NETHERLANDS Law and Practice Contributed by: Roderik Vrolijk, Rogier Raas, Ingrid Viertelhauzen and Maarten Weekenborg, Stibbe
3. Robo-Advisers 3.1 Requirement for Different Business Models Traditional financial instruments (eg, shares, bonds, ETFs and certain security tokens) qualify as finan - cial instruments under the Wft. Robo-advisers offer - ing automated portfolio management or investment advice in these instruments typically require an invest - ment firm licence and must comply with MiFID II as transposed into the Wft (eg, suitability testing, disclo - sure requirements and product governance). With effect from 1 July 2024, Dutch financial regula - tions introduced additional safeguards for automated advice to consumers, requiring financial services pro - viders using automated systems to give advice to: • designate responsible persons with sufficient expertise; • conduct pre-deployment analyses; • periodically verify appropriateness of automated advice; and • take immediate mitigating measures where defi - ciencies are identified. Most cryptocurrencies fall outside the Wft’s scope. Robo-advisers focusing solely on crypto-assets may nonetheless be subject to MiCAR authorisation requirements and applicable Dutch consumer-protec - tion rules. 3.2 Legacy Players’ Implementation of Solutions Introduced by Robo-Advisers Dutch banks, insurers and asset managers have broadly responded to robo-advisers through selec - tive integration rather than wholesale replacement of traditional advisory models. • Hybrid advisory models – Legacy players increas - ingly combine digital onboarding, automated risk profiling and model portfolios, with access to human advisers for more complex situations. • White-label or in-house robo solutions – Several legacy players have deployed proprietary robo- advice engines or white-label fintech solutions within existing client portals, retaining governance, compliance and client ownership in-house.
• Cautious regulatory implementation – Compared to fintech start-ups, legacy players tend to imple - ment robo-advice conservatively, often limiting automated models to execution-only or simplified advice propositions. This reflects both liability risk management and heightened supervisory scru - tiny, particularly given the AFM’s stated focus on robo-advice as part of its 2023–2026 supervisory strategy. 3.3 Issues Relating to Best Execution of Customer Trades Under the Wft, best execution rules apply to invest - ment firms executing client orders in financial instru - ments. Key provisions include the obligations for investment firms to: • take all reasonable measures to obtain the best possible result for clients, considering: (a) price, (b) costs, (c) speed, (d) likelihood of execution and settlement, (e) size, and (f) nature of the order; and • establish, implement and regularly review an order execution policy. In a robo-advisory context: • algorithms must be designed to execute orders on terms most favourable to clients; • automated decision-making logic must be properly calibrated, monitored and periodically reviewed; and • conflicts of interest embedded in algorithms (such as biased venue selection or product preferences) must be identified and mitigated. Firms should also maintain adequate audit trails to demonstrate compliance.
572 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook