Consumers surveyed by UOB are using artificial intelligence in financial decisions without giving it the same level of trust they place in their banks. New findings released on 14 September show 81 per cent reported making a significant financial decision primarily on AI advice or recommendations, while trust in primary banks remained higher than trust in AI tools.
Adoption and trust are different measures
The ASEAN Consumer Sentiment Study surveyed 5,000 people online in June, with 1,000 respondents each in Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam. Participants were aged 18 to 65, except in Singapore, where the range extended to 80. The findings describe this five-market sample, rather than every consumer across ASEAN.
In the report’s trust question, 76 per cent said they trusted their primary bank to act in their best financial interest, compared with 62 per cent for AI-powered tools. Human financial advisers and personal networks also attracted greater trust than AI. The results suggest that using a tool and relying on it as a trusted adviser are separate choices.
The study’s definition of AI is broad, covering chatbots, voice assistants and AI-powered photo or search features. Its adoption figures should not therefore be treated as a measure of generative-chatbot use alone. Respondents may encounter AI through different tools and activities, with different levels of awareness and control.
What the answers can establish
The question about significant financial decisions asked whether respondents had ever acted primarily on AI advice, then asked about the last outcome. It captures recalled experience. It does not independently verify an investment return, establish the amount at stake or show that AI caused a better financial result.
Positive-outcome percentages also need their denominators kept clear. The report’s detailed chart expresses responses against the full sample, while UOB’s summary describes outcomes among those who acted on AI advice. Those are different bases and should not be read as directly interchangeable measures.
For financial providers, the distinction matters. Reported adoption can indicate demand for convenient explanations or decision support, while the trust gap points to the continuing importance of an accountable institution or adviser. That is an interpretation of the survey, not proof that a particular banking product or advisory model will succeed.
A role alongside human advice
The findings place AI within a wider mix of financial information and support. Comparing products, understanding documents and managing everyday money are different tasks from committing to a complex investment. A person can find an automated answer useful while still wanting human help to understand fees, suitability or the consequences of a larger decision.
Banks designing digital services therefore face a practical question about when to connect customers with a person. Clear explanations, visible limitations and access to advice can shape the experience alongside the speed of an automated response. The survey does not test which combination delivers the best customer outcomes.
The regional result is a signal about reported behaviour and trust, with important limits. It comes from an online survey in five named markets and should not be presented as a population census or a recommendation to act on AI-generated financial advice. The commercial opportunity lies in understanding those distinctions, rather than assuming that frequent use has displaced trusted financial relationships.
Source note
Based on UOB’s 14 September 2026 findings and the ASEAN Consumer Sentiment Study 2026 report, especially its research design and AI/trust questions. Results are self-reported; no investment-performance claim is made.