Who not to go to for retirement advice
Copyright 2026 First Samuel Limited
Ask AI? Really?
Ask AI how much tax you'll pay on a pension withdrawal, and it can answer with the same unblinking confidence whether it's right or catastrophically wrong. That confidence is precisely the problem.
A new study by UK fintech firm Saturn tested leading AI models on 121 financial questions covering pensions, tax, mortgages, debt and savings. Saturn reports that the models made mistakes in 57% of answers. That is a finding from its particular test, not a measured error rate for Australian retirement advice. [1]
But it's the complex questions that should worry anyone tempted to treat AI as a financial adviser. On questions involving several calculations or interacting rules — the kind upon which a retirement plan is built — Saturn reported an error rate of 88%. [2]
This isn't really a story about AI being unintelligent. It's a story about what financial complexity actually looks like. Retirement income isn't one calculation; it's dozens, interacting.
How you draw down a superannuation account, the tax treatment of your other income, any Age Pension entitlement and whether assets sit in your own name, a trust or a company structure all need to be considered together. The rules can change, too. AI can describe individual rules convincingly and still get the arithmetic, or the interaction, wrong. A plausible explanation is no assurance that the whole picture has been considered.
Why tailored financial advice matters
This is exactly the gap that tailored financial advice is built to close. General information from a chatbot is not the same as advice based on your circumstances. A good financial adviser doesn't just answer a question; they help build a structure.
They help coordinate multiple income sources — super, investment portfolios, rental income, any defined-benefit entitlements — with attention to when you need the money, where it is held and how it is taxed. They consider ownership structures deliberately, weighing tax treatment, access, costs and estate-planning implications, with specialist tax and legal input where needed. Each decision should suit a specific household's circumstances rather than a generic template.
Crucially, where ongoing advice is agreed, they revisit the plan. Legislation shifts, markets move, health changes, a spouse retires early. A static answer generated once, however confidently worded, doesn't adapt. An ongoing advice relationship allows the plan to be adjusted as your life changes.
That is the real lesson of the AI findings. It isn't that AI got a tax bracket wrong in a lab test. It's the reminder that confidence in retirement planning takes more than a plausible-sounding answer. It comes from a plan built specifically for you, stress-tested against your numbers, and revised as your life changes.
AI can help you frame the questions. It should not be the sole basis for your retirement plan. [3]
1. Saturn, Artificial Authority: Should you trust AI to deliver financial advice?, September 2026, public research summary. Figures describe Saturn's assessment, not an independently replicated result.
2. Saturn, company update summarising the report, accessed 29 September 2026. The update reports 88% of answers to complex questions were wrong.
3. ASIC Moneysmart, AI and money decisions, accessed 29 September 2026.