Copy article

"Advice from unqualified sources risks misleading the public", say financial experts

ended 21. July 2025

Newspage asked financial services experts whether the media should quote non-practising and non-regulated experts on personal finance matters, whether related to investment, mortgages or pensions.

8 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Star Quote
Copy

Editor
Rob Peters
Principal at Simple Fast Mortgage
It’s not inherently wrong for media outlets to quote commentators who aren’t regulated advisers provided their role is clearly defined. If someone is giving high-level commentary on market trends or policy, that’s fair game. But if they’re commenting on what individuals 'should' do with their money, there’s a line. The problem arises when unqualified voices give advice-like opinions without the context, nuance, or regulatory responsibility that practising advisers are bound to. The public deserves to know the difference between insight and advice, and the media should make that distinction crystal clear.
Star Quote
Copy

John Woolfitt
Director at Atlantic Capital Markets
It's not right that non-practising and unqualified sources are used for quotes when it comes to personal finance matters. In this field, commentary should only come from qualified, practising experts. This would actually add credibility to the journalist.
Star Quote
Copy

Tom Collier
Advising Director at Advantage FS
For me, the answer is a simple 'no'. The subject of personal finance is extremely nuanced. When it comes to mortgages in particular, so often the answer to a question is likely to begin with 'it depends...' at which point the question can be answered correctly. It extends beyond simply non-practising individuals, I recently watched a well-known morning TV show, which featured a 'Mortgage Clinic'. The so-called expert was answering phone calls live and was frequently, dangerously wrong. It was cringy and uncomfortable to watch. Making mistakes that any practising mortgage adviser would not, such as whether a deposit is required for a shared ownership purchase. She said a deposit was required, which is incorrect. Too much focus is given on how the content presents as opposed to whether the content is accurate. It's simply too important a subject to not be fact-checked.
Copy

Editor
Scott Gallacher
Director at Rowley Turton
Media commentators play an important role in raising awareness of personal finance issues — and many do a great job. But when it comes to complex, regulated areas like pensions, investments or mortgages, credibility and accountability matter. Non-practising commentators — often former journalists or comms professionals — may have strong communication skills and useful insights, but without regulation or mandatory CPD, it's hard to verify the accuracy or currency of their advice. That creates a risk, however unintentional, of the public being misinformed. Just as journalists rely on qualified medical experts for health reporting, it makes sense to turn to regulated financial advisers — those actively advising clients and staying current through formal oversight — when covering matters that could shape someone’s financial future.
Copy

Editor
Ben Perks
Managing Director at Orchard Financial Advisers
It’s important to have insight from those with their finger on the pulse. Not just experts or professionals in their field, but people that are speaking with the public on a daily basis, that’s the only way to cut through the rhetoric and expose the real issues affecting people.
Copy

Editor
Rohit Kohli
Director at The Mortgage Stop
I have no issues with unqualified or unregulated people giving their opinion, as we're in a democracy after all. However, media outlets across the board should be regulated to ensure they are transparent and, when they invite these people on, they should be introduced as unqualified, unregulated individuals. It's never going to happen, but it's the only way to provide accountability and transparency.
Copy

Editor
Tony Redondo
Founder at Cosmos Currency Exchange
Whilst freedom of speech is important, personal finance decisions can have life-altering consequences, and advice from unqualified sources risks misleading the public. Non-regulated individuals, like ex-journalists or PR professionals with no direct experience in financial advising, often lack the technical expertise, fiduciary responsibility, or accountability required to provide reliable guidance. Their insights may be anecdotal or outdated, potentially leading to harmful decisions, especially for complex products like mortgages or pensions. Non-experts can offer general commentary or simplify complex topics for broader audiences, but without clear disclaimers, the public may mistake this for actionable advice. The media should label such sources as commentators, not experts, and lean on those with proven expertise to ensure accuracy and protect the consumer.
Copy

Kundan Bhaduri
Entrepreneur, Investor and Landlord at The Kushman Group
It’s baffling that mainstream outlets still quote unregulated, non-practising “finance experts” on mortgages and pensions, many of whom have never advised a single client or held FCA permissions. Some were once journalists; others work in PR. Yet they're rolled out as authorities on complex financial decisions that have real-world, long-term consequences. Meanwhile, qualified mortgage brokers, IFAs, and property professionals, who actually deal with the fallout of poor advice are often sidelined in favour of slick soundbites. It’s the financial equivalent of quoting a food critic on heart surgery because they once reviewed a hospital canteen. In a regulatory space where even wording in mortgage ads is scrutinised, it's absurd that comment passed off as "guidance" can come from someone who’s never written a suitability report, let alone read one. Can we please restore standards before headlines cause more harm than high interest rates?