Why experienced financial advisers should plan their transition from asset-based remuneration while they still have the clients, relationships and choices to make it work.
Steve Conley | Academy of Life Planning | 8 November 2026
You’ve spent your career helping clients plan their retirement.
But have you planned your own?
Not simply when you will stop working, sell your business or draw your pension.
I mean something rather different.
Have you considered retiring from regulated investment intermediation while continuing to practise financial planning?
Because the financial advice industry is approaching an important transition.
Artificial intelligence is increasing what consumers can understand, investigate, calculate and manage for themselves. Investment platforms are making self-directed investing easier. And clients are gaining the ability to question both the advice they receive and the commercial arrangements through which they receive it.
None of this means financial planning is becoming unnecessary.
Quite the opposite.
It may mean that financial planning is finally becoming commercially independent of asset management.
For experienced advisers, that creates an opportunity to redesign their businesses deliberately, rather than waiting until changing economics force their hand.
Become an Independent Financial Planner by design, before circumstances make the decision for you.
The business model is changing. The client relationship need not.
For decades, the financial advice industry has relied heavily on a particular commercial arrangement.
The adviser provides financial planning, recommends investments and receives remuneration linked to the assets under advice or management.
Often, the planning and investment propositions are bundled together.
That made commercial sense when developing comprehensive financial plans was expensive, investment information was difficult to access and implementation required specialist intermediaries.
But these are different services.
Financial planning helps people decide what they want from life, understand their resources, evaluate their choices and organise their financial affairs accordingly.
Asset management concerns how financial investments are selected, constructed, managed and administered.
A client may need one without necessarily needing the other.
They may want help deciding whether they can retire, reduce their working hours, support a family member or finance a different way of life.
They may already be perfectly comfortable managing their investments.
Alternatively, they may prefer to outsource investment management to a specialist provider while retaining a trusted financial planner.
The investment proposition can change without the planning relationship ending.
That distinction is becoming increasingly important.
The evidence is already appearing in investment distribution
Consider the latest results from AJ Bell.
In its October 2026 year-end trading update, the investment platform reported:
- 602,000 direct-to-consumer customers.
- 194,000 advised platform customers.
- £7.8 billion of direct-to-consumer platform net inflows.
- £1.9 billion of advised platform net inflows.
That means approximately 76% of its platform customers, and 80% of its annual platform net inflows, came through the direct channel.
Five years earlier, the picture was different.
In September 2021, AJ Bell reported annual platform net inflows of £3.2 billion through its direct channel and £3.8 billion through its advised channel.
Back then, advised business accounted for the larger share of new money.
Today, at AJ Bell, the position has reversed dramatically.
The direct channel’s share of annual platform net inflows has moved from approximately 46% to 80%.
These figures come from AJ Bell’s 2021 and 2026 trading updates.
Of course, this is one platform, not the entire UK investment market. Its advised customers still account for the majority of platform assets. And the movement cannot simply be attributed to AI.
Nevertheless, the direction is significant.
More people are choosing to invest without using an advised distribution channel.
Now consider what happens when those same people gain increasingly capable AI tools for financial modelling, retirement projections, investment comparisons, fee analysis and ongoing financial administration.
The demand for financial intermediation may change considerably.
But does that mean people will no longer need financial planning?
I don’t think so.
Self-directed investing does not have to mean unsupported living.
Financial planning is much bigger than regulated investment advice
We need to recognise something that the financial services industry sometimes overlooks.
Financial planning is not the exclusive preserve of regulated investment advisers.
Accountants undertake financial planning. Business advisers help entrepreneurs plan their financial futures. Families plan how to fund education, housing, retirement and caring responsibilities.
Financial planning reaches into almost every aspect of life.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) has its own Personal Financial Planning Community, reflecting the important role that accountancy professionals play in helping people manage their financial affairs.
In the UK, the ICAEW’s Personal Financial Planning Community has historically been larger than the FCA-regulated retail investment adviser population, according to membership figures confirmed by a former community chairman.
This illustrates an important point: financial planning extends well beyond the regulated investment advice industry. The regulatory perimeter defines particular activities, not the boundaries of the financial planning profession.
