After more than twenty-five years in wealth management, I have watched technology change many aspects of how advisors work. Some changes have been gradual, while others have altered everyday processes much more quickly. Artificial intelligence feels different because of both the pace of development and the range of questions it raises for advisory firms.
I recently attended a three-day AI Executive Education Program at Stanford focused on artificial intelligence and its implications for registered investment advisers and other businesses. One distinction from those discussions has stayed with me: the difference between using technology to automate human work and using it to augment human capabilities.
Automation generally involves technology performing a task that previously required human effort. Augmentation is different. It involves using technology to assist a person while that person remains responsible for judgment, review, and decision-making.
For wealth management, I think that distinction deserves careful consideration. AI may change how certain work gets done, but that does not necessarily change what clients need from the people advising them.
Efficiency Is Only One Way to Think About AI
Many activities within an advisory firm could benefit from AI and other technologies. Depending on the application and the firm’s policies, technology may help organize information, summarize documents, conduct preliminary research, prepare internal materials, or support administrative processes.
During the Stanford program, RIA leaders discussed using technology to reduce repetitive work and create additional capacity for employees to focus on client and employee experiences.
I found myself thinking about what that additional capacity actually means.
Saving time is easy to understand as an operational objective. The harder question is what happens with the time saved. Does it simply allow an organization to complete more tasks, or could it give professionals more time to prepare for conversations, consider a client’s circumstances, and coordinate with other professionals involved in a client’s planning?
I do not think there is one answer that applies to every advisory firm. Different firms have different clients, processes, technologies, compliance requirements, and business models. What seems important is defining the problem before deciding that AI is the solution.
That idea came up repeatedly during the program. Participants discussed the importance of establishing what a firm is trying to accomplish rather than simply adopting the latest available technology.
Some Parts of Wealth Management Remain Deeply Human
Wealth management can appear highly quantitative from the outside. Investment portfolios, financial plans, projections, tax considerations, estate structures, and market data all involve significant amounts of information.
Yet my experience working with families has taught me that many conversations do not fit neatly into a spreadsheet.
This is especially true with globally connected, multigenerational families. Their circumstances may involve businesses, investments, family members, or professional advisors in different jurisdictions. There may also be differences in language, culture, expectations, and generational experiences.
An advisor can gather information about those circumstances, but understanding what matters to a family often requires conversation.
A question about succession, for example, may involve more than the mechanics of transferring ownership. Discussions about the next generation may involve different views about responsibility, independence, or participation in a family enterprise. Cross-border circumstances can add another layer because legal and tax considerations may vary by jurisdiction and require input from the family’s appropriate professional advisors.
I can imagine AI becoming increasingly useful in supporting professionals as they organize and evaluate information surrounding these situations. I am more cautious about assuming that technology can replace the human judgment involved in understanding the people behind that information.
Human Oversight Matters
One discussion at Stanford involved the idea of an “AI-augmented RIA” and the importance of maintaining human involvement in AI-assisted processes.
That principle makes sense to me, particularly in a regulated industry.
AI-generated information can sound convincing even when it requires additional review. The speed with which these systems produce information can also create a temptation to treat efficiency as evidence of accuracy.
Those are different things.
The appropriate level of human oversight will depend on the particular technology, task, information involved, and a firm’s policies and regulatory obligations. Technology may assist with relatively routine activities in some situations, while other situations require substantially more scrutiny because the consequences of an error are greater.
The Stanford program explored a similar distinction. Some applications may be suitable for greater automation, while other applications may be better suited to generating suggestions or preliminary work that a person subsequently evaluates.
For advisory firms, determining where those boundaries lie is likely to be an ongoing process rather than a one-time decision.
AI Adoption Raises Questions Beyond Technology
Another point I took away from the program is that adopting AI is not simply a matter of choosing software.
It also involves people.
Firms may need to consider training, internal processes, data, security, compliance, accountability, and how employees actually use the technology. Participants at Stanford discussed leadership support, change management, internal expertise, well-defined processes, and collaboration between business and technology teams as parts of AI implementation.
I think this is an important counterweight to some of the excitement surrounding AI.
There is always a temptation with new technology to begin with the tool. What can it do? How quickly can we deploy it? What can we automate?
I find myself increasingly interested in a different set of questions. What problem are we trying to address? What information will the system use? Where does human review occur? What happens when the technology produces an incorrect result? How will we determine whether using it has actually been worthwhile?
Those questions are less exciting than a demonstration of a new AI product, but they may ultimately be more important.
The Advisor’s Work May Change Without Eliminating the Advisor
I expect artificial intelligence will continue changing the daily work of wealth management professionals. I would be surprised if many of the processes we use today remain unchanged over the next decade.
Some activities may become more automated. Others may become faster or require different skills. Advisors may also spend more time reviewing technology-assisted work and determining when human involvement is necessary.
What I am less certain about is whether the fundamental need for human relationships changes to the same degree.
Families will still face decisions with no single objectively correct answer. Different generations may continue to have different priorities. Entrepreneurs will still navigate transitions in their businesses and personal lives. Globally connected families will still need to coordinate with legal, tax, investment, and other professionals across jurisdictions.
Technology may assist with parts of that work, but people remain responsible for the decisions.
That is why I came away from the Stanford program thinking less about whether AI will replace advisors and more about how it may change the way advisors spend their time.
The distinction matters.
The opportunity I see is not simply to automate as much work as possible. It is to evaluate where technology may be useful, where human judgment remains necessary, and how the two can coexist within a profession built around information, responsibility, and relationships.
AI will continue to evolve, and my own thinking about it will undoubtedly evolve as well. For now, I believe the most useful approach is neither to resist the technology nor to assume that every new capability should be adopted immediately. It is to remain curious, test assumptions carefully, and keep asking what role technology should play in supporting the work that advisors and their clients are actually trying to accomplish.
Important Disclosure
This commentary reflects the personal opinions, viewpoints and analyses of the Arden Global Family Offices employees providing such comments, and should not be regarded as a description of advisory services provided by Arden Global Family Offices or performance returns of any Arden Global Family Offices client. The views reflected in the commentary are subject to change at any time without notice. Nothing in this commentary constitutes investment advice, performance data or any recommendation that any particular security, portfolio of securities, transaction or investment strategy is suitable for any specific person. Any mention of a particular security and related performance data is not a recommendation to buy or sell that security. Arden Global Family Offices manages its clients’ accounts using a variety of investment techniques and strategies, which are not necessarily discussed in the commentary. Investments in securities involve the risk of loss. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Arden Global Family Offices may not render advice unless a client service agreement is in place.