Our latest Parameters survey amongst paraplanners sought to ascertain to what extent suitability reports were automated in advice firms, how many firms were using AI within suitability report writing and how AI was being used within report writing.
As expected, only a proportion of paraplanners said their firms were using AI to help write suitability reports 27% against 73%, but 73% of those using AI said they found it saved them time, and 89% of overall respondents said they believed AI will increasingly be used to write suitability reports within the industry.
Here are the results with your comments below.
To what extent is suitability report writing automated in your firm?
Not at all – still fully manual 36%
Partially automated 62%
Largely automated 0%
Fully automated 2%
Are you currently using AI to help write suitability reports?
Yes 27%
No 73%
With which type of reports are you using AI to help?
For nearly every report 60%
Annual review reports – for straightforward cases 20%
Only simple ones like ISA top ups/bed and ISA etc 13%
Most straightforward reports but not for more complex 7%
New client onboarding – for straightforward cases 0%
Do you find it saves you time overall?
Yes 73%
No 20%
Unsure 7%
Do you think AI will increasingly be used to write suitability reports within the industry?
Yes 89%
No 4%
Unsure 7%
Do you think AI systems will be able to fully write nearly all reports in due course
Yes 33%
No 44%
Unsure 24%
Within what time frame do you think that will happen?
1 year 22%
3 years 67%
5 years 0%
10 years 11%
As AI is increasingly used within paraplanning, do you think paraplanners will still be report writing in 5 years’ time?
No, I think AI will be producing all the reports 4%
Yes – in much the same way as now 13%
Yes – overseeing and focussed on complex cases 51%
Yes but mainly in an overseeing role 18%
Yes but only for more complex cases 11%
Unsure at present 4%
Commenting on how they are using AI within suitability report writing, the main ways are fairly simple at present. They included:
- error checking,
- write paragraphs
- reword paragraphs, e.g. to make them more user friendly
- summarising adviser comments
- making suggestions for wording in the report
- distilling information from fact finds
- distilling adviser comments for soft facts
- summarise information which can then be checked and tweaked by the paraplanner.
In terms of time saved, this ranged from 10 minutes to 2 hours and more, depending on how AI was being used. The average was around 30 minutes per report.
One paraplanner saving 30 minutes commented: “That doesn’t sound like much but when you are busy it soon adds up and I’ve had some positive feedback over the summaries being excellent and concise but still client friendly. It’s using AI to complement what I do rather than replace it.”
Which leads into whether paraplanners think AI will increasingly be used to write suitability reports. A significant 89% said yes, with 89% of those respondents believing that would happen within 1-3 years.
One paraplanner commented: “In the push for efficiency and the fact that report writing can take a while depending on the capability and experience of the writer, having an AI that can do it in a fraction of the time is of course an efficiency gain.” But, they added: “At the same time, AI so far seems far from infallible and while it is handy to have everyone singing from the same hymn sheet, I feel having our reports being truly bespoke to each client is a benefit to them.”
Only 33% of paraplanners thought AI would be able to fully write nearly all reports in the future. The accuracy of AI output was a concern – “careful review of output will be needed for a few years yet” – and paraplanners were split over how much a paraplanner would be needed and for which reports.
Some said when AI improves its output, full report writing would be “feasible”, maybe for 90% of cases with more complex cases needing to be handled by paraplanners – “I believe that given time AI and technology will be able to do full reports with only some personalisation needed from the paraplanner.”
But most respondents commenting felt there would “always be a requirement for some manual intervention to make sure the report is personalised and 100% technically accurate,” as one said. “I don’t think AI will be able to add the personal touch that a human interaction from a meeting can provide.”
As to whether paraplanners will still be report writing in 5 years’ time or replaced by AI, paraplanners who had used demos of new software said they had been very impressed and they could “see these being mainstream in a year or so.”
Another could see AI doing far more: “Currently, AI can do basic reports e.g. simple ISA contribution reports, but it will become advanced enough to cover more complex matters as it learns more.”
However, examples of product providers still using legacy systems were highlighted as to how quickly the industry overall tends to adopt new technology. “Technology adoption is always slower than anticipated, so I’m not expecting everyone to be fully AI driven any time soon,” one said, “although it will definitely reduce headcount over time.”
And there remained a firm belief that while AI might take on the bulk of the heavy lifting within the paraplanning role, there would always be a need for professional, technically-minded paraplanners – at least to oversee reports and also to deal with the more complex cases that needed that human input and interaction with the client. “Some human intervention will always be needed to ensure reports are personalised and technically accurate.”
As another respondent concluded: “I am a firm believer in clients having a bespoke service and bespoke reports; becoming reliant on computer generated reports removes that personalisation. Some oversight at least would be required to check for full accuracy.”
Main image: boliviainteligente-kECRXz0m42A-unsplash-
