Key takeaways:
- In our 2026 Investor Survey, women expressed greater discomfort than men across every advisor AI use case we measured, with the largest differences appearing in areas related to personal communication and investment recommendations.
- The findings reinforce our view that while technology can support many advisor functions, client connection and trust-building require human involvement.
- As AI becomes increasingly embedded in wealth management, advisors will need to approach the technology as an enhancement to – not a replacement for – human advice.
Lori had always let her husband handle most of the financial decisions, not because she wasn’t capable, but because that’s simply how they divided responsibilities. After he passed, she found herself sitting across from her advisor with a notebook full of questions and a knot in her stomach.
This conversation wasn’t really about asset allocation, withdrawal rates, or investment performance – it was about whether she would be okay.
A few days later, she sent her advisor an email: “I’m still nervous. Can we talk through this one more time?” The response came back quickly. It was thorough and answered every question she had asked. But her first thought wasn’t about the advice itself; i rather, she immediately asked herself, “Did my advisor write this?”
When she sent the email, Lori wasn’t looking for information. She was seeking reassurance and wanted to know that someone who knew her story and understood her concerns was on the other side of the conversation. Yet she was left questioning whether someone she trusted had read it, considered it, and was willing to stand behind the advice they’d given.
What women may be asking advisors about AI
Artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming part of the wealth management landscape. Advisors are using it to summarize meetings, organize client information, create content, streamline workflows, and support research.
The question is no longer whether AI will influence advisor-client relationships, but rather how and to what extent.
The findings from our 2026 Investor Survey – which gauged how investors feel about their advisors using AI – offered valuable insight into that question. And from my perspective, they also pointed to three questions female investors may be asking, either consciously or unconsciously, as AI becomes more visible in wealth management:
- Are you listening to me?
- Are you thinking with me?
- Are you standing behind your advice?
Before exploring those questions, consider one of the most revealing findings from the survey:
Women expressed greater discomfort than men across every advisor AI use case we measured, with the largest differences appearing in areas involving personal communication and investment recommendations.
Rather than viewing these results as resistance to technology, we believe they suggest that as AI becomes more visible in advice relationships, many clients – and particularly women – are looking for reassurance that the human elements of advice remain intact.
Now, let’s consider each of those questions:
“Are you still listening to me?”
The largest gender difference in the survey appeared around AI-generated communications. Women were more likely than men to say they would be upset if an advisor used AI to automatically respond to their emails or texts. Some might interpret this as skepticism toward technology. But if we think back to the opening story, Lori wasn’t looking for a faster response; she was looking for reassurance from someone she trusted.
Communication in an advisory relationship is rarely just about information. More often, it’s about helping clients navigate uncertainty. Our survey findings suggest that many women still want assurance that there is a human behind the communication who understands not just the numbers, but the person behind them.
The takeaway: Technology can support communication, but connection requires human involvement.
“Are you still thinking with me?”
Female respondents to our survey were also more likely than men to express discomfort with advisors using AI to provide investment recommendations. Like the findings related to advisor communications, this sentiment reflects clients’ deeper expectations: They don’t hire advisors to simply gather information, but to provide personalized guidance.
Specifically, what they’re seeking is interpretation, context, and judgement. And because financial decisions don’t occur in a vacuum, recommendations must be viewed through the lens of a client’s unique goals, family dynamics, fears, values, and life circumstances. While AI can surface insights and identify opportunities, clients still want to feel confident that an experienced advisor has considered the broader context.
The takeaway: The opportunity with AI isn’t about replacing judgment with technology; it’s about harnessing technology to enhance judgment.
“Are you still standing behind your advice?”
At the heart of both connection and judgment sits accountability. When investors receive advice, whether supported by AI or not, they want to know who owns the recommendation.
Our survey found that 85% of investors believe their advisor remains ultimately responsible for AI-generated advice and materials. This finding speaks volumes about how investors may welcome technology, but they are not comfortable transferring accountability to it.
The greater discomfort that women expressed around AI-generated communications and recommendations appears to point to the same underlying concern: Not whether AI is involved in a given scenario, but whether a trusted advisor is still personally invested in the outcome.
The takeaway: Accountability still matters, and accountability requires human involvement and engagement.
The real AI opportunity: Amplifying human connection
The wealth industry often talks about AI in terms of efficiency, scale, and productivity. Investors appear to be talking about something quite different: They are asking whether technology can improve their experience without diminishing the human relationship they value.
For women in particular, our research suggests the answer may depend less on whether AI is present and more on whether advisors can answer the three questions addressed in this article: Was their advisor listening to them, thinking with them, and willing to stand behind the advice they received? When advisors can say yes to all three, AI becomes something powerful: not a replacement for human advice, but an enhancement to it.
This brings us back to Lori. The real question behind the email she received wasn’t whether AI helped draft a response; it was whether the person she trusted was still present in the process.
For advisors, that may be the most important lesson from this research. As AI becomes increasingly embedded in wealth management, clients won’t judge its success based on how it improves an advisor’s efficiency. What they’ll be most interested in is whether it helps strengthen (or weaken) the trust at the center of the relationship.
Because for clients like Lori, trust will still be built the same way it always has been – through human connection, thoughtful guidance, and the confidence that someone is standing beside them when the decisions matter most.
