This Week in Brief

This week the spotlight turned on the regulator’s own pace, not just firms’. The FCA’s chief executive used a major speech to argue that legislation can never keep up with AI, and signalled the watchdog will lean harder on its existing powers rather than write new AI-specific rules — with a concrete update now due in under two weeks. Closer to home, a real case of a client swapping advisers after ChatGPT criticised their portfolio is being read across the trade press as a wake-up call, while opinion writers spent the week arguing over which is the bigger risk: firms rushing into AI, or firms standing still.

Key Developments

The FCA Says Regulation Must Move as Fast as AI — and a Date Is Now Confirmed

Speaking at a techUK event on 24 June, FCA chief executive Nikhil Rathi said the regulator has no plans to write AI-specific rules, but will use its existing “system-wide” powers far more often as markets and technology move faster than traditional rule-making can follow. He also confirmed the FCA itself is exploring agentic AI as a “first responder” to spot problems in wholesale markets sooner. For advice firms, the practical message is unchanged for now: keep leaning on Consumer Duty and the Senior Managers regime, because bespoke AI rules aren’t coming. (FT Adviser, 24 June 2026) What has changed is the timeline — the FCA has now confirmed its Mills Review into AI’s long-term impact on retail financial services will publish on 6 July, just under two weeks away (see What to Watch). (Global Regulation Tomorrow, 23 June 2026)

A Client Switched Advisers After ChatGPT Criticised Their Portfolio

A case doing the rounds in the trade press this week: an adviser picked up a new client after the client ran their existing portfolio past ChatGPT, which told them it “lacked any real conviction.” Other advisers are calling it a wake-up call — not because the AI was necessarily right, but because clients are now willing to use general-purpose AI to challenge what they’re told. Firms doing little more than reporting on a portfolio, rather than genuinely engaging with a client, are the most exposed. (FT Adviser, 22 June 2026)

The Trade Press Debate: Is AI Hype or AI Inertia the Bigger Risk?

Three opinion pieces published within 48 hours of each other took opposite sides of the same question. One argued AI “is far from the cat’s whiskers” for financial advice and shouldn’t be trusted blindly (Professional Adviser, 24 June 2026); another said AI is “not a panacea” and the industry needs to move past treating it as a silver bullet (Professional Adviser, 23 June 2026); a third argued the opposite — that standing still is the real danger, pointing to a “blind spot” among the many firms yet to properly engage (Professional Adviser, 23 June 2026). There’s no resolution, but the split is itself useful: it suggests most firms are still working out where they sit on AI, which is a perfectly reasonable place to be.

Paraplanners and AI: “More Essential Than Ever”

A paraplanner of eleven years writes candidly about her own fear, two years ago, that AI tools would make her role redundant. Her conclusion now: paraplanners who engage with AI tools directly — using them to handle transcription, fact-finds and first drafts — are in a stronger position to demonstrate their judgement, not a weaker one. It’s a useful read to share with support staff who may be quietly worried about exactly this. (Professional Adviser, 25 June 2026)

From the Trade Press

  • “Advisers vote Afternoon winner of AdviceTech Catwalk 2026” — The tool claims to cut adviser admin time from four hours to four minutes; advisers picked it as the standout at this year’s contest. Professional Adviser, 25 June 2026

  • “Demonstrating how decisions are made when using AI” — A practical piece on “shadow decisions”: recommendations quietly shaped by AI with no record of how they were reached. Four steps worth borrowing: know where AI touches client outcomes, keep a named person accountable for every recommendation, train staff to question AI output rather than just restrict it, and keep enough of a trail to explain a decision if a client or the regulator asks. FT Adviser, 25 June 2026

  • “AI can only deliver value if firms improve underlying data” — A new survey, this time of senior asset managers rather than advisers, echoes a theme from recent weeks: 64% say AI will only pay off once firms sort out the quality of their underlying data. FT Adviser, 24 June 2026

  • “Advice firms warned against automating dysfunction” — A white paper from Jigsaw Tree, The Flower Group, Plannr and Seccl found firms typically run five to ten disconnected systems, and that advisers spend less than half their week on fee-justifying work. Its advice: fix the operating model before adding AI on top. Money Marketing, 17 June 2026

What to Watch

Mark 6 July in the diary: the FCA’s Mills Review — its long-term look at how AI could reshape retail financial services by 2030 — is now confirmed to publish that day. It’s the first significant output from a process that’s been running since January, and should give the clearest signal yet of where the regulator expects this to go next.

Sources: FT Adviser, Professional Adviser, Money Marketing, FCA, web search. Compiled 26 June 2026.