Half of Hong Kong customers now use artificial intelligence (AI) before making financial decisions, yet half of financial advisers use AI less than once a week or never, according to a McKinsey & Company survey.
The findings point to a widening finance advice gap between increasingly AI-informed customers and the advisers serving them—a divide that is not between humans and AI, but between advisers who use AI and those who do not.
"AI is not removing the need for human advice. It is changing the standard that sound advice must meet," said Arthur Shek, managing partner of McKinsey & Company's Hong Kong office.
"Customers increasingly arrive with information, comparisons and questions shaped by AI, but they still want human judgment and accountability for consequential decisions. The real divide may therefore emerge between advisers who use AI to raise their game and those who do not." Arthur Shek
Around 80% of customers buying major life, health and wealth products still rely primarily on human advisers, for practical rather than emotional reasons: 43% want someone who understands their personal or family situation, 41% want help avoiding mistakes in high-stakes decisions, 35% need real-time answers to complex questions, and 34% want someone accountable after purchase.
Customers are not turning to advisers primarily for emotional reassurance; they value context, judgment and accountability in consequential decisions.
The survey exposes a two-speed market. Half of customers had used AI before reaching a purchase decision, treating AI as a second opinion most when recognising a potential financial and protection need (35%), learning and comparing products (34%), and making a purchase decision (30%).
Among customers choosing AI-assisted support, 58% cited more consistent and objective comparisons, 53% said it offered stronger knowledge than a human adviser, 37% valued its ability to connect personal circumstances to insurance needs, and 39% viewed it as less sales-driven.
Notably, the two leading reasons customers give for using AI—more objective comparisons and stronger knowledge—are areas traditionally regarded as core strengths of human advisers.
Advisers are not resisting AI; the industry has not given them the right AI-integrated tools. In work situations where advisers are not currently using AI, "the absence of a suitable AI tool" was cited more often than "discomfort with using AI" as a barrier.
A sharper divide is already visible by customer segment: among advisers primarily serving mass, affluent and high-net-worth customers, weekly AI adoption rates are 34%, 58% and 69% respectively.
"The challenge is less about convincing advisers that AI matters, and more about showing them how it creates better outcomes for their clients," said Jackey Yu, partner and leader of Asia Customer Experience and AI Transformation at McKinsey. "In most activities, the bigger barrier is not resistance, but the absence of tools that fit naturally into advisers' daily work."
The report outlines four priorities for financial services institutions: treat adoption as the product, not the software; get the data foundation right before scaling; capture best advisers' expertise in the system; and invest in human skills AI cannot replicate.
"For decades, financial services institutions have competed on the professionalism and productivity of their advisory forces," said Raymond Woo, partner and leader of Asia Financial Services Sales and Distribution at McKinsey. "AI can deliver a step change in both professionalism and productivity—but only when it changes how advisers actually work."
