43% of Canadian Investors Over 55 Distrust AI Advice: What Advisors Owe Them
When a planner prepares a retirement projection, software has usually done most of the arithmetic before the client walks in. It tests withdrawal rates, flags accounts that have drifted from their target mix, and runs the same plan through hundreds of market scenarios. Some of that software now uses artificial intelligence. Most clients never see it, and many have never been told it is there.
That matters because a recent poll found that 43% of Canadian investors aged 55 and older are uncomfortable with AI helping with their investment decisions. That is a large share of the people who hold most of the country's invested savings and who are making decisions about pensions, RRIF withdrawals and estates that are hard to undo.
What the discomfort is really about
Most older investors are not objecting to computers. They have used online banking for years. Their concerns tend to be more specific.
The first is the "black box" problem. If a tool recommends selling a holding or changing a withdrawal plan, can anyone explain why in plain terms? A recommendation without a reason is hard to trust, especially with retirement money.
The second is privacy. People reasonably want to know where their account details, income and family information are stored, and whether that data is being used to train someone else's system.
The third is accountability. When a registered advisor gives unsuitable advice, there is a person, a firm and a regulator to answer for it. With an algorithm, that chain is less obvious.
None of these concerns is unreasonable. Each one points to something an advisor can actually do.
What advisors owe these clients
Disclosure. If AI tools touch a client's plan, the client should hear about it in a sentence or two: what the tool does, and what it does not do. Today most of this technology sits in the back office, doing data processing, rebalancing checks or spotting tax-loss selling opportunities. Saying so plainly usually lowers anxiety rather than raising it.
Explanation. Every recommendation should come with reasoning the client can follow and question. If an advisor can't explain why software suggested something, the advisor shouldn't pass the suggestion along.
Responsibility that stays with a person. In Alberta, investment dealers and mutual fund dealers are overseen by the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO), and advisors work under the Alberta Securities Commission's oversight. Canadian rules require advisors to know their client, which means understanding their finances, goals and risk tolerance. They must also put the client's interests first when judging whether an investment is suitable. Software can support that work. It cannot take on the duty.
Straight answers about data. Clients should be able to ask which tools hold their information and get a clear reply.
A way to check credentials. Older investors are frequent targets of fraud, including schemes that borrow the language of AI. Anyone can confirm whether an advisor is registered through the Canadian Securities Administrators' National Registration Search, which the ASC points investors to.
Why judgment still matters here
Many Calgary households have finances that don't fit a template. Energy-sector careers can leave people with stock options, employee share plans or flow-through shares, alongside a defined benefit pension and a spouse's RRSP. Retirement timing, tax brackets, Old Age Security clawback and estate wishes all interact. A model can calculate the outcome of each choice. Deciding which outcome a family actually wants, or how to handle siblings who see an inheritance differently, takes conversation.
There is a real tradeoff, though. Avoiding technology altogether can make advice slower and more expensive, and those costs reach the client through fees. The sensible middle is software doing the heavy calculation in the background while a person interprets the results, checks them against the client's life, and owns the recommendation.
This will likely shift as wealth passes to children and grandchildren who are more comfortable with automated tools. The obligation to the client in front of you does not change with the generation, however. Someone who is 68 and uneasy about AI is entitled to know what is being used on their behalf, to understand the advice they receive, and to know exactly who is responsible for it.
When a planner prepares a retirement projection, software has usually done most of the arithmetic before the client walks in. It tests withdrawal rates, flags accounts that have drifted from their target mix, and runs the same plan through hundreds of market scenarios. Some of that software now uses artificial intelligence. Most clients never see it, and many have never been told it is there.
That matters because a recent poll found that 43% of Canadian investors aged 55 and older are uncomfortable with AI helping with their investment decisions. That is a large share of the people who hold most of the country's invested savings and who are making decisions about pensions, RRIF withdrawals and estates that are hard to undo.
What the discomfort is really about
Most older investors are not objecting to computers. They have used online banking for years. Their concerns tend to be more specific.
The first is the "black box" problem. If a tool recommends selling a holding or changing a withdrawal plan, can anyone explain why in plain terms? A recommendation without a reason is hard to trust, especially with retirement money.
The second is privacy. People reasonably want to know where their account details, income and family information are stored, and whether that data is being used to train someone else's system.
The third is accountability. When a registered advisor gives unsuitable advice, there is a person, a firm and a regulator to answer for it. With an algorithm, that chain is less obvious.
None of these concerns is unreasonable. Each one points to something an advisor can actually do.
What advisors owe these clients
Disclosure. If AI tools touch a client's plan, the client should hear about it in a sentence or two: what the tool does, and what it does not do. Today most of this technology sits in the back office, doing data processing, rebalancing checks or spotting tax-loss selling opportunities. Saying so plainly usually lowers anxiety rather than raising it.
Explanation. Every recommendation should come with reasoning the client can follow and question. If an advisor can't explain why software suggested something, the advisor shouldn't pass the suggestion along.
Responsibility that stays with a person. In Alberta, investment dealers and mutual fund dealers are overseen by the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO), and advisors work under the Alberta Securities Commission's oversight. Canadian rules require advisors to know their client, which means understanding their finances, goals and risk tolerance. They must also put the client's interests first when judging whether an investment is suitable. Software can support that work. It cannot take on the duty.
Straight answers about data. Clients should be able to ask which tools hold their information and get a clear reply.
A way to check credentials. Older investors are frequent targets of fraud, including schemes that borrow the language of AI. Anyone can confirm whether an advisor is registered through the Canadian Securities Administrators' National Registration Search, which the ASC points investors to.
Why judgment still matters here
Many Calgary households have finances that don't fit a template. Energy-sector careers can leave people with stock options, employee share plans or flow-through shares, alongside a defined benefit pension and a spouse's RRSP. Retirement timing, tax brackets, Old Age Security clawback and estate wishes all interact. A model can calculate the outcome of each choice. Deciding which outcome a family actually wants, or how to handle siblings who see an inheritance differently, takes conversation.
There is a real tradeoff, though. Avoiding technology altogether can make advice slower and more expensive, and those costs reach the client through fees. The sensible middle is software doing the heavy calculation in the background while a person interprets the results, checks them against the client's life, and owns the recommendation.
This will likely shift as wealth passes to children and grandchildren who are more comfortable with automated tools. The obligation to the client in front of you does not change with the generation, however. Someone who is 68 and uneasy about AI is entitled to know what is being used on their behalf, to understand the advice they receive, and to know exactly who is responsible for it.
Read Next
Coming soon