Robo mortgage advisors

The last 2 years have shown us that robo-advice isn't where it needs to be and is currently not a threat to a human in the industry. The fast-changing market following covid and more cases becoming less "vanilla" has highlighted its weaknesses with more people looking to lean on human advice which has seen more of these firms having to more to a hybrid approach.

Robo advice is just smoke and mirrors.

Fancy looking data capture tools branded as 'robo advice' that still have a human adviser pulling the levers behind the scenes, probably juggling a huge number of cases. What happens when the house downvalues, the estate agent plays silly buggers or a conveyancing issue comes up?

I'm yet to hear a compelling rationale to show how that is better for a client than going on Google, searching for 'mortgage advice near me' and picking up the phone to whoever has the best reviews to help them.

It's clear financial advisers HATE the idea of Robo Mortgage Advisers and to be honest so do we BUT we kind of are one. Coming from roots that included us running High Street offices that allowed people to come in and kick the tyres of mortgage rates wasting hours of our staff's time - quite simply we are happy to be called Robo Advisers. It's true that there is no such thing as a totally humanless system that does all the work of a High St advice firm but the time-saving that can be done by decent use of hundreds of thousands of lines of computer code does exist, we know we are doing it. The early promises from some firms were never going to be delivered, it's just not possible to deliver such without decades of development. Habito, Trussle, and Mojo all brought some good-looking functional online facilities to the UK finance arena - the problem is they seem to have missed the all-important part, they needed to not spend so much money and keep demanding more external cash inflows.

Whilst AI and tech-supported advisers are a great thing, I am yet to be convinced that a full robo-advice journey delivers the right outcomes for clients. Let's remember that a robo-adviser will simply ask a question and then take down the information given in response; but what about challenging that response? What about spotting that look between the applicants before they answer or the slight hesitation? Too many times those have been signs that, once I've dug a little deeper, reveal that their initial answer wasn't the true response; it was what a family member told them to say, or what they'd read on a website was the right thing to do, or just a simple misunderstanding of the question. Now imagine if I had just taken their initial response and ploughed on, as a robo-adviser would, I could end up delivering the wrong outcome to the client.

At the risk of annoying my peers...Whilst no mortgage broker firm is truly 'robo', you can't ignore how much of the heavy lifting is being done by tech and how much these firms leverage that into business volume. Knowing people at these firms, 30 mortgage applications a month seems to be the starting point. Find me an independent broker that does that without a mammoth admin team. Do they result in the best customer outcome? These are, by definition, time poor workers and a cursory glance at Google reviews will quickly show the trade off of this model. Until they go 100% execution only, they will rely on mass human talent working at high volume, to turn their initial fintech investments into profit, where fee free models have already squeezed margins. Recently, these firms have seen their talent leave in droves, I can only assume, tired of such high targets in return for the pay and working life. They have a place, but it is a tricky model, even for the stalwarts, to get right.

The idea that the equivalent of "Metal Mickey" from the 80s American sitcom could ever replace the experience and guidance of a human in this setting is truly astonishing.
Whilst "robots" can perhaps be trusted for simply comparing market rates, they cannot provide the human touch that is essential in actually delivering bespoke advice for an individual's circumstances. It's not all just about the money of course and every week I am asked for advice, support, and guidance that only human experience and understanding can offer. Negotiating, interpreting surveys, dealing with other professions and personal communication all require the human touch.
It is concerning that some individuals are so fearful of interacting with others that they would consider consulting a robot for one of the most significant debts and decisions they may ever undertake but only those who deal in theoretically perfect academic scenarios could argue that a robot is preferable to genuine human interaction.

"Hello, I'm the robo adviser, how can I help?"
"speak to someone"
"Would you like to see your mortgage balance?"
"No"
"Hello, I'm the robo adviser, how can I help?"
"Contact a person"
"Would you like to connect your Personal ISA?"
"No!"
"Hello, I'm the robo adviser, how can I help?"

And so on and so on. Robo advisers will miss so much. At the moment, they are only a CRM system, but with advisers using the data after. Person-to-person is much more personal and helps the client feel that they are being looked after.
If you take the personal out of the track, I believe that clients do not get the right amount of care. What if the client is not able to read the T's & C's etc? plus it means a simple click will bypass the protection and other things that could be needed. When real AI takes over the process, they should rename the robo advisers to what they actually are - any-old-mortgage-without-too-many-questions-or-care.com - and leave it at that.