These are different professional populations, and the available figures do not establish a reliable total for everyone practising financial planning. But they illustrate why it would be a mistake to equate the financial planning profession with the regulated investment advice industry.
Even the FCA’s own Handbook recognises the distinction.
Under PERG 8.26.2G, financial planning is expressly identified as an example of generic advice that does not, in itself, constitute the regulated activity of advising on particular investments.
Specific activities may, of course, fall within the regulatory perimeter. The nature of the work determines the applicable requirements.
But financial planning as a discipline is much broader.
There have also been debates in the United States about professional titles, qualifications and the distinction between investment advisers and other financial professionals.
In both the UK and the United States, the title financial planner is not reserved exclusively for regulated retail investment advisers. Financial planning is practised across several professions, including accountancy, and encompasses a much wider range of activities than investment intermediation.
Regulation applies to particular financial activities, not to the entire discipline of financial planning.
Financial planning is the wider profession. Regulated investment advice is one specialist activity within it.
The underlying question is nevertheless important.
Should the regulatory status of particular financial activities define the boundaries of the entire financial planning profession?
I would argue not.
The regulated investment world is one solar system within the much larger universe of financial planning.
And the purpose of financial planning should be determined by the needs of the person, not the commercial interests of the investment distribution system.
AI changes the economics, not the value of human relationships
Historically, comprehensive financial planning could be time-consuming and expensive.
A practitioner needed specialist software, access to complex information, technical knowledge and considerable time to produce and maintain a plan.
For many firms, it became commercially easier to subsidise planning through ongoing investment charges than to charge separately for the work.
AI changes that calculation.
AI is changing that calculation for both professionals and consumers.
Individuals can now use increasingly capable AI tools to gather and organise their financial information, model retirement scenarios, examine pension and investment documents, identify inconsistencies, compare alternatives and explore the consequences of different decisions.
These capabilities were once largely confined to professionals with specialist knowledge, expensive software and access to financial information.
Now they are becoming available directly to consumers.
Financial planners can use the same technology to deliver services more efficiently. But the more significant development is that consumers no longer need to purchase professional assistance for every task involved in financial planning.
They can undertake more of the work themselves, retaining control of their information, decisions and financial arrangements.
Professional expertise remains valuable where complexity, uncertainty or important life decisions justify it. But that expertise can increasingly be purchased when needed, rather than through a permanent asset-based relationship.
AI does not simply reduce the cost of financial planning. It reduces the consumer’s dependence on the financial planner.
That changes the economics of the profession fundamentally.
Tasks that previously absorbed considerable professional time can often be performed much more efficiently.
But AI does not automatically understand what matters most to a particular person.
It cannot determine whether someone should prioritise a higher income over more time with their family, whether they should continue a demanding career or downshift into more meaningful work.
These are questions about values, priorities, capabilities and relationships.
Human judgement remains valuable, especially when people face uncertainty, conflicting objectives or consequential decisions.
This creates an interesting possibility.
AI can reduce the cost of producing financial planning without eliminating the value of the financial planner.
Indeed, by making financial planning more affordable to deliver, AI may allow it to become a sustainable standalone professional service.
For years, financial planning struggled to pay for itself, so much of the industry made its money from intermediation.
AI may finally allow financial planning to pay for itself.
Your greatest asset may not be your client bank
Think about what an experienced financial adviser has accumulated over a professional lifetime.
Technical knowledge.
An understanding of tax, pensions, investments and financial risks.
Experience of market cycles.
Professional judgement developed through difficult cases.
An understanding of people’s behaviour, hopes and fears.
And, perhaps most importantly, trusted relationships built through years of helping clients navigate important decisions.
This is human capital.
It is not the same as the financial capital held on an investment platform.
Yet the traditional advice business model tends to attach much of the commercial value of the relationship to the assets being serviced.
The adviser becomes commercially dependent on retaining those assets.
What happens if the client becomes comfortable investing directly?
What if their assets move to a lower-cost provider?
What if AI enables them to evaluate investment propositions for themselves?
Does the financial planning relationship suddenly become worthless?
Of course not.
The relationship may have value entirely independently of the investment arrangements.
And that raises a question for experienced advisers approaching retirement.
Why retire your accumulated human capital simply because you want to retire from managing someone else’s financial capital?
