US dataswitch to UK
Personal Financial Advisors
interviewing clients to determine their current income, implementing financial planning recommendations and preparing or interpreting for clients information. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI is already taking a real slice of the routine work here: monitoring financial market trends to ensure that client plans are responsive. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.
That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, recommending to clients strategies in cash management, stays yours. New tools, same person answering for it.
Your week, as this page understands it
Advise clients on financial plans using knowledge of tax and investment strategies, securities, insurance, pension plans, and real estate. Duties include assessing clients' assets, liabilities, cash flow, insurance coverage, tax status, and financial objectives. May also buy and sell financial assets for clients. The job title says “personal financial advisors”. The real job is the part underneath: recommending to clients strategies in cash management. That is the thing someone has to be right about.
The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But personal financial advisors is not one task. It is 21 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is recommending to clients strategies in cash management, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 27%
- changing shape
- 37%
- staying human
- 36%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 50 out of 100 (44–56 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, across 21 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.
How we know this
What is measured: Every published task statement for personal financial advisors is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.
How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.
Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.
Your job, task by task
These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.
- 2 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
Shifting to AI
6 tasksTasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.
Preparing or interpreting for clients information
This is reading one thing and writing another: clients information in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare or interpret for clients information, such as investment performance reports, financial document summaries, or income projections.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 69 out of 100 (65–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Performance reports, document summaries and income projections are produced accurately from account data by software.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Explaining to clients the personal financial advisor's responsibilities and the types of services
This is reading one thing and writing another: clients the personal financial advisor's responsibilities in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Explain to clients the personal financial advisor's responsibilities and the types of services to be provided.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Service and responsibility disclosures are standard, well-documented text, though the adviser is expected to present them personally.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Guiding clients in the gathering of information
This is reading one thing and writing another: clients in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Guide clients in the gathering of information, such as bank account records, income tax returns, life and disability insurance records, pension plans, or wills.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 79 out of 100 (75–83 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Checklists and portals already guide clients through gathering statements, tax returns and policy documents with little adviser involvement.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Monitoring financial market trends to ensure that client plans are responsive
This is reading one thing and writing another: financial market trends in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Monitor financial market trends to ensure that client plans are responsive.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 88 out of 100 (81–95 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Market data is abundant and public, so software produces thorough, current monitoring of anything affecting client plans.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Changing shape
7 tasksTasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.
Analyzing financial information obtained from clients to determine strategies for meeting clients' financial objectives
The software now makes the first pass at financial information, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Analyze financial information obtained from clients to determine strategies for meeting clients' financial objectives.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Analysing a client's figures against their goals is well-defined analysis software performs, with a qualified adviser accountable for the strategy.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reviewing clients' accounts and plans regularly to determine whether life changes
The software now makes the first pass at clients' accounts, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Review clients' accounts and plans regularly to determine whether life changes, economic changes, environmental concerns, or financial performance indicate a need for plan reassessment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Regular checks against markets and plan targets can run automatically, flagging anything that needs the adviser's attention.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Managing client portfolios, keeping client plans up-to-date
The software now makes the first pass at client portfolios, keeping client plans up-to-date, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Manage client portfolios, keeping client plans up-to-date.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (36–44 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Running portfolios can be largely automated, but managing client money is regulated work a licensed person must be responsible for.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Staying human
8 tasksTasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.
Interviewing clients to determine their current income
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for clients, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Interview clients to determine their current income, expenses, insurance coverage, tax status, financial objectives, risk tolerance, or other information needed to develop a financial plan.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 39 out of 100 (32–46 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Structured questionnaires can capture income, cover and goals, but suitability rules expect a qualified adviser involved, and clients open up to people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Answering clients' questions about the purposes and details of financial plans and strategies
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for clients' questions, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Answer clients' questions about the purposes and details of financial plans and strategies.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 39 out of 100 (32–46 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Explaining how a plan works is something software does clearly, though clients want a qualified person answering.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Recommending to clients strategies in cash management
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for clients strategies, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Recommend to clients strategies in cash management, insurance coverage, investment planning, or other areas to help them achieve their financial goals.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 33 out of 100 (29–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Strategy suggestions can be generated well, but formal advice is regulated and clients act on it because they trust their adviser.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Show the other 11 tasks
Devising debt liquidation plans that include payoff priorities and timelines
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: debt liquidation plans in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Devise debt liquidation plans that include payoff priorities and timelines.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (77–85 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Ordering debts by cost and setting a payoff timeline is calculation software performs reliably from the client's figures.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Informing clients about tax benefits
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: clients in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Inform clients about tax benefits, government rebates, or other financial benefits of alternative-fuel vehicle purchases or energy-efficient home construction, improvements, or remodeling.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 74 out of 100 (70–78 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Tax reliefs and rebate schemes are published in detail, so software can explain accurately which ones apply.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Investigating available investment opportunities to determine compatibility with client financial plans
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at available investment opportunities, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Investigate available investment opportunities to determine compatibility with client financial plans.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Screening investments against a client's plan is search-and-filter work software does well, with the adviser accountable for the shortlist.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Contacting clients periodically to determine any changes in their financial status
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at clients, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Contact clients periodically to determine any changes in their financial status.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 46 out of 100 (39–53 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Periodic check-ins can be prompted and drafted automatically, though clients share changes in their life most readily with a person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Implementing financial planning recommendations or referring clients to someone who can assist them with plan implementation
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at financial planning recommendations, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Implement financial planning recommendations, or refer clients to someone who can assist them with plan implementation.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (33–47 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Much of the paperwork can be automated, though putting a plan into effect is regulated and often needs a licensed person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Opening accounts for clients and disburse funds from accounts to creditors as agent for clients
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at accounts, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Open accounts for clients, and disburse funds from accounts to creditors as agent for clients.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (33–47 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Handling client money is tightly regulated and has to sit with an authorised firm and named people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Recommending environmentally responsible investments, such as cleantech, alternative energy or conservation technologies, companies or funds
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for responsible investments, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Recommend environmentally responsible investments, such as cleantech, alternative energy, or conservation technologies, companies, or funds.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 33 out of 100 (29–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Sustainable investment options can be researched well, but recommending them is regulated advice a licensed person must give.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Recommending financial products, such as stocks, bonds, mutual funds or insurance
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for financial products, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Recommend financial products, such as stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or insurance.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 33 out of 100 (29–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Recommending specific investments or insurance is regulated activity requiring a licensed person, and clients weigh who is telling them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting seminars or workshops on financial planning topics
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: seminars, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 2 · SupplementalSource: “Conduct seminars or workshops on financial planning topics, such as retirement planning, estate planning, or the evaluation of severance packages.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 25 out of 100 (18–32 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Seminar content is easy to prepare, but the session itself is delivered to a room of people who came to meet someone.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Meeting with clients' other advisors
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles clients' other advisors and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Meet with clients' other advisors, such as attorneys, accountants, trust officers, or investment bankers, to fully understand clients' financial goals and circumstances.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: These are working meetings between professionals where reading the room and give-and-take shape what gets agreed.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Recruiting and maintaining client bases
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles client bases and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Recruit and maintain client bases.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 21 out of 100 (17–25 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Winning and keeping clients rests on personal relationships, referrals and reputation built over years.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $105,070a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
- People doing this job
- 266,800in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.
Why this is shifting
The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: financial market trends in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: monitoring financial market trends to ensure that client plans are responsive and preparing or interpreting for clients information. What it cannot do is be answerable: clients strategies need a named person the rules will accept, and software cannot be that person. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
Your week is splitting in two, and which half fills it is the whole question. Monitoring financial market trends to ensure that client plans are responsive is going; recommending to clients strategies in cash management is not.
So, given all that: 27% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 37% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 36% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 21 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
The occupation is an average and you are not, so the first job below is finding out where your own week actually sits.
This week: one thing
Print the task ledger above and put your own hours next to each row. Roughly, in pen, in one sitting. Then look at which group your hours actually pile up in. Twenty minutes, this week.
- What you end up holding
- your own week, on one page, sorted into what is shifting and what is not
- How long it takes
- about twenty minutes
If printing it isn’t practical: Read the rows off this page and write the same list on the back of an envelope. Same twenty minutes, same page, and it works just as well said out loud to someone who knows the job. The point is your hours next to the rows, not the paper it is on.
Over the next 90 days
Volunteer toward the durable end, visibly. Over the next ninety days put your hand up for the work in the bottom group (recommending to clients strategies in cash management) and let people see you doing it. Not a new project: the same job, with your mix deliberately tilted. The point is that when the rota or the reorganisation comes, the version of you people picture is the one doing the part that stays.
