“The irony is that the tech might help us humanise the experience a bit more.”
Chartered financial planner
 

The interplay between man and machine is a dilemma for many industries as the power and reach of artificial intelligence (AI) extends. Adviser businesses are no different and will need to decide where AI can enhance the delivery of retirement advice.

Few advice businesses can thrive without technology. Many advisers rely on technology for client relationship management and back-office functions, for investment management via platforms and for risk assessment. It has been a way to remove friction from the advice process.

AI potentially enhances what is possible in the delivery of retirement advice. The latest research from BNY Investments and NextWealth – “Retirement Advice in the UK: Turning Insight into Outcomes” – found that currently between 7% and 13% of advisers are using AI for core advice functions, such as cash-flow planning, fraud detection or regular communications.¹

Higher, at 21%, is AI usage for automating and storing meeting notes, summaries and documentation, with a further 53% implementing or considering it.² This can save a lot of time, but suggests that advisers may still lack confidence in having the appropriate AI tools for the “mission critical” elements of retirement advice delivery. In general, this is not because advisers are technology-resistant, but because, in many cases, experience shows them that their clients require human explanation and trust first and foremost. Certainly, NextWealth’s consumer research suggests the adoption of AI in advice interactions is at the earlier stages. 

The limitations of technology

Cash-flow modelling tools are a good example of the limitations of technology in the delivery of financial advice. They can spit out neat projections, but they rely on good inputs. Clients often struggle to provide that input, and it is difficult for them to capture future spending accurately. One chartered financial planner in a large firm summed up the problem: “I don’t remember the last time I got a clear answer first time. It’s hard to pin them down on what they want to spend.”

Clients struggle to estimate what they will spend in a future they have not yet lived. Some default to current spending. The output is not useful without the context the adviser provides. The planner adds: “I say, ‘this is a rolling conversation over the next few years as you bed into retirement and get used to spending money without earning it first. As you get used to the fact you’re not Senior High Managing Director of the Universe anymore’, and I’m quite open with it.” In other words, the technology is unhelpful without an accompanying understanding of client behaviour.

Advisers are also aware of presenting cash-flow modelling projects with too much certainty. Clients can treat the output as definitive, leading to misplaced confidence or unnecessary anxiety. It needs to be framed as illustrative and revisable.

Equally, the limitations in the technology they use on a day-to-day basis may give advisers pause for thought on further adoption. For example, there are still clear limitations on investment platforms. Advisers report a range of challenges, particularly in relation to retirement income; problems include isolating income payments to specific assets or funds, limited flexibility in turning income on and off, and operational friction when rebalancing between buckets or portfolios. Advisers are forced into workarounds that increase complexity and the administrative burden, exactly the opposite of what they are trying to achieve.

Defining AI’s role in adviser-led planning

Where do advisers see the opportunity in AI in the delivery of retirement advice? One proposition lead for a large team of advisers said: “It will be doing the heavy lifting so you can go and deliver the beautiful financial plan to the client. It will be assessing the ongoing suitability based on the logic we put into it. It will be suggesting changes. It will be going and getting investment data. It will be doing all of that stuff so other people don't do it.”

Technology’s greatest role is in reducing the administrative burden, freeing up time to invest in communication, support and collaborative decision-making. As the proposition lead adds: “I want to see what the time saving would be, if I can turn data gathering from an hour to 30 seconds.” It also has a role as a sense check. Financial advisers see potential for technology to act as a “second pair of eyes”, helping improve decision-making, highlighting gaps or inconsistencies, and supporting compliance.

AI’s potential in managing client behaviour and supporting education also presents food for thought. It may be an option for advisers with clients who are nervous about asking questions, for example, or where a lack of financial education is holding them back. It may be able to manage some of the anxieties around market volatility, and prevent emotional decision-making.

Effective implementation to support human advice

As with all technology, success will rely on good implementation and adoption. Advisers are finding innovative ways to test new technology. One CEO of an advice business tests new technology with the most technology-averse member of the team. She says: “I assigned him with one of our AI specialists who loves this stuff and said, ‘you launch it’. He didn’t even want to open the app. Then as soon as he downloaded it, he was like, ‘this is saving me hundreds of hours of time’. He loved it. And when he told everyone he loves it, and everyone knows he’s not tech-savvy, everyone took it on.”

She believes this particular piece of AI has been widely adopted because, “it doesn’t add a process, it takes a process away. It was taking them 10 hours to see a client and write up their notes and do all the things in the back end of it. Now they can do it in an hour.”

Technology needs to be used as a tool to supplement and support human advice. Like tools such as cash-flow modelling, AI should enable better conversations between adviser and clients but cannot be used in isolation without human judgement. Advisers need to use technology to simplify decisions, not to signal precision. Automation can certainly support calculation and administration, but it cannot replace empathy or trust.

¹ Source: Research conducted by NextWealth for BNY Investments, based on responses to surveys with 207 retirement-focused financial advisers conducted in November 2025.

² Source: Research conducted by NextWealth for BNY Investments, based on responses to surveys with 207 retirement-focused financial advisers conducted in November 2025.