Plan the transition while you still have choices
There is a difference between leaving a business because its economics no longer work and deliberately evolving that business while it remains successful.
The first is reactive.
The second is strategic.
For an adviser who has spent decades building a practice, the opportunity is to make the transition gradually.
You do not necessarily need to close the business, leave your existing firm or abandon your client relationships.
Financial planning and investment services can be separately priced and delivered within the same business.
A professional may continue regulated activities where necessary while providing a distinct, independently remunerated financial planning service.
Some may choose to establish a separate planning business. Others may remain within their existing business and redesign its services and fee structure.
These are established forms of professional and commercial organisation, not inherently suspicious arrangements.
Naturally, the transition must be properly documented.
The FCA recognises information barriers, sometimes called Chinese walls, under SYSC 10.2. These can assist with managing information flows and conflicts, although they do not themselves determine whether an activity is regulated.
Likewise, an adviser working in different professional capacities must be clear about which service is being delivered, what regulatory requirements apply and what protections the client receives.
Consumer Duty requirements can also apply to otherwise unregulated ancillary activities connected with regulated business.
The point is not to create a regulatory loophole.
It is to design a business that provides distinct services transparently, with appropriate controls and responsibilities.
And if a practitioner moves between firms, contractual obligations, confidentiality, data protection and client consent must be respected. A client relationship cannot simply be assumed transferable.
Orderly transition is good professional practice. It should not be confused with regulatory avoidance.
What might a planned transition look like?
Imagine an experienced financial adviser in their late fifties.
They have a loyal client base, substantial professional experience and a business producing recurring investment-related revenue.
They are considering retirement within the next five to ten years.
The traditional options might include selling the business, transferring clients to a successor or remaining in regulated advice until they stop working.
But there is another possibility.
Over a planned period, they begin introducing a separately priced Independent Financial Planning service.
Existing clients are invited to consider whether they still need the current combination of planning and investment advice, or whether they would benefit from purchasing those services separately.
Some will wish to retain their existing arrangements.
Some may prefer to manage investments directly.
Others may want investment management delivered by another provider while continuing their relationship with their trusted planner.
The planner can gradually reduce their dependence on asset-based remuneration, replace it with fees for clearly defined planning services, and adjust their workload to suit their own life objectives.
Specialist regulated expertise remains available where required.
The transition might happen over three years, five years or longer.
There is no universal timetable.
What matters is that it is deliberately planned, commercially tested and managed in the interests of clients.
For the practitioner, the aim is not necessarily to maximise the sale price of a client bank.
It may be to develop a sustainable, personally rewarding practice that they can operate for as long as they choose.
After all, financial planners deserve the same opportunity to optimise their lives that they offer their clients.
What would you actually sell as an Independent Financial Planner?
This is the crucial commercial question.
Removing asset-based remuneration does not automatically create a viable planning business.
A planner needs a service people value, an understandable price and an efficient means of delivery.
At the Academy of Life Planning, our approach begins with the person rather than the portfolio.
We call this Total Wealth Planning.
Financial capital matters enormously, but it is only one component of a person’s overall resources.
Human capital also matters: health, skills, earning capacity, knowledge, relationships, caring capabilities and the ability to contribute meaningfully to life.
We recently explored this distinction in Beyond Financial Capital: Why Independent Financial Planning Must Account for Human Capital.
Our objective is not simply to help people maximise their financial wealth.
It is to help them use their total wealth to achieve sufficient well-being across the different dimensions of life.
Our GAME Plan framework begins with Goals, moves through Actions and Means, and concludes with Execution.
AI-supported tools help individuals understand their financial circumstances, explore possibilities and make informed choices.
Human planners provide clarity, challenge, reassurance and assistance when circumstances warrant it.
This is what we mean by Independent Financial Planning.
Independent of the need to gather or retain investment assets.
Centred on the person.
Remunerated for the planning, not the portfolio.
Bring me the problem, not the portfolio.
The commercial transition needs a plan of its own
Anyone considering this route should approach their practice transition with the same care they would apply to a client’s financial plan.
Start by examining the current business model.
How much revenue depends on assets under management?
How much work genuinely relates to investment advice, and how much relates to wider financial planning?
What services do clients value most?
What planning fees would they willingly pay if investment management were separated?
