Robo-advice may play a useful role in helping borrowers, particularly vulnerable households, make the best decisions about which loan repayments to prioritise.
This paper explains the results from a robo-advice experiment that asked consumers to make hypothetical borrower repayment decisions. It finds:
- Access to free robo-advice significantly improves repayment decisions.
- The average willingness to pay for robo-advice is actually higher than the interest and fees it saves borrowers, suggesting a significant mental cost to making repayment decisions.
- Consumers learn little from using robo-advice, even when provided with explanations. As a result, borrowers are likely to need repeated access to robo-advising tools for decisions to be improved on an ongoing basis.
Ida Chak, Karen Croxson, Francesco D’Acunto, Jonathan Reuter, Alberto Rossi and Jonathan Shaw
Occasional Papers contribute to the work of the FCA by providing rigorous research results and stimulating debate. While they may not necessarily represent the position of the FCA, they are one source of evidence that the FCA may use while discharging its functions and to inform its views. The FCA endeavours to ensure that research outputs are correct, through checks including independent referee reports, but the nature of such research and choice of research methods is a matter for the authors using their expert judgement. To the extent that Occasional Papers contain any errors or omissions, they should be attributed to the individual authors, rather than to the FCA.