More than half of financial planners surveyed globally said their firms were already using artificial intelligence, but fewer than one in four reported having a comprehensive AI policy, according to the Financial Planning Standards Board’s 2026 global study.
Now in its second year, the Impact of AI on Financial Planning study found that planners were using AI for client communication, market research, and collecting client information, with most respondents reporting some improvement in efficiency. Data privacy, cybersecurity, and the accuracy of AI-generated output remained the leading concerns.
The FPSB surveyed 8 095 financial planners across 37 territories between 22 May and 6 July 2026, although response numbers varied by question. Respondents included Certified Financial Planner® professionals and other financial-planning professionals in almost equal proportions.
The findings are global and do not provide a separate breakdown for South Africa. The research was released on 7 October to coincide with World Financial Planning Day.
Eight in 10 report current, pilot, or planned AI adoption at their firms
The proportion of respondents who said their firms were already using AI increased from 38% in 2025 to 51% this year. A further 22% said their firms were piloting or testing the technology, and 7% planned to adopt it within the following 12 months.
Combined, 80% reported current, pilot, or planned adoption in 2026. The proportion who said their firms were not adopting AI declined from 35% in 2025 to 20%.
Governance arrangements also showed signs of development, although they remained uneven.
Twenty-three percent of respondents said their firms had comprehensive AI policies, up from 17% in 2025. Another 25% had general rules, 21% were developing policies, and 22% had no guidance. Nine percent selected “not applicable”.
The percentage reporting no guidance fell from 28% in 2025, while the percentage developing policies rose from 18%. The figures suggest that more firms are formalising their approach, although governance remains at different stages of development.
Communication and research lead practical use
Among respondents answering the question about client-service applications, communication and engagement was the most reported use of AI, selected by 51%. Market analysis and investment or product research followed at 42%, collecting client information at 36%, and client risk profiling at 35%.
Among these leading applications, market analysis and investment or product research recorded the largest year-on-year increase, rising from 28% to 42%.
Other reported applications were retirement-planning calculations and projections, financial education, financial-plan creation and analysis, strategy optimisation, insurance-needs analysis, tax planning, and estate planning.
Respondents also reported using AI in their firms’ wider operations. Marketing and promotions was the leading application, increasing from 35% in 2025 to 50%. Internal productivity and workflow optimisation followed at 35%, the financial-advice process at 34%, and data processing, analysis and segmentation at 33%.
Among those responding to the question about the AI products they used, large language models and generative AI products such as ChatGPT, Copilot, and Gemini were the most widely used category, selected by 49%. AI embedded in financial-advice software was used by 40%, while 25% used AI-enabled practice-management products and 24% used meeting notetakers or transcription products.
Planners report greater efficiency and capacity
Ninety-three percent of respondents answering the efficiency question said AI had improved their work efficiency to some degree. Seven percent reported a very significant improvement, 21% a significant improvement, 27% a moderate improvement, and 38% a slight improvement. Six percent reported no improvement.
Among respondents reporting on measurable improvements resulting from AI adoption:
- 52% selected increased operational efficiency;
- 49% selected an increased ability to serve more clients;
- 28% selected lower costs of delivering advice;
- 27% selected better compliance outcomes;
- 25% selected improved client satisfaction or engagement; and
- 22% selected increased practice revenue.
These figures reflect respondents’ experiences and assessments rather than independently measured changes in productivity, costs, or client outcomes.
Expectations about AI’s future contribution also became more positive.
Eighty-three percent believed AI would help them to serve clients better, up from 78% in 2025. Seventy-five percent expected it to improve the quality of financial-planning advice, compared with 60% the previous year.
Seven in 10 expected AI to increase access to financial planning among underserved populations, up from six in 10, while 68% believed it would reduce the cost of advice, compared with 59% in 2025.
These are expectations about AI’s potential rather than evidence that access, affordability, or advice quality has already improved.
Privacy and output reliability remain the leading concerns
Despite growing adoption, respondents continued to identify significant concerns about AI risks.
Data privacy and cybersecurity was the most frequently selected concern, cited by 53%. Accuracy and reliability of AI-generated output followed at 48%, while 33% selected data-related issues. Respondents could select up to three concerns.
Other concerns were problems with AI models, over-reliance on technology, ethical issues, limited transparency, reduced human interaction, and regulatory compliance or governance.
The percentage of respondents selecting a lack of human touch in client relationships fell from 24% in 2025 to 18% in 2026. Nine percent selected regulatory compliance or governance as a leading concern, while 5% selected a lack of firm policies or guidance.
The relatively low selection of governance-related answers does not establish that governance is unimportant. This question asked respondents to identify their leading risks, whereas separate questions examined whether firms had guidance and what their policies covered.
AI policies vary in the issues they address
Among respondents whose firms had an AI policy or guidance, 62% said these arrangements addressed data privacy and the protection of client information. Human-review requirements before AI-generated output reached clients were addressed by 48%, and 40% covered disclosure of AI use to clients.
Bias and fairness were covered by 32%, assessment of third-party AI vendors by 22%, and record-keeping for AI-assisted advice by 18%. Respondents could select all the categories addressed by their firms’ policies or guidance.
The findings show why the presence of an AI policy does not, by itself, indicate how comprehensively a firm has governed the technology.
The report did not assess whether firms performed these activities operationally when their written guidance did not address them. The results measure the subjects covered by policies and guidance, not every control that may exist within a firm.
Clients are bringing AI into the advice relationship
Among respondents able to identify the principal way their clients used AI for financial matters, 33% selected general financial education. Twenty-six percent selected personalised financial scenarios or projections, and 25% said clients used AI to validate or compare professional advice.
Sixteen percent said clients had not raised AI use with them.
The most reported effect on the planner-client relationship was a greater need to contextualise or correct AI-generated information, selected by 21%. Another 19% reported more collaborative, two-way discussions, while 16% said client use of AI had strengthened their role as a trusted professional.
Fourteen percent reported increased scepticism about professional advice.
The findings suggest that some clients are using AI to explore financial questions and compare advice before or alongside discussions with a financial planner. They also indicate a growing need for planners to assess and contextualise AI-generated information brought into client conversations.
Training tops the profession’s list of priorities
The survey asked respondents to select the single initiative they believed would most improve the safe and responsible use of AI in financial planning.
AI education and training ranked first, selected by 34%. Appropriate AI regulation followed at 25%, while 18% selected best-practice guidance on AI adoption and implementation.
Respondents also identified areas in which they wanted further professional development:
- data analysis and interpretation, 50%;
- ethical use of AI, 38%;
- AI fundamentals, 33%;
- AI-assisted client communication, 29%;
- cybersecurity and data protection, 27%;
- critical thinking and AI-output validation, 23%; and
- regulatory compliance in AI-driven financial planning, 20%.
Seventy-three percent also believed AI would require significant changes to financial-planning education and certification, up from 61% in 2025.
The FPSB also distinguished between activities particularly suited to AI assistance and areas where human capabilities remain central.
AI can help to collect information, analyse a client’s financial position, and support the development of recommendations. Human-led capabilities include establishing the client relationship and applying judgement, ethical reasoning, behavioural insight, context, and accountability throughout the advice process.
The findings suggest that further adoption will require more than acquiring additional products. Planners will also need the skills to assess AI-generated information and governance arrangements appropriate to professional financial advice.