How might AI reduce delivery costs?
What qualifications, permissions, insurance, contracts and operating arrangements will the future service require?
What would happen to revenue if clients increasingly managed their own investments?
The aim is to answer these questions while the existing business is still generating income.
That creates room to experiment, develop the proposition, explain the changes to clients and refine the economics.
It is also important to establish whether a fee-based planning practice can support the practitioner’s desired income and workload. Trust is a powerful starting point, but it is not a substitute for a viable business model.
There need be no sudden rupture.
The existing business can finance its own evolution.
The client’s needs can remain central.
And the planner can determine the pace.
Do not wait until the business model forces a decision that you could have made on your own terms.
Retirement from regulation is not retirement from responsibility
Let me make one point clear.
Regulated investment advice remains valuable.
Some clients will continue to need specialist advice on complex investments, pension arrangements, transfers and other consequential financial decisions.
Those services should remain available, with the appropriate regulatory protections.
The Academy is not suggesting that regulated advisers should cease providing necessary regulated advice or use different labels to avoid regulatory obligations.
Nor does becoming an Independent Financial Planner mean escaping accountability for past work.
It means recognising that financial planning can stand on its own commercial and professional foundations.
An individual can purchase planning without necessarily purchasing investment intermediation.
An adviser can earn fees from planning without necessarily gathering assets.
And a practitioner can retain the value of their expertise and relationships without remaining indefinitely dependent on a particular investment distribution model.
That is a distinction worth making.
Before AI retires you, retire the part of the business that no longer serves you
Nobody can predict precisely how quickly AI will change financial advice.
The technology is developing rapidly, but adoption, consumer confidence, regulation and commercial behaviour will evolve at different speeds.
The asset-based advice model is unlikely to disappear overnight.
Nor should every regulated adviser immediately abandon it.
But the direction of change deserves serious consideration.
Consumers are becoming more capable.
Investment distribution is becoming more accessible.
The cost of delivering financial planning is falling.
And the case for separating planning from asset management is becoming stronger.
For the experienced practitioner, the question is not whether financial planning has a future.
It is whether their existing business model is the best way to participate in that future.
You may have twenty or thirty years of knowledge, experience and trusted relationships behind you.
Those are valuable assets.
You do not need to retire them simply because the traditional commercial model is changing.
You can plan your transition while the business is healthy.
You can maintain valuable client relationships, subject to the proper agreements and arrangements.
You can reduce your dependence on asset-based remuneration.
And you can build an Independent Financial Planning practice around the work you genuinely enjoy.
You have spent your career helping clients achieve financial independence.
Perhaps it is time to achieve professional independence yourself.
The Academy of Life Planning
The Academy of Life Planning helps experienced professionals develop Independent Financial Planning practices through education, practical frameworks, AI-supported technology and a community of practitioners.
Our proposition is straightforward:
Self-directed by default. Supported when it matters.
For planners, that means building a professional service whose value does not depend on gathering or retaining investment assets.
For clients, it means gaining access to planning, technology and human support without necessarily entering an ongoing asset-management relationship.
Our Private Members Club and practitioner development programmes provide a route for professionals seeking to build and develop this model.
You do not have to wait until your existing business stops working.
You can begin planning its successor today.
Become an Independent Financial Planner by design, before AI retires your business model.
Find out more at Academy of Life Planning and Total Wealth Planner.
References and further reading
- Financial Conduct Authority (2026). The Retail Intermediary Market Data 2025.
- Financial Conduct Authority. PERG 8.26 — The Investment Must Be a Particular Investment, particularly 8.26.2G.
- AJ Bell plc (2021). Year-end Trading Update, 21 October 2021.
- AJ Bell plc (2026). Year-end Trading Update, 22 October 2026.
- ICAEW. Personal Financial Planning Community.
- NASAA (2025). Members Approve Amendments to Broker-Dealer Conduct Model Rule.
- Financial Conduct Authority. SYSC 10.2 — Chinese Walls.
- Financial Conduct Authority (2022). FG22/5 — Final Guidance on the Consumer Duty, paragraphs 2.41–2.43.
- Academy of Life Planning (2026). Beyond Financial Capital: Why Independent Financial Planning Must Account for Human Capital.
