Financial advice
A fact find is the most complete portrait of a person you will ever hold.
Financial advice, properly done, requires an unusually complete picture of a person. Assets, liabilities, income, dependants, health, relationships, plans. Advisers use AI to shorten fact-find summaries, draft SOAs, tidy client correspondence — and every one of those requests is only useful if the real detail goes in. The material is unusually personal, unusually complete, and under an unusually specific regulatory regime.
Request an assessmentYour obligation
Best-interests duty, Code of Ethics, and the Privacy Act sit on top of each other
Advisers are subject to the Best Interests Duty under Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act, the FASEA Code of Ethics — including confidentiality, informed consent and acting in the client’s interest — and the Privacy Act. Where TFNs are involved, the additional TFN Rule applies. ASIC has publicly stated that AI use by AFSLs must be governed under existing licensing obligations, which means "we did not know staff were using it" is not a compliant answer.
Where it’s happening
The four places we see it most
None of these are careless people. They are competent staff doing the work faster, using a tool that is genuinely good at it.
SOA drafting
Client circumstances, goals and strategy pasted in so the AI can produce a compliant-looking document — transmitting the entire advice picture to a third party.
Fact-find summarisation
The most complete personal file a practice holds, condensed for internal use, in one request.
Investment committee notes
Client positions and portfolio detail supplied so the AI can summarise or explain — including SMSF strategies that are highly identifiable.
ROA and correspondence
Records of advice and client emails drafted with real detail included, because a sanitised version is not usable.
The alternative
Same capability, nothing leaves
A private system does not ask your team to give anything up. It does the same work on the same documents — it simply does it on a machine you own, sitting in your own office.
See how it works →- Draft SOAs and ROAs against real client positions without a cross-border transfer
- Summarise fact finds and prior file notes before a review meeting
- Search internal technical notes and prior advice for precedent
- Handle TFN-adjacent documents without triggering the TFN Rule’s disclosure concerns
- Give the whole practice AI capability under a fixed cost
Financial Advisers: common questions
- Does our AFSL Responsible Manager need to sign off on AI use?
- Effectively, yes. ASIC has been clear that AFSL obligations extend to AI-assisted processes — including record-keeping, conflict management and client best-interests duty. An RM cannot sign off on a technology use they cannot describe or assess, which is the situation an unmanaged ad-hoc AI usage puts them in.
- Can we integrate this with Xplan or Midwinter?
- It depends on what your platform exposes. Where clean API access exists, the AI can query against your data. Where it does not, the AI still helps in a copy-across workflow, which is how most staff use it today anyway. We would establish this in scoping rather than promising integration and discovering the API does not exist.
No obligation
Is this worth it for a firm like yours?
Tell us roughly how many people, what they handle, and what you suspect is already happening. We will give you a straight answer — including if the answer is that you do not need us.