Every week, it seems another industry is being told to prepare for the great AI reckoning. We’re told algorithms will soon do our jobs, drive our cars, and even create our art. So, surely, managing something as logical as our money should be low-hanging fruit for a super-smart computer, right? Well, it turns out, when it comes to our life savings, we Brits are rather more sentimental than the tech evangelists might have us believe.
A fascinating piece of research from the adviser marketplace Unbiased.co.uk lays this out in stark numbers. A whopping seven in ten of us still prefer to get our financial advice from a person. So much for the robot takeover of Threadneedle Street. It seems the human touch is still the killer app in personal finance. But why is that?
The Human Algorithm: Why We still Bank on People
The debate over human vs AI financial advice isn’t just about spreadsheets and market data. If it were, AI would have won already. The Unbiased report reveals that for big decisions, particularly investments, the preference is overwhelming; 40% of people said they would only entrust their portfolio to a human adviser. A tiny 6% would be happy with a pure AI platform.
So what’s going on here? The primary driver is, unsurprisingly, trust. Our personal finance preferences are deeply emotional. We aren’t just handing over money; we’re handing over our hopes for the future – our retirement, our children’s education, that dream cottage by the sea. We want to look someone in the eye who understands that.
This isn’t about rejecting technology. It’s about recognising that financial advice is more than just number-crunching. It’s part therapy, part life-coaching, and part strategic planning. A human can read between the lines of a conversation, pick up on your anxieties about market volatility, and tailor advice not just to your risk profile, but to your personality. An algorithm, for all its processing power, can’t yet convincingly replicate that empathetic connection.
“Computer Says No”: The Limits of Algorithmic Advice
Whilst we might be warming to AI in some parts of our lives, the survey highlights significant AI advisory limitations that keep us cautious. The concerns are not trivial. A quarter of people cited a lack of human oversight as their biggest worry. Another 23% feared inaccurate or poor advice, and 19% were concerned about data privacy.
Think of it like this. Trusting your entire financial future to a pure AI today is a bit like getting into one of the very first self-driving cars. Intellectually, you understand the technology is probably very capable. But every instinct is screaming for a human to be sitting in the driver’s seat, hands hovering over the wheel, just in case a rogue pedestrian (or a market crash) appears out of nowhere.
That “just in case” feeling is powerful. What happens if the AI makes a catastrophic error? Who is accountable? Is there a complaints department for a rogue algorithm? These aren’t just technical questions; they are fundamental issues of responsibility and reassurance that the industry has yet to solve.
The Hybrid Model: The Best of Both Worlds?
This is where the story gets really interesting. The future isn’t a simple binary choice between a friendly adviser named Dave and an impersonal algorithm named ‘FinBot 3000’. The most revealing statistic in the Unbiased study is that 34% of people are open to a hybrid model: a human adviser who uses AI tools to enhance their service.
This isn’t man versus machine; it’s man with machine. As Tim Grimsditch from Unbiased puts it, “The future isn’t AI instead of advisers, but advisers enabled by AI.” This is the strategic sweet spot. Here, AI does what it does best: the heavy lifting. It can analyse thousands of data points, model complex scenarios, scan global markets for opportunities, and generate detailed reports in seconds. It frees up the human adviser from the drudgery of data entry and administration.
What does the human do? They do the irreplaceable human stuff. They interpret the AI’s output, apply emotional intelligence, build the client relationship, and make the final, nuanced judgement call. The AI provides the ‘what’; the human provides the ‘so what’ and the ‘now what’. This model leverages technology not to replace trusted experts, but to give them superpowers.
The Bedrock of It All: Financial Trust Factors
Ultimately, this whole conversation boils down to one word: trust. The financial trust factors that influence our decisions are complex. Competence is the entry ticket—we expect an adviser, human or AI, to know their stuff. But real, lasting trust is built on something more.
It’s built on consistency, clear communication, and a sense of shared purpose. It’s knowing your adviser remembers you mentioned wanting to help your kids with a house deposit in five years. It’s the reassurance in their voice during a market downturn, reminding you that your plan was built for moments just like this.
An AI can present you with a perfectly optimised, data-driven plan. But can it calm your nerves when the FTSE 100 drops 3% before lunch? Can it celebrate with you when you finally pay off your mortgage? It’s these deeply human interactions that cement the adviser-client relationship and make it so resilient against pure automation.
So, Where Does AI Fit In?
This doesn’t mean AI has no place in financial services. Far from it. When asked where they would be comfortable with AI, consumers gave some very logical answers. According to the research, 23% would be happy for an AI to help match them with a suitable human adviser, and 21% would use it for answering general financial questions.
This points to AI’s initial role as a brilliant enabler and efficiency tool. It can lower costs (a benefit seen by 24% of people), provide faster support (21%), and be available 24/7 (18%). Think of it as the ultimate triage nurse for the financial world—handling initial queries and routing you to the right specialist, who then takes over for the main diagnosis and treatment plan.
The future of financial advice is one where technology handles the mechanics, allowing humans to focus on the meaning. The best-performing advisers of the next decade won’t be the ones who resist AI, but the ones who master it. They’ll use it to become more efficient, more insightful, and ultimately, more human in their service.
The real question isn’t whether an AI will take your adviser’s job. The question you should be asking is: is my adviser smart enough to be using AI? What’s your take on this? Would you let an algorithm manage your pension? Let me know your thoughts.
