In today’s world, we’re all living longer, with some even eyeing a shot at becoming centenarians. The Office for National Statistics projects a 90% increase in people aged 80 and above by 2050 and a staggering 200% jump in centenarians. You might think this demographic shift would call for innovative strategies to help people adapt and thrive in their later years. Instead, we’re being urged by the pension industry to “talk to our advisers” as if that’s the magical solution to all our financial woes. But let’s be clear: it’s not the advice that makes people wealthier—it’s wealth that makes them seek advice.
According to pension company rhetoric, the big “longevity megatrend” demands financial advisers who can “prepare us for all eventualities.” They assert that their research shows people with advisers are better equipped for life’s twists and turns. How convenient for them. This so-called “preparation,” in their world, apparently means stocking up on products designed to keep their bottom line as robust as possible, all while the real financial issues go untouched. Do we really think society’s answer to living longer and better is buying more financial products?
When only one in three people between 55 and 64 are prioritising funding for retirement, it’s not just a matter of needing more advice on where to park their money. It’s about rethinking the entire approach. People need strategies that build resilience and adaptability over the long haul—strategies that focus on developing human capital, not just accumulating financial capital. Human capital, which includes earning capacity, adaptability, and skills, is actually the foundation of financial wellbeing, but you won’t hear the pension companies promoting this idea. Why? Because human capital development doesn’t directly pad their accounts.
Here’s a thought: if you’re going to live to 100, maybe the focus shouldn’t be on seeing an adviser to maximise your existing savings. Maybe it’s more important to consider how you’ll continue earning, learning, and contributing throughout those later decades. After all, savings can run out, but the ability to generate income and adapt is far more sustainable. This is where the conversation should be—on enabling people to create and maintain income streams, stay resilient, and have flexible life goals that can adjust as life inevitably changes.
Interestingly, despite 69% agreeing that “retiring in your sixties will become a thing of the past,” there’s no sense of urgency around supporting people to extend their working lives in meaningful, fulfilling ways. Instead, we’re advised to sit down with someone eager to help us “save more.” But here’s a reality check: if you’re not earning enough to save in the first place, that advice isn’t worth a lot, is it? What we need are ideas on expanding people’s earning potential, empowering them to adapt to changing work demands, and enabling them to live lives of purpose and resilience. And, funnily enough, these are not topics advisers are rushing to discuss.
And let’s not ignore the financial irony here: less than a quarter of respondents have actually used an adviser, with figures dropping significantly among older age groups. It’s not that people don’t appreciate guidance—they just don’t see the value in paying for advice that only tells them to squirrel away what little they’ve managed to save. The government is now considering ways to make advice more “accessible and affordable,” which sounds helpful. But how about making it more meaningful? What people truly need are pathways to independence, resilience, and purpose—not simply more access to the same old playbook.
So, while advisers may claim to be ready to help us face the “longevity megatrend,” let’s remember that the real game-changer isn’t the advice itself. It’s empowering people to build the skills and flexibility they need to make it to 100 on their terms—not the pension company’s.
Comments