Automated Investment Tool(일명 ‘로보어드바이저’)을 둘러싼 법적 쟁점과 과제

Abstract

Robo-advisors are digital computer programs that are driven by a set of algorithms. Recently, major securities companies and banks in Korea already have a limited level of automated or robo advice tools available free on their platform. However, its market is still in infancy. Advocates said that robo advisor will help bridge the gap in financial literacy and financial advice between the general population and the selected few people who can afford to consult with a full-service adviser. Korean Financial Regulator, FSC(Financial Service Commission) announced its policies to permit the robo-advisory services this year and the companies who provide robo advisor service should join the regulatory test zone called regulatory sandbox to verify. In contrast with FSC, many financial regulators internationally are taking notice of limitation and weakness of services given by robo advisors. For example, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) issued a joint warning with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding robo advisor in May of 2015 and further published regulatory action. FINRA recognized that robo advisor services often make assumptions or recommendations based upon faulty information, wrong assumptions or circumstances that have no bearing on the consumer. It worried that the questionnaires that these advisor use can be incomplete, ambiguous and misleading and may be designed to lead the financial consumer to solutions that use proprietary investments, such as a specific fund or other investment company. The economic assumptions that are built into these models may also be faulty, and the range of investment options to choose from may be lacking. FINRA also awared that robo-advisors lack the ability to make human judgements in their asset management algorithms, which can lead to poor portfolio performance in some instances. In US, on a few robo advisor are registered as a RIAs. That means many robo advisors are not really investment advisors. Australian Financial Regulator like ASIC also published consultation report that requires the robo advice providers have at least one responsible manager who meets the minimum training and competence standards. In addition, ASIC is seeking to monitor and test the underlying algorithms used to deliver the advice to financial consumers. Regulator should focus of its oversight criteria on the type of advice being given by robo advisor, the strength of the manager's control and the level of human interaction behind scenes.