Advisers comfortable with back-office AI but wary of using it for client money

Financial advisers are open to using agentic artificial intelligence (AI) for administrative work across the advice journey, but still want human oversight for decisions that directly affect client money, according to GBST and The Lang Cat.

The wealth management technology provider and consultancy’s research found strong appetite among advisers for using AI for high-volume, rules-based tasks.

Four fifths (80 per cent) of advisers were comfortable with AI collecting data for annual reviews and suitability packs, while the vast majority were happy to use the technology for onboarding and letters of authority (77 per cent), KYC and anti-money laundering checks (76 per cent), and fees and charges reconciliation (75 per cent).

However, comfort fell when considering AI for decisions that directly impact client money, although advisers were still more likely to be comfortable or undecided than against using AI in these instances.

For pension transfers, 43 per cent were happy to use AI, 29 per cent were neutral, and 29 per cent were uncomfortable.

Meanwhile, for central investment proposition (CIP) switching and rebalancing, 53 per cent were comfortable using the technology, 22 per cent were undecided, and 25 per cent were uncomfortable.

Familiarity with agentic AI was patchy, according to the study, with 31 per cent of advisers unable to describe what it does and 29 per cent unable to identify its core capabilities.

However, when given a description of agentic AI, 62 per cent said they would be comfortable with it being embedded into their platform, while 18 per cent were neutral.

“Rather than resisting AI, advisers have drawn a sensible boundary around it,” said GBST CEO, Rob DeDominicis.

“They are comfortable with agentic AI taking on the high-volume administrative tasks, like reconciliation and collation of data.

“This is necessary work, but it takes up time without adding visible value for clients. Where client money is directly at stake, they want human oversight, but that doesn't mean doing everything manually.

“On more involved processes such as transfers, it's about keeping people at the decision points while the system carries out the firm's own procedure and records every step.

“The Mills Review makes the same distinction, recommending the FCA monitors this closely. Advisers have effectively drawn that line themselves.

“Advisers are most comfortable when AI is built into the platform they already use, rather than bolted on the side. That keeps it within the controls and security already in place.

“That’s how we’ve built Composer’s agentic AI and what we’re seeing from clients as these capabilities move from controlled release into live operational processes.”

---