Every industry reaches a point where the rules change. Looking back, it's obvious which businesses adapted and which convinced themselves nothing fundamental would change.
I believe mortgage advice has reached that point.
The FCA-commissioned Mills Review isn't simply another discussion about artificial intelligence. It's a glimpse of what the mortgage market could look like over the next decade and, if it's right, some broker firms are going to find it much harder to compete than they do today.
The review describes a future where consumers increasingly interact with AI through banks, technology platforms and digital assistants before they ever speak to a financial professional. It also notes that whoever controls that customer interface is likely to hold significant market power. That's an uncomfortable thought for intermediaries because, if you're no longer the first conversation, you have to become even more valuable in the second one.
The biggest mistake firms could make is assuming they can compete on speed and convenience alone.
Within the next few years, it's entirely realistic to imagine straightforward borrowers completing a mortgage application through an AI-assisted journey in minutes. Whether that's delivered by a lender, a banking app or another platform almost becomes irrelevant. The customer experience will be quick, intuitive and, in many cases, perfectly adequate.
An intermediary is, by definition, another step in that process. If your proposition is simply making the application happen, you're competing against businesses that are removing friction rather than adding it. That's not a race brokers are likely to win.
So, the question isn't whether AI replaces advisers. It's what advisers offer that AI can't.
A recent personal experience brought that home for me. When my wife was pregnant with our first child, I used AI to research questions before every appointment with our midwife. I arrived informed, curious and probably a little overconfident. The conversations were better because I asked better questions, but I still relied on her judgement to interpret the information, challenge assumptions and guide us towards the right decisions.
I think we'll see exactly the same behaviour from mortgage customers. They'll arrive having already explored products, affordability and different scenarios using AI. Some will be well informed. Some will be confidently wrong. Either way, the adviser's role becomes more valuable because it shifts from providing information to applying judgement.
The firms that succeed won't be trying to out-click an AI-powered mortgage journey. They'll be using the same technology inside their own businesses to remove administration, automate routine tasks and give advisers more time to do the things clients genuinely value: understanding complex circumstances, providing reassurance and building long-term relationships.
That also changes the economics of advice. If AI removes much of the administration that has traditionally limited capacity, advisers can spend more time deepening existing relationships, identifying protection and general insurance needs and delivering a broader advice proposition. The fee is no longer justified by processing paperwork more efficiently. It's justified by improving outcomes.
Every advice firm will take a different route. A sole adviser doesn't need the same technology strategy as a national brokerage. But every firm needs a strategy because choosing to wait is no longer a neutral decision.
The real message from the Mills Review isn't that AI will replace brokers. It's that AI will expose the difference between firms that see advice as a relationship business and those that have unknowingly built their proposition around administration.
The technology will be available to everyone. The winners will be the firms that use it to become more human. The losers will be the ones hoping it goes away.
