Can AI Replace a Human Adviser During a Health Crisis?

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 Health Crisis?

Elaine (56) is a senior marketing director at a multinational company, earning a take-home income of $250,000 a year. She is a single mother with two adult children, aged 25 and 28, and lives in her fully paid HDB maisonette worth $1.5 million. She has accumulated $600,000 in cash, $500,000 in a diversified investment portfolio, $200,000 in retirement income products, and $500,000 in critical illness insurance coverage. Her CPF is also at Full Retirement Sum.

Recently, Elaine was diagnosed with stage 4 breast cancer, requiring intensive treatment (chemotherapy).

Elaine wants to ensure her family is financially secure while she undergoes treatment, maintain her lifestyle as much as possible, and protect her long-term plans, including her children’s future and retirement. She also hopes to be able to travel more with her children while receiving her chemo treatments at a later stage.

Elaine has substantial cash reserves and diversified investments, along with retirement income products and CI coverage, but she is unsure if these are sufficient to cover the high costs of treatment, potential long-term care, and any disruption to her income.

Emotionally, Elaine is overwhelmed and anxious about the sudden diagnosis and its impact on her family and finances.

Her question is: “How can I ensure my family is financially protected, my treatment is covered, and my long-term goals remain on track despite this health crisis?”

To find out, we posed Elaine’s exact situation to ChatGPT and asked it to act as her financial adviser. Our Client Adviser, Jia Ling, reviewed the AI-generated plan, analysed its conclusions, and compared them against what a real human adviser would do. Here is what he found.

Introduction

Elaine asked, “How can I protect my family financially?” ChatGPT immediately built a wealth plan. We, human advisers, might instead ask, “What worries you the most right now?” That answer could completely change the advice.

Perhaps Elaine’s biggest concern is not money at all. It might be ensuring her children can manage the finances if her condition worsens or making meaningful memories with them while she is well enough to do so.

Artificial intelligence responds to prompts, while human advisers often uncover the deeper need behind them. This distinction highlights one of our biggest differences.

What Did ChatGPT Do Well

One of ChatGPT’s greatest strengths is its ability to provide immediate access to information. Unlike a human adviser, who may not always be available, ChatGPT can respond within seconds at any time of the day.

In this case study, ChatGPT organised Elaine’s complex situation into manageable priorities. It did not jump straight into giving any advice, rather, it first assessed her financial situation and identified her main concerns, which were liquidity and income disruption.

Instead of telling Elaine to stop working immediately, ChatGPT proposed several work arrangements moving forward including continuing full-time, reducing to part-time, or taking a temporary break, depending on her health condition.

Another plus point was that ChatGPT referenced Singapore-specific bodies and schemes such as Central Provident Fund (CPF), Housing & Development Board (HDB), MediShield Life and Integrated Shield Plan.

ChatGPT also responded well to Elaine’s feedback. When Elaine asked for more details, it continued building on its previous responses instead of repeating itself. On top of that, when Elaine asked it not to overwhelm her with too much data, it immediately simplified its responses into a more concise format. This demonstrated its adaptability to the user’s communication preferences and the conversation ended with a sequence of next steps.

What Did ChatGPT Fall Short

ChatGPT has significant limitations. Despite its technical strengths, the responses felt impersonal, to my surprise. Elaine mentioned that she had been diagnosed with stage 4 breast cancer and that she felt overwhelmed and anxious, ChatGPT only briefly acknowledged the situation before immediately presenting her with a highly structured financial analysis.

It also did not have a complete understanding of an individual’s situation unless detailed information was provided. Even then, it cannot independently verify the accuracy of the information or fully understand important personal circumstances such as their family responsibilities, short-term and long-term goals, and so on. As a result, its recommendations were general and might not be suitable for an individual’s unique needs.

Another significant limitation of ChatGPT is its heavy reliance on assumptions. It did not ask enough clarifying questions and assumed Elaine’s annual expenditure, without factoring in inflation. It also assumed that she already had her Will, Lasting Power of Attorney and CPF nomination in place.

In its recommendations, some were unnecessarily overlapped. For example, ChatGPT suggested ring-fencing $250,000 to $350,000 of cash while Elaine also had a potential $500,000 critical illness payout. In addition, most of its recommendations focused on the next two to five years. There was comparatively less discussion about long-term retirement sustainability, estate planning, and how her financial strategy should evolve if she survived well beyond the projected treatment period.

ChatGPT also cannot exercise professional judgement nor assist with the execution of its recommendations. It could suggest reviewing her insurance policies, but it could not liaise with insurers, or coordinate with Elaine’s oncologist, family members, and other key people. These responsibilities require human expertise and accountability.

What Would We Do Differently

We would begin the conversation very differently. Instead of moving directly to numbers, we would first express empathy and ask how she was coping. We would acknowledge the emotional impact of her diagnosis and allow her time to express her concerns.

We would also spend time gathering her information in greater detail to help us advise based on verified facts rather than estimates or assumptions. Before giving any advice, we would ask more questions to gain a deeper understanding of her concerns. Some questions would include:

What are your monthly expenses?

What other insurance policies do you own?

Are your children financially independent?

How much longer do you realistically expect to continue working?

What are your retirement goals if treatment is successful?

We would also help Elaine navigate trade-offs, given the many goals she would like to achieve. Guiding by the Philosophy of Sufficiency, we understand that we cannot have or do everything. That’s why asking the right questions is crucial to guide clients to realise what matters most to them and make financial decisions that align with those priorities. For example, we might ask:

If your health deteriorates, which of your goals becomes your highest priority?

Would you rather preserve more wealth for your children or spend more creating memories with them now?

With a network of resources and contacts, we can provide holistic solutions for Elaine’s execution. We could work alongside her oncologist to understand her treatment costs, communicate with insurance companies regarding her claims, and so on. We could also help her children understand the family’s financial arrangements if Elaine wished.

Most importantly, we can provide Elaine with ongoing accountability for the success of her plan. Markets change, treatment outcomes vary, and family priorities evolve. A trusted adviser can meet regularly with Elaine, adjust the wealth plan as circumstances develop, and provide assurance during periods of uncertainty. ChatGPT can generate the plan, but it cannot build a long-term relationship.

Conclusion

ChatGPT answered the questions that were asked. We first determine whether they are the right questions.

Human advisers bring a level of empathy and emotional intelligence that artificial intelligence simply cannot replace. During a health crisis, people often need more than information, they need assurance, compassion and emotional connection. Human advisers can notice changes in facial expressions, tone of voice and body language that suggest fear, confusion or emotional distress. We can respond with comfort, encouragement and practical support that goes beyond words on a screen.

ChatGPT can efficiently analyse information, generate financial frameworks, and educate clients, allowing us to focus on what technology cannot easily replicate – understanding emotions, exercising professional judgement, and helping clients make difficult decisions when there are no perfect answers.

This is an original article written by Jia Ling, Client Adviser at Providend, the first fee-only wealth advisory firm in Southeast Asia and a leading wealth advisory firm in Asia.

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.

GET IN TOUCH