FCA interview!

I work with a lot of IFAs, both local in Cornwall and nationally, and the feedback I am getting is that the FCA reforms offer growth but favour the larger firms. Concerns raised include how the FCA will support smaller firms with high compliance costs; Advisers fear “better outcomes” term and vague disclosures may mislead, risking distrust; the Rushed timeline of March 2026 risks consumer trust and regulatory clarity. Advisers worry about regulatory uncertainty due to overlap with “personal recommendations.” What safeguards will prevent mis-selling when suggestions rely on common characteristics, not individual needs? Advisers seek guidance on balancing scalability and suitability. Why distinguish “better” from “good” outcomes?

On paper, the FCA’s targeted support plans could help narrow the advice gap by giving more consumers access to guidance without the full cost of regulated advice. