FT Logo

Copy article

FT Editor Banner

AI and advice: Should advisers welcome a second opinion?

Journalist: Hereward Mills, FT Adviser

ended 23. June 2026

This FT Adviser article about a client switching advisers based on a ChatGPT recommendation has generated a wide range range of opinion.

My questiosn are: 

  • Should advisers welcome clients using ChatGPT, or other large language models, as a free second opinion on the advice they receive?
  • Does the widespread use of artificial intelligence by clients mean advisers need to re-evaluate charging models and how they demonstrate value?

Very keen to hear your answers as well as general thoughts on the article. 

Best, 

Hereward 

5 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Copy

Editor
Nouran MoustafaVerified
Practice Principal & IFA at Roxton Wealth
Advisers should welcome clients using ChatGPT or any other tool as a second opinion. A client asking more questions is not a threat; it is a client taking their financial life seriously.

But AI can only work with the information it is given. It may produce a confident answer without knowing the client’s full income, tax position, protection needs, capacity for loss, family circumstances, existing arrangements or what could go wrong if the recommendation is wrong. That is the difference between information and advice.

The firms that feel threatened by AI may need to ask what they are charging for. If the value is simply explaining what an ISA is or repeating generic market commentary, clients can get that free in seconds. The value of an adviser is judgement, accountability, behavioural understanding and joining up decisions that do not sit neatly in one prompt.

AI should make clients more informed. It should also force advisers to become better.
Copy

Editor
Katrina YoungVerified
Futurist | Chief Technology Officer CTO/CDO Ethical AI & Digital Transformation Strategist at KYC Digital
A client switching advisers on a ChatGPT recommendation is less surprising than the industry’s response to it. The real question is what clients believe that second opinion represents.

Large language models have no regulatory standing, no fiduciary duty and no responsibility for the financial consequences of their output. They generate responses without understanding an individual’s financial circumstances or the full context behind regulated advice. AI can influence a financial decision, but it does not transfer professional responsibility.

Advisers do not need to compete with ChatGPT on convenience. They need to explain where AI assistance ends and professional advice begins.
Copy

Editor
Paul DenleyVerified
CEO at Oakham Wealth Management
Clients should absolutely use ChatGPT or another AI tool for a second opinion. Informed clients ask better questions, and that's healthy for the profession. However, although a large language model can explain options, it can't yet understand a client's circumstances, priorities, behavioural biases or family dynamics.

As AI makes information and insights increasingly accessible, advisers will need to demonstrate value less through knowledge alone and more through judgement, personalisation and implementation. Those who simply explain products may come under pressure. Those who help clients make better decisions, avoid costly mistakes and join the dots across their financial lives should become more valuable, not less.

The advisers who fear this moment are probably right to.
Copy

Editor
Graham NicollVerified
Financial Planner, Chartered FCSI at NCL Wealth Partners
Advisers should welcome clients using AI tools such as ChatGPT, provided they are viewed as a starting point for discussion rather than a substitute for regulated advice. AI can help clients understand concepts, formulate questions and become more engaged in their financial planning.

Advisers themselves often discuss client scenarios with colleagues to challenge assumptions and gain different perspectives. Large language models can serve a similar purpose by providing alternative viewpoints and prompting further consideration.

The value of advice has never been simply access to information. It lies in judgement, personal knowledge, behavioural coaching and applying technical expertise to an individual's circumstances. AI may change how advice is delivered, but it arguably increases the importance of advisers who can interpret information and help clients make better decisions.
Copy

Colette MasonVerified
AI Ethics Consultant at Clever Clogs AI
AI can give investors a reason to question whether 30 funds, platform fees and an annual graph parade really represent value, especially when cheap trackers are sitting there looking brutally simple by comparison.

But can an LLM accurately understand the client, the risk profile, the tax position, the family context, the fear of messing it up, or the life choices sitting underneath the portfolio?

Ask the same model “are you sure?”, “isn’t that simplistic?” or “please pay more attention” and you will get a different portfolio choice dressed up with the same authority.

AI is proving mediocre advice has been expensive for long enough when a frankenmodel applies the same rigour. That does not mean it is a replacement.

Remember AI has run out of quality, timely material to ingest, a “fresh second opinion” built from stale fund documents, dated press releases, weird Reddit threads and the user's random article pastes is just as bad as buying 100 lottery tickets and hoping for the best.