If AI is helping financial advisers save time and become more efficient, investors should be asking a simple question: Who benefits from that efficiency?
What if your financial adviser suddenly started taking on twice as many clients? A year ago, that question would have sounded hypothetical. Today, it’s entirely plausible.
Sign up for Kiplinger’s Free Newsletters
Profit and prosper with the best of expert advice on investing, taxes, retirement, personal finance and more – straight to your e-mail.
Profit and prosper with the best of expert advice – straight to your e-mail.
According to Bloomberg, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon said the bank’s roughly $2 billion annual investment in AI is already producing billions in benefits and cost savings.
Business Insider reported that Dimon pointed to AI-driven savings from reduced headcount, productivity gains and operational efficiencies, while describing the benefits as only “the tip of the iceberg.”
What’s missing
Conspicuously absent from this reporting was any meaningful discussion about how AI would improve the client experience. That’s where the conversation stops being about technology and starts being about ethics.
That became clear to me during a recent podcast conversation with Jeff George, CFA and founder of TAO Financial, an independent fee-only fiduciary adviser who is a member of my Wealthramp network. Like many advisers, Jeff has begun integrating AI into his practice.
Jeff explained he’s using AI to help organize research, prepare for client meetings and capture notes during conversations (without sharing personal information).
The note-taking capability, in particular, has changed how he works with clients. Instead of dividing his attention between listening and documenting, he can focus entirely on the conversation and review a detailed record afterward.
That’s a meaningful improvement in the client experience because the efficiency allows him more face time with clients.
What Jeff does not do is allow AI to participate in the part of the process clients are paying him for.
“I don’t allow AI to influence anything that requires independent judgment,” he told me. More telling was what came next: “I believe that clients are hiring me for my advice and that they want my brain. And if I’m using AI to build financial plans, then what are they really paying for?”
Jeff’s guardrails are surprisingly straightforward:
- He won’t allow AI to recommend portfolio changes, determine withdrawal strategies or make planning recommendations that require professional judgment
- He won’t upload client information into public AI tools
- He won’t accept AI-generated conclusions without verifying the underlying sources himself
- He won’t present AI-generated output to a client as if it were his own analysis
Those guardrails aren’t just a reflection of Jeff’s approach to AI. They highlight a much bigger issue for investors.
Too much information can overwhelm
Most people who reach out to me to find fiduciary advisers aren’t suffering from a lack of information. If anything, they’re overwhelmed by it. They’ve read articles, listened to podcasts, watched YouTube videos and increasingly experimented with AI themselves.
What they still don’t know is whether they can afford to retire, whether they’re taking too much risk, whether helping an adult child will jeopardize their own future or whether they’re making a costly mistake they can’t see.
Those are judgment problems that require decisions to be made with full context.
Two investors can have identical portfolios, identical incomes and identical account balances and still need completely different advice because they’re solving different life problems. One might be caring for an aging parent.
Another could be supporting grandchildren. One might be terrified of running out of money. Another could need permission to spend more freely. The facts might be the same. The advice should not be.
This is where I think the AI conversation sometimes goes off track.
People often ask whether AI will replace financial advisers. Increasingly, I hear a different version of the question: If consumers have access to the same AI tools, why hire an adviser at all?
It’s a fair question.
Consumers can absolutely use AI to become better-informed investors. They can ask smarter questions, learn unfamiliar concepts, compare strategies, explore retirement scenarios and organize information far more efficiently than ever before. Used thoughtfully, AI can be a powerful financial education tool.
But information and advice aren’t the same thing.
Jeff described that tension perfectly. Used appropriately, AI can handle the blocking and tackling of running an advisory practice — organizing information, managing workflows, documenting conversations and performing preliminary research.
That frees advisers to spend more time doing work that actually requires experience, context and judgment.
But he also acknowledged the slippery slope. At some point, every adviser will face a choice between using AI to serve clients better and using AI to serve more clients. Those aren’t necessarily the same thing.
That’s why I believe consumers need to ask a different set of questions. Instead of asking whether an adviser uses AI, find out how you benefit from it. Ask:
- What safeguards are in place to ensure AI supports rather than replaces personalized advice?
- Is confidential information is ever entered into public AI systems?
- What decisions are never delegated to technology?
- How will the adviser’s use of AI improve your experience as a client?
This should become part of your adviser vetting process, because their answers will reveal where most of the benefits of AI are flowing — to you or to their firm.
Financial advice has always been an industry where consumers had to look beyond marketing claims to understand what they were really buying. AI doesn’t change that reality. If anything, it makes the distinction between outstanding fiduciary advisers and sales-driven advisers easier to see.
The advisers who stand out in the next decade won’t necessarily be the ones using the most sophisticated technology. They’ll be the ones who can clearly explain how they’re using it, why they’re using it and where they draw the line.
