Skip to main content

Even Peasants Can Have Robots Invest Their Money

If that sounds like something you're interested in.
  • Author:
  • Updated:

Artificial intelligence isn’t just for Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk and Ray Dalio. It’s for you, too, in much cheaper and less sophisticated form, anyway. And it can only go on what you tell, and since we are tremendous liars to ourselves as well as to others, this may be a problem. Certainly, Bill Galvin (obviously) thinks it is a problem.

“I am not sure that many investors, in many cases, can be adequately taken care of by answering questions,” said William F. Galvin, Massachusetts secretary of the commonwealth, who likened the services to driverless cars. “You need a human that is responding to them.’’

Kara Stein, too.

“We should be asking whether these new robo-advisers can be neatly placed within our existing laws,” she said in a November speech. “Or, do we need certain tweaks and revisions?”

Also, this law professor in the pay of people who are very much opposed to (investing) robots taking over their world.

“The robo-advisers do seem to skirt the edges of fiduciary law,” she said. “It seemed they were putting a lot of responsibility on the investor, which is fine, but it is a question of how they present themselves.”

The Pros and Cons of Using a Robot as an Investment Adviser [NYT]



Do Robo-Advisors Have Electric Fiduciary Duties?

Gary Gensler’s latest thought experiment.

By D J Shin (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 or GFDL], via Wikimedia Commons

UBS Hires Robots To Manage Money For Relatively Poor People

$1.4 billion is a small price to pay to not have to hire financial advisers.

(Getty Images)

New JPMorgan ETF Robot May Not Be Cool, But It Is Cheap

J.D. & co. are betting that’ll be enough to keep the twenty- and thirty-somethings rolling in to their local chase branch.

The Less-Colorful Eliot Spitzer Strikes Again

[caption id="attachment_99794" align="alignleft" width="260"] No jurisdiction can hold me.[/caption] Hedge fund manager Phil Goldstein once said that when Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth Bill Galvin looks in the mirror in the morning, he sees Eliot Spitzer. Granted, he said this before certain aspects of Client Number Nine's private life hit the front pages, but the point was made. And while Spitzer moves from one failed media venture to another—undoubtedly paying very close attention to a certain South Carolina House race—Galvin still carries the torch and a copy of the Bay State's securities law. That law must be unusually broad, because he's used it to fine a German bank $17.5 million for naughtiness related to a CDO created with an Illinois-based hedge fund.


Sheriff Of Boston-ham Comes For Robinhood

Massachusetts has some problems with the Millennial trading-game app.


Sheriff of Boston-ham Wants To String Up Robinhood

This time, though, it’s for taking money from the poor.