I) You're correct: in every industry, the deck is skewed heavily in favor of incumbents. II) Nonetheless, incumbents sometimes lose new markets, or allow new e

I) You're correct: in every industry, the deck is skewed heavily in favor of incumbents. II) Nonetheless, incumbents sometimes lose new markets, or allow new entrants to achieve success. Ironically, Vanguard and Schwab are great examples of companies that more recently found openings in the personal finance space and prospered as a result. It's not a stretch to say that Vanguard was the Betterment of its day, or that Schwab was the Wealthfront of its day. III) Some other thoughts as to why anyone would choose to invest with a pure-play robo-advisor: - "The Schwab Intelligent Portfolios service is free—it earns revenue in part by investing clients’ money in Schwab-managed ETFs." That would turn me off, as it feels like a built-in conflict of interest. I'd be worried that there is incentive for this conflict to grow, and not in my favor. - "Customers need at least $50,000 invested at Vanguard to participate, but only those with at least $500,000 to invest get a dedicated adviser." Most Americans have less than $50k saved for retirement, IIRC. Vanguard is saying they don't want most people in this offering. Betterment and Wealthfront do not have account minimums, so they are positioned to start with people in their 20s and stick with them over the decades. I'm sure there are a bunch of other reasons around technology, etc., but these are the most obvious reasons presented in the article.