What Happened
New PwC research has found that the Australians most in need of financial advice are also the most resistant to receiving it through AI-powered tools. According to the findings, 68 per cent of respondents aged 61-79 said they would not use an AI-powered tool for financial advice. Among 18-28-year-olds, only 19 per cent said the same.
The research was reported by the Independent Financial Adviser (IFA) on 8 July 2026, written by Alex Driscoll.
PwC acknowledged the tension directly. "AI still has a role to play in serving older members," the firm said, while cautioning that "AI investment decisions need to be made segment-by-segment, and must be grounded in behavioural evidence, to genuinely reduce the advice gap."
Why It Matters
Australia's financial advice sector is navigating a period of real pressure. The country is in the midst of what IFA describes as a "Silver Tsunami" of retirees, with trillions of dollars expected to change hands. That should translate into strong demand for advice. In some respects it has, with adviser revenues rising. Yet a persistent gap remains between those who receive professional financial guidance and those who do not.
Digitalised advice, including AI-driven tools, has been positioned as a core solution to that gap. The PwC data complicates that framing. The cohort closest to retirement, and therefore most urgently in need of planning support, is the one least willing to engage with AI. Younger Australians, who have more time before retirement and generally more digital familiarity, show far less resistance.
Key Details
The generational split in the PwC findings is stark. Rejection of AI financial advice tools sits at 68 per cent among 61-79-year-olds. That rate drops to 19 per cent among 18-28-year-olds. The gap of 49 percentage points suggests that any broad rollout of AI advice tools would, by default, serve the segments already best placed to manage without them.
PwC's framing is careful. The firm does not argue AI has no place in serving older Australians. Rather, it argues the case for AI must be built on behavioural evidence specific to each customer segment, not on assumptions drawn from younger cohorts.
Background and Context
The advice gap in Australia has been a known problem for years. Regulatory changes following the Hayne Royal Commission drove up the cost of providing personal financial advice, and the number of licensed advisers fell sharply through the early 2020s. That left a large portion of the population, particularly those approaching or entering retirement, without access to affordable, personalised guidance.
Digital and automated advice tools were proposed as a way to fill that gap at lower cost. The theory was sound: reduce the human labour involved in routine advice, bring down fees, and reach more Australians. What the PwC research highlights is that the supply-side logic does not automatically translate into demand. Older Australians, who carry the most immediate need, bring different expectations and trust thresholds to financial decisions. Those factors shape whether any tool, however capable, actually gets used.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has published guidance on digital financial advice and the obligations that apply to automated tools under the Corporations Act. That regulatory context means any AI advice product targeting older Australians must also meet disclosure and best-interests obligations, adding further complexity to deployment decisions.
What Comes Next
PwC's recommendation points toward a more deliberate, evidence-based approach to AI deployment in financial services. Firms that want AI to genuinely close the advice gap will need to invest in understanding what older Australians actually want from a planning tool, and design accordingly, rather than assuming a product built for younger users will transfer across age groups.
For the broader advice industry, the research adds weight to arguments that human advisers remain essential for the retirement cohort, at least for now. Whether AI tools can be redesigned to earn the trust of 61-79-year-olds, or whether hybrid models pairing AI with human oversight are the more realistic path, remains an open question.