Can AI Replace a Human Adviser?
Artificial intelligence (AI) tools like ChatGPT are increasingly capable of analysing financial data, generating reports, and answering complex questions in seconds. But the real question is: can AI truly replace a human financial adviser?
In this series, ‘Can AI Replace a Human Adviser?’, we examine real-life case studies of clients navigating major life transitions and put AI to the test against a Providend Client Adviser. As these stories unfold, we reveal what AI gets right, what it gets dangerously wrong, and why human advice may still matter more than you think.
Case Study: How to Plan for Someone Who Is Going Through a Divorce?
Rachel, aged 36, is a marketing director at a multinational company, earning a take-home income of $180,000 per year. She is recently separated from her husband, and is the mother of two toddlers aged 3 and 5. She owns an HDB flat with an outstanding mortgage of $450,000, and she has some personal savings and investments.
Rachel’s goal is to ensure financial stability for her young children while navigating the divorce process. She hopes to maintain a secure home environment, continue funding her children’s early education, and rebuild her long-term financial plans independently.
Currently, Rachel has $100,000 in savings, $50,000 in investments, and $150,000 in CPF savings. She also has some insurance coverage, but the divorce and new custody arrangements make Rachel question whether her current plans adequately protect both her and her children. Cash flow and managing the mortgage are her immediate concerns.
Emotionally, Rachel feels stressed and overwhelmed by the legal process, childcare responsibilities, and the need to make critical financial decisions quickly. She also wants to ensure this transition does not compromise her long-term financial security or her children’s well-being.
Her question is: “How can I protect my children and myself financially during and after the divorce while maintaining stability and planning for our future?”
To find out, we posed Rachel’s exact situation to ChatGPT and asked it to act as her financial adviser. Our Deputy Head of Advisory, Yong Cheng, reviewed the AI-generated plan, analysed its conclusions, and compared them against what a real human adviser would do. Here is what he found.
What ChatGPT Got Right
The AI structured Rachel’s situation clearly and covered the right ground. It laid out her immediate priorities: stabilising cash flow, stress-testing her finances across different maintenance scenarios, reviewing insurance beneficiaries, and avoiding rushed decisions on the flat. It flagged the risk of keeping the flat out of emotional attachment rather than financial logic. It outlined a phased approach, from defence to rebuilding to long-term independence. It even addressed burnout as a financial risk for single parents in demanding roles.
For someone with no prior exposure to financial planning, this is a useful starting point. The logic is sound and the 90-day action plan gives Rachel something to hold on to.
Where It Falls Short
When Rachel said she was struggling emotionally and the information felt like too much, ChatGPT gave her a shorter list. That was a fair response. But it still pointed her towards action. It assumes that Rachel is ready to act when she may not be.
Divorce is not a one-time event to plan around. It is an extended period with financial and emotional pressures that shift as circumstances change. What Rachel needs is not just a good plan at the start. She needs support that keeps pace with what is actually happening in her life.
ChatGPT cannot call her the week after a bad court hearing. It cannot notice that she has gone quiet. It does not know when she needs someone to listen before she needs someone to advise.
How We Would Approach This Differently
Our role as advisers begins with listening. Before we present a single number or recommendation, we need to understand where Rachel is emotionally, what she is most afraid of, and what “stability” actually means to her right now. For some clients in her position, keeping the flat is genuinely the right financial call. For others, it is a way of avoiding a harder conversation. We cannot tell the difference from a balance sheet alone.
From there, our work is less about producing a comprehensive plan and more about being a consistent presence through an inherently inconsistent period. When her ex-husband contests the asset split, or custody arrangements change, or legal costs run higher than expected, the plan changes too. What does not change is her access to someone who knows her situation, understands the full picture, and can help her think through the implications calmly.
That ongoing relationship has practical value beyond the emotional. We check in regularly to ensure that actions are followed through, not just discussed. We help Rachel distinguish between decisions that need to be made now and ones that can wait. When she calls us in a difficult moment, we can help her step back from an impulsive decision, not because we override her judgment, but because we have earned enough trust that she is willing to pause and think it through with us.
This kind of relationship is not built in one meeting. It is built over time, through regular contact and honest conversations.
Our work does not stop when the divorce is settled. The settlement is a milestone, not an endpoint. As Rachel moves forward, she will face other significant decisions, such as funding her children’s tertiary education and planning for retirement. Because we have been with her through a hard period, we already understand how she thinks, what she has been through, and what drives her decisions. That makes us more useful to her going forward, not just as people who know her finances, but as people who know her.
AI and Human Advisers Are Not in Competition
Rachel does not have to choose between AI tools and a human adviser. She can use both. AI can help her get organised, run scenarios, and get her oriented at any hour of the day. That is genuinely useful for her, and we would not discourage it.
At Providend, we do not see AI as a competitor. We see it as something that handles the information-heavy work faster than we can, which frees us up to spend more time on the conversations that actually need a human in the room. What Rachel values, what she is willing to give up, and what she wants her life to look like in ten years—these are not questions an AI can answer for her.
This is an original article written by Yong Cheng, Deputy Head of Advisory at Providend, the first fee-only wealth advisory firm in Southeast Asia and a leading wealth advisory firm in Asia.
For more related resources, check out:
1. How to Make Life Decisions (Ikigai Decisions)
2. To Live the Good Life, Make Life Decision First Before Wealth Decisions
3. Here’s Why We Charge a Higher Fee Than Robos
To receive first-hand wealth insights from our team of experts, we invite you to subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
Through deep conversations with our advisers, you will gain clarity on what matters most in life and what needs to be done to live a good life, both financially and non-financially.
We do not charge a fee at the first consultation meeting. If you would like an honest second opinion on your current investment portfolio, financial and/or retirement plan, make an appointment with us today.