Over the next 12 months
Claim a specialism at the durable end and let the other end go. Over a year, deliberately become the person who handles recommending to clients strategies in cash management, and deliberately stop being the first choice for the rows in the top group. That trade costs something, because the exposed work is often the comfortable work. Decide it on purpose rather than by drift. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.
The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them
I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.
I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to personal financial advisors (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was securities, commodities, and financial services sales agents: only about 7% of its durable work is work you already do, it is under the same pressure this job is and it pays 25.1% less. Your own job splits about 27/73: that share of the list sits in the top exposure band and the rest does not. On this evidence the honest move is inside the job rather than out of it. Become the person who owns “interview clients to determine their current income, expenses, insurance coverage, tax status…”, and let the exposed end go.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.
3 moves I checked and rejected
These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.
Securities, Commodities, and Financial Services Sales Agents
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already interview clients to determine their current income, expenses, insurance coverage, tax status, financial…, and their equivalent is to interview clients to determine clients' assets, liabilities, cash flow, insurance coverage, tax status…. Across both published task lists that is about 7% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 7% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. I will not move you off one melting floe onto another: 56% of its own task list already scores in the top exposure band (62/100 in this release), so the same software is eating it. It is a pay cut, in those words: $78,660 against your $105,070, 25.1% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Credit Counselors
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already analyze financial information obtained from clients to determine strategies for meeting clients' financial…, and their equivalent is to interview clients by telephone or in person to gather financial information. Across both published task lists that is about 5% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 5% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. I will not move you off one melting floe onto another: 53% of its own task list already scores in the top exposure band (63/100 in this release), so the same software is eating it. It is a pay cut, in those words: $52,230 against your $105,070, 50.3% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice. And it is a narrow door: about 27,770 of those jobs against 266,800 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 10% as many seats.
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Social Workers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already contact clients periodically to determine any changes in their financial status, and their equivalent is to modify treatment plans according to changes in client status. Across both published task lists that is about 2% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 2% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $60,280 against your $105,070, 42.6% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
What I’d stop worrying about
A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.
The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 27% of its task weight, across 21 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The whole-job doom story
Nothing on this page says this job ends. It says the mix inside it moves. Half the rows above are unchanged or changing shape, and the plan is about which half your week sits in. That is a very different problem, and a solvable one.
Panic-buying a course
Do the twenty-minute sorting exercise first. Most people who buy a course before they have done it buy the wrong one, and the free services listed below will tell you the same thing without charging for it.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Finance and investment analysts and advisers is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Finance and investment analysts and advisers. Pay and employment stay on this page’s own group; the task list and the scores do not cross over.
Your route through this
Where to go next, and what it costs
Free, and complete
The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for personal financial advisors, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 27% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.
7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.
The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for personal financial advisors. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for personal financial advisors launches. Nothing else.
That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.
We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.
No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.
Questions people ask about this job
- Will AI replace Personal Financial Advisors?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 21 official task statements scored for Personal Financial Advisors (United States, SOC 13-2052), 27% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 50 out of 100 (range 44–56, band: partial). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
- Which tasks in “Personal Financial Advisors” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Monitor financial market trends to ensure that client plans are responsive” (88/100, very high); “Devise debt liquidation plans that include payoff priorities and timelines” (81/100, very high); “Guide clients in the gathering of information, such as bank account records, income tax returns, life and disability insurance records, pension plans, or wills” (79/100, high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
- Which tasks in “Personal Financial Advisors” stay human?
- About 36% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Recruit and maintain client bases” (21/100, low); “Meet with clients' other advisors, such as attorneys, accountants, trust officers, or investment bankers, to fully understand clients' financial goals and ci…” (23/100, low); “Conduct seminars or workshops on financial planning topics, such as retirement planning, estate planning, or the evaluation of severance packages” (25/100, low). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
- What should someone working in “Personal Financial Advisors” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 27% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 36% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
- How is the AI exposure score for Personal Financial Advisors calculated?
- Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 21 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.
Where these numbers come from
Worth knowing about these figures
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- 2 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
- Task statements
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-04.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.
The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.
The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.
Using these figures?
Cite this
Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.
Plain text
Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).
BibTeX
@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
title = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
author = {{Collab365}},
year = {2026},
url = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
note = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.