{"id":570,"date":"2017-03-03T18:32:46","date_gmt":"2017-03-03T18:32:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=570"},"modified":"2017-03-03T18:32:46","modified_gmt":"2017-03-03T18:32:46","slug":"sec-guidance-on-robo-advisers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bdia.pli.edu\/index.php\/2017\/03\/03\/sec-guidance-on-robo-advisers\/","title":{"rendered":"SEC Guidance on Robo-Advisers"},"content":{"rendered":"

The SEC staff\u2019s recent guidance on robo-advisers <\/a>is the most comprehensive SEC guidance to date concerning the considerations robo-advisers should keep in mind in meeting their legal obligations under the Advisers Act. The staff notes that robo-advisers, like all registered investment advisers, are subject to the substantive and fiduciary obligations of the Advisers Act. The staff further\u00a0 indicates that because robo-advisers rely on algorithms, provide advisory services\u00a0over the internet, and may offer limited, if any, direct human interaction to their clients, their unique business models may raise certain considerations when seeking to comply with the Advisers Act.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

More than anything else the SEC staff guidance is notable in that it evinces a flexible approach by robo-advisers in meeting their compliance obligations under the Advisers Act and because of this, the guidance does not present any significant roadblocks to the continued development and evolution of\u00a0 robo-advice.\u00a0 The SEC\u2019s guidance stands in stark contrast to the April 2016 policy paper by the Massachusetts Securities Department which indicated Massachusetts\u2019 concern regarding state-registered robo-advisers meeting their fiduciary obligations under Massachusetts law given the lack of human interaction.<\/p>\n

The guidance focuses on three distinct areas and how robo-advisers may address them:<\/p>\n