Protected: News

Financial services companies have unique needs when it comes to business AI. They operate in one of the most highly regulated sectors while responding to external events that are updated by the second. As a result, the success of agentic AI in financial services depends less on the sophistication of the system and more on the quality, security, and accessibility of the data it relies on. 

“It all starts with the data,” says Steve Mayzak, global managing director of Search AI at Elastic.

Agentic AI—systems that can independently plan and take actions to complete tasks, rather than simply generate responses—holds enormous potential for financial services due to its ability to incorporate real-time data and optimize complex workflows. Gartner has found that more than half of financial services teams have already implemented or plan to implement agentic AI. 

However, introducing autonomous AI into any organization magnifies both the strengths and weaknesses of the underlying data it uses. To deploy agentic AI with speed, confidence, and control, financial services companies must first be able to search, secure, and contextualize their data at scale. “Agentic AI amplifies the weakest link in the chain: data availability and quality,” says Mayzak. “And your systems are only as good as their weakest link.”

Financial services companies, therefore, require a trusted and centralized data store that is easy to access, dependable, and can be managed at scale.

The high stakes of quality information

Regulation in the financial services sector requires a high degree of accountability for all data tools. As Mayzak says, “You can’t just stop at explaining where the data came from and what it was transformed into: ‘Here’s the data that went in, and this is what came out.’ You need an auditable and governable way to explain what information the model found and the logic of why that data was right for the next step.” That is, you need to be able to see, understand, and describe the underlying processes.

At the same time, financial services companies require speed and accuracy in order to meet customer expectations and stay ahead of competition. Markets are continually shifting, and risks and opportunities move along with them. If an AI model can parse natural language (unstructured data) from complex sources—in addition to structured data in spreadsheets that are easier to analyze—this gives users more relevant information. 

In this environment, there is no tolerance for error, including the hallucinations that plagued early AI efforts. Agentic AI systems depend on rapid access to high-quality, well-governed data that is secure and accessible. In financial services, that data spans transactions, customer interactions, risk signals, policies, and historical context. The task of preparing that data for AI should not be underestimated. “Natural language is way more messy than structured data, and that makes the process of organizing and cleaning it up that much more important and also that much harder,” says Mayzak.

The data must be well indexed and consolidated across different locations, not locked in the silos of separate systems across the organization. Otherwise, AI agents lag, provide inconsistent answers, and produce decisions that are harder to trace and explain, undermining confidence among regulators, customers, and internal stakeholders. 

As Mayzak says, “There are many different ways to describe how to execute a trade at a bank. In an agent-powered world, we need those descriptions to be deterministic—to give the same results every time. Yet we’re building on powerful but non-deterministic models. That’s incredibly tricky, but not impossible.”

For a financial services firm, managing this can be very challenging. A Forrester study found that 57% of financial organizations are still developing the necessary internal capabilities to fully leverage agentic AI. “The data exists in many different formats, created over the course of a bank’s history,” says Mayzak. “Take any bank that’s been around for 50 years: They might have 60 different types of PDFs for the exact same thing. And at the same time, we want the output of these systems to be 100% accurate. In many cases, there is no ‘good enough’.” That is, companies need to do it right, and the first time.

Searching and securing results 

An effective search platform is key to solving the problem of fragmented, poorly indexed, inaccessible data. Financial services companies that can readily sift through both their structured and unstructured data, keep it secure, and apply it in the right context will get the most value from agentic AI. This often requires designing AI systems with data access and utility in mind so they can work faster and yield more accurate results, as well as reduce risk. “Search is the foundational technology that makes AI accurate and grounded in real data,” Mayzak says. “Search platforms have become the authoritative context and memory stores that will power this AI revolution.”

Once in place, these AI-enhanced searches and autonomous systems can serve financial services companies for a range of purposes. When monitoring client exposure, agentic AI can continuously scan transactions, market signals, and external data to detect emerging risks; platforms can then automatically flag or escalate issues in real time. In trade monitoring, AI agents can review trade workflows, identify discrepancies across different formats, and resolve exceptions step by step with minimal human intervention. In regulatory reporting, AI can gather data from across systems, generate required reports, and track how each output was produced. These applications of AI save time while supporting audit and compliance needs by being traceable and explainable.

Although such capabilities already exist, they are often manual, fragmented, and difficult to scale. Agentic AI allows financial organizations to move toward more automated, efficient, and scalable processes while maintaining the accuracy and transparency required in their highly regulated environment. As Mayzak says, “It’s not that different from how humans operate today, just done at a much faster pace and at scale.” 

Building an agentic AI ecosystem

Launching agentic AI can be daunting, especially if other AI ventures have stalled internally. Mayzak’s recommendation is to choose a manageable use case and allow it to grow over time. “Success can build on success,” he says. “While companies may aim to automate a 70-step business process, they are discovering that you have to start somewhere. What is working in the market is tackling the problem one step at a time. Once you get the first step working, then you can take the next step, and the next.” 

The financial services organizations that lead among their peers will be those that integrate agentic AI into a broader ecosystem that includes strong security controls, good data governance, and effective management of system performance. As Mayzak says, “Doing this well will create an AI feedback loop, where executives gain new signals from these systems to assess the effectiveness of their investments and generate reliable, actionable insights.” By iterating on pilots and continuously improving, companies will build agentic systems that can be measured, managed, and scaled. This will transform agentic AI into lasting competitive advantage.

Learn more about how Elastic supports financial services.

This content was produced by Insights, the custom content arm of MIT Technology Review. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff. It was researched, designed, and written by human writers, editors, analysts, and illustrators. This includes the writing of surveys and collection of data for surveys. AI tools that may have been used were limited to secondary production processes that passed thorough human review.

When generative AI first moved from research labs into real-world business applications, enterprises made a tacit bargain: “Capability now, control later.” Feed your proprietary data into third-party AI models, and you will get powerful results. But your data passes through systems you do not own, under governance you do not set. The protections you rely on are only as durable as the provider’s next policy update.

Now, with generative AI established in everyday business operations and sophisticated new agentic AI systems advancing every day, companies are reevaluating the terms of that deal.

“Data is really a new currency; it’s the IP for many companies,” says Kevin Dallas, CEO of EDB, echoing a recurrent anxiety from customers. “The big concern is, if you’re deploying an AI-infused application with a cloud-based large language model, are you losing your IP? Are you losing your competitive position?”

That question is now fueling a movement toward reclaiming both the data and AI systems that have rapidly become part of core business infrastructure. AI and data sovereignty, which refers to breaking dependence on centralized providers and establishing genuine control over models and data estates, it is an urgent priority for many companies, says Dallas, citing internal EDB data: “70% of global executives believe they need a sovereign data and AI platform to be successful.”

The idea of AI sovereignty is becoming a global policy conversation. NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang recently spoke about the need for such a shift at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting at Davos in January 2026: “I really believe that every country should get involved to build AI infrastructure, build your own AI, take advantage of your fundamental natural resource—which is your language and culture—develop your AI, continue to refine it, and have your national intelligence be part of your ecosystem.”

This report explores how enterprises are pursuing sovereignty over their models and data estates in an era of rapid AI adoption. Drawing on a survey conducted by EDB of more than 2,050 senior executives and a series of interviews with industry experts, the research confirms that the sovereignty movement on the enterprise level is already well underway.

Download the report.

This content was produced by Insights, the custom content arm of MIT Technology Review. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff. It was researched, designed, and written by human writers, editors, analysts, and illustrators. This includes the writing of surveys and collection of data for surveys. AI tools that may have been used were limited to secondary production processes that passed thorough human review.