This article, published in May, is already somewhat dated, and demonstrates some fundamental misunderstandings about the market. Human wealth advisors and robo

This article, published in May, is already somewhat dated, and demonstrates some fundamental misunderstandings about the market. Human wealth advisors and robo-advisors only overlap for a limited number of services, notably asset allocation and rebalancing. Wealth advisors typically help their clients with tax and estate planning, and make introductions to other wealthy individuals of interest. Robos apply algorithms to investments. I know, because I used to work for FutureAdvisor, a great YC startup that was bought by BlackRock a few weeks ago. Secondly, human wealth advisers were never "in fashion" with most people, because most people do not have the $500K to $1M in net worth to meet their minimums. Human advisors earn a percentage of clients' wealth, have a limited amount of time, and have neither the incentive nor the time to accept middle-class clients. It's a tired refrain, but human experts don't scale. That's why robos exist. They are stepping into the gap left between the supply of human advisers and the demands of the so-called mass affluent. Another fundamental flaw of the Economist piece is to talk about millennials. Outside of Silicon Valley and Wall St., millennials just don't have that much money. They are not a good demographic to base a business on, and they're not even the main customer base of many robos. Again, the middle-class, mid-career professionals who have been neglected by human advisers are...