American workers appear ready to trust professional financial guidance but remain far from convinced that guidance will translate into a secure retirement. New research from NFP, an Aon company that provides benefits consulting, retirement advisory and wealth-management services, found that 89% of employees trust financial advisors made available through their employers. At the same time, 69% said they were unsure they would be able to retire comfortably, revealing a substantial divide between confidence in the source of advice and confidence in the eventual outcome.

The findings were published in NFP’s 2026 U.S. Retirement Trend Report, which examined responses from 1,000 U.S. working adults aged 18 and older who participate in financial-planning decisions for their households. Respondents included full-time, part-time and contract workers across different income levels, ages, geographic regions, employer sizes and types of organization. The report arrives as employers and retirement providers devote increasing resources to financial-wellness programs, digital planning tools and professional consultations, yet struggle to turn those offerings into measurable improvements in participant behavior.

The survey suggests that access to advice is not the primary obstacle. Sixty-two percent of employees identified one-on-one meetings with financial professionals as a helpful retirement-planning resource, while 84% said they would consider working with an advisor if given the opportunity. Those responses indicate a large pool of potential demand for workplace financial guidance. They also raise a more difficult question for plan sponsors: why do so many employees express trust and interest without taking the next step?

NFP characterized the problem primarily as an engagement gap. Many workers recognize the potential value of professional help but do not believe they have enough money to justify a meeting, do not understand what an advisor would do for them or assume the interaction will produce an additional cost. Twenty-four percent of respondents said they did not earn or possess enough to invest, and an equal share questioned whether meeting with an advisor would be worthwhile. Another 20% cited concern about fees, while 19% said they were unsure how a financial professional could help.

Those barriers are particularly relevant to wealth-management firms seeking to serve emerging-affluent and mass-affluent households. Traditional advisory relationships have often been associated with account minimums, percentage-of-assets fees and clients who have already accumulated substantial investable wealth. Workplace programs can introduce advice earlier, including when employees are deciding how much to contribute, whether to use pretax or Roth accounts, how to allocate investments and how to balance retirement goals against debt and emergency savings.

The workplace channel may therefore allow advisors to engage households before they would qualify for or seek a conventional private-client relationship. However, that opportunity depends on removing the perception that advice is reserved for wealthy investors. PLANADVISER reported that NFP executives view employer-funded confidential consultations as one way to eliminate fee concerns and encourage participation. Inviting spouses or partners can also make the process more useful because household financial decisions are frequently shared or made by someone other than the employee.

The retirement-confidence figures show why greater engagement is becoming urgent. NFP found that 72% of employees considered themselves off track for retirement in 2026, up from 68% in 2025. That deterioration occurred despite the broad availability of workplace retirement plans, investment tools and educational material. It suggests that expanding the number of resources will have limited effect when employees do not know which tools apply to them, cannot translate information into decisions or lack the cash flow to act on the guidance they receive.

Immediate financial obligations remain a central constraint. Forty-six percent of respondents said they were deprioritizing retirement saving or were unable to save, as expenses including housing, car payments and healthcare took precedence. This finding complicates the usual retirement-planning message that employees should simply increase contribution rates. For many households, the decision is not between saving a moderate amount and saving more. It is between contributing to a retirement account and meeting expenses that cannot easily be postponed.

That pressure can also weaken the effectiveness of portfolio advice. Asset allocation, diversification and long-term compounding matter, but they cannot fully offset inadequate contribution levels, repeated withdrawals or years in which employees suspend saving. A worker who trusts an advisor may still be unable to follow a recommended strategy if the household lacks emergency reserves, carries expensive debt or faces unpredictable medical and caregiving costs. The report therefore supports a broader view of retirement advice that connects investment planning with budgeting, debt management, insurance and cash-flow decisions.

The challenge is especially pronounced for older workers. Among employees aged 55 and above, 41% said they expected Social Security to be their primary source of retirement income. Heavy dependence on the federal program can leave households exposed when benefits are insufficient to maintain their desired standard of living or when retirement begins earlier than planned because of health problems, job loss or caregiving responsibilities. Advisors working with this group may need to focus less on abstract accumulation targets and more on income timing, spending flexibility, healthcare costs and the consequences of claiming Social Security at different ages.

For employers, the report identifies a sharp deterioration in awareness of existing benefits. Only 42% of employees said they knew which financial services were available through their workplace, down from 55% in the prior year. Just 34% said they understood how to use those services, compared with 44% in 2025. The declines suggest that adding advisory tools to a benefits package does not guarantee that workers will notice, understand or access them.

