Why legacy firms that buy robos in haste show no signs of urgency after they take title

Great article, Jasen. You’ve answered the question many people are asking: what happens when the independent robos end up in the belly of the beast? The answer, as you say, is not much. I think your point that “looser coordination between business units can be more efficient than more coordination” is well taken. Of course, most large financial corporations don’t work that way! The way I look at it, the real hitch for these companies in terms of adopting robo is realizing advice consistency across channels (rather than rolling out yet another digital channel)....perhaps more institutional flexibility will be the answer.

Thoughtful piece. I think you are right that in a way, incumbents should (1) try to do less upfront and (2) do it faster. And indeed this is a cultural issue that is very hard to change. Industry should be launching more attempts, all compliant and discrete, and doing so without as much media pressure. Check out for example E-Trade’s roboadvisor or SoFi’s wealth management arm. These wasn’t as much navel gazing about those initiatives, now they are out, and time will tell how they adjust and change. The other point is that instead of shutting down, start-ups pivot. And they pivot a lot. So instead of shutting down an expensively-wound-up business unit if it doesn’t work according to a 5-year plan, incumbents should flex the resilience and evolution skillsets that entrepreneurs use to survive. Maybe that’s what ENV is doing?