows that fintechs are unregulated. 

QED.

#ProTip: You focus on what to write on a professional forum - Hint: No posts based on false premises - and I'll focus on what to comment on a professional forum.