The communication problem extends beyond 401(k) plans. NFP found that, on average, one-quarter of employees were unsure whether a specific non-401(k) retirement benefit was available to them. Depending on the employer, those benefits can include financial coaching, managed-account services, emergency-savings programs, health savings accounts, pension benefits, student-debt assistance or access to retirement-income education. Uncertainty about availability reduces participation and can prevent employees from appreciating the full value of their compensation package.

Plan sponsors may need to replace broad annual enrollment messages with more targeted communication tied to specific financial decisions. Employees approaching retirement have different needs from recent hires, parents facing childcare costs or younger workers managing student debt. Messages can be timed around pay increases, life events, plan-eligibility milestones and periods of market volatility. A direct invitation to schedule a confidential consultation may also be more effective than directing employees to another online portal or calculator.

The distinction between information and advice is important. Digital tools can show projected account balances or recommend contribution rates, but employees may not know which assumptions to use or how to respond when the output conflicts with current financial pressures. Human advisors can ask follow-up questions, explain trade-offs and help workers create a sequence of manageable actions. NFP argued that even a single conversation can improve confidence in subsequent financial decisions by giving employees a clearer starting point.

That does not mean one-on-one advice will automatically resolve the retirement-readiness gap. The survey measures attitudes and self-reported behavior rather than proving that advisor engagement causes higher savings or better investment results. Workers who choose to meet with advisors may already be more financially motivated or have more disposable income. Employer programs also vary significantly in quality, scope, frequency and the extent to which the advisor is able to provide individualized recommendations.

Governance and trust must therefore extend beyond general confidence in the advisor. Plan sponsors need to explain who is providing the advice, how the professional is compensated, whether recommendations are fiduciary, how personal information will be used and whether the relationship continues after the worker leaves the employer. Employees may trust a workplace advisor initially but hesitate to disclose debt, family obligations or financial fears unless confidentiality protections are clearly communicated.

Advisory firms also face the question of how workplace relationships connect with their broader wealth businesses. Employer-sponsored consultations can create familiarity with an advisor and may eventually lead to individual planning relationships as participants accumulate assets, change jobs or approach retirement. Firms must manage that opportunity carefully, ensuring that education provided through a plan is not presented primarily as a sales funnel for outside products or account rollovers.

For the wealth-management industry, the report reinforces the commercial importance of serving clients before they become conventionally wealthy. Retirement security is shaped by decisions made throughout a career, yet many households encounter professional advice only when they are close to retirement or after accumulating a substantial account balance. Workplace advice can reach employees during the accumulation stage, when changes in saving rates and investment behavior have more time to compound.

The findings also indicate that retirement advice increasingly needs to address emotional and behavioral obstacles. Employees may delay action because retirement appears distant, financial decisions feel overwhelming or a consultation might expose how far behind they are. The high level of stated trust suggests that suspicion of advisors is not the dominant issue in this survey. The greater challenge is helping workers move from passive approval of advice to an appointment, a decision and a repeatable financial habit.

Employers have economic reasons to address that challenge. Financial stress can affect concentration, attendance, productivity and workforce retention. Older employees who cannot afford to retire may remain in positions longer than expected, complicating succession planning and labor-cost management. Conversely, a well-communicated retirement program can strengthen the perceived value of compensation and provide employees with a more realistic understanding of their options.

The most effective programs are likely to combine plan design with active guidance. Automatic enrollment, automatic contribution escalation and appropriately diversified default investments can reduce the number of decisions employees must make. Advisors can then focus on questions that require personal context, such as whether to increase contributions, consolidate old accounts, adjust risk, repay debt, build emergency savings or prepare a retirement-income plan. Neither automated design nor human advice is likely to be sufficient on its own for every participant.

NFP’s data ultimately presents a mixed picture. Employer-provided advisors begin with an unusually strong level of trust, and most employees say they are open to one-on-one guidance. Yet retirement confidence is weak, the proportion of workers who consider themselves off track is rising and awareness of available resources is falling. The advisory infrastructure may already exist inside many organizations, but it is not consistently reaching the people it was designed to support.

Closing that gap will require more than offering another calculator, webinar or benefits brochure. Employers and advisors will need to make the first interaction easier, clarify that guidance is relevant even for workers with modest balances and connect retirement planning to immediate household pressures. The report’s central message is that trust provides a valuable foundation, but retirement outcomes will depend on whether plan sponsors and wealth professionals can turn that trust into sustained action.