機器人搶飯碗 什么崗位較安全？

機器人搶飯碗 什么崗位較安全？

今天各個行業(yè)不斷加入“機器人同事”，不少白領擔心自己飯碗不保。而在個人金融問題上，摻雜著太多現實社會中的復雜情況和情感，或許這個崗位的你，暫時不用擔心位置被取代？

測試中可能遇到的詞匯和知識：

venture capital風險投資

allure誘惑；吸引[??l??(r)]

lucrative賺錢的；合算的['lu?kr?t?v]

onus義務；負擔['??n?s]

enduring持久的；能忍受的[?n'd???r??; en-]

portfolio證券投資組合[p??t'f??l???]

column專欄；圓柱['k?l?m]

quantitative定量的；量的['kw?nt?,t?t?v; -,te?t?v]

scenario情節(jié)；劇本[s?'nɑ?r???]

Robots can’t solve real-world financial problems（717 words）

By Jason Butler

Barely a week goes by these days without a new online or app-based investment service being launched. Many millions of pounds of venture capital money has flowed into these start-up businesses,based on the allure of lucrative,percentage-based fees for providing investment management.

Typically,these new digital investment firms offer a slick website or app with pretty and engaging graphics. After answering some simple questions,the customer is shown a range of potential investment outcomes,and then“guided”to an investment strategy before being invited to sign up to the firm’s investment service.

The site or app is generally free to use,but the main attraction is that services are cheaper than those provided by most traditional wealth managers,stockbrokers and financial advisers: the total cost for most digital investment services is in the region of 1 per cent a year,compared with between 1.4 to 2.2 per cent a year for traditional advice firms.

Most of these new digital investment providers do not provide personal advice,because this would make the sales process too complicated,few people would persevere to the end and it would represent a higher risk for the provider. Instead,they provide“guidance”,which puts the onus on the customer to make the right investment choice,with much less protection than offered by a full advice service.

It makes sense,therefore,to compare these digital guidance services with other non-advised options. Vanguard,for example,offers a range of risk graded index investment portfolios through its LifeStrategy range at an all-in charge of 0.24 per cent a year.

A typical investor with taxable,Isa and pension accounts,using a low-cost investment platform,such as that operated by Alliance Trust,would bring the total cost to no more than 0.3 per cent a year — or less for portfolios above ￡500,000. Indeed this is how I invest my family’s portfolio.

As well as not really being low cost,digital investment providers are not set up to diagnose and address the real financial problems most people have — and are therefore unlikely to deliver enduring value.

A digital investment website has the sole aim of selling the company’s investment portfolio services and in that respect they are like a man with a hammer,who sees every problem as a nail. Yet putting capital into an investment portfolio isn’t always the right answer: debt reduction,building a cash reserve,making lifetime financial gifts or investing in a business may be more appropriate.

Aside from financial organisation（which I tackled in my last column) the most important financial task many people need doing for them is“l(fā)ifestyle financial planning”. This is not something well-suited to a digital service. It entails identifying and articulating certain aspects of the kind of life you want,taking into account your attitude to money,psychological biases and personal circumstances. It also involves the quantitative aspect of how to make your money last your lifetime under various“what if”scenarios,using financial planning software and sensible underlying assumptions.

Doing it well requires a good deal of personal information,effective financial scenario modelling and a tax strategy. Although technology can streamline elements of this service,the emotional,coaching and collaborative aspects,together with the complexity of the tax system,mean it does need the input of a human adviser.

As I’ve said before,many people would benefit from lifestyle financial planning advice,which is charged on a fixed annual fee. The problem is that most established financial advice firms have very high costs which they have no incentive to reduce,and have become used to profit margins of between 25-40 per cent a year. They hide behind high,percentage based-charges levied on investment portfolios or charge a fixed fee that is so high it puts off many affluent potential clients.

In my view,the solution is not to spend many millions of pounds creating digital businesses that sell a painting-by-numbers investment solution for the price of a Picasso. Instead what’s needed is to rethink how to deliver a high quality,consistent and personalised lifestyle financial planning service at a fair price.

Good value and effective lifestyle financial planning can be delivered by blending the latest technology with experienced and well-qualified human professionals. It just requires a big vision,long-term commitment and a focus on customers’best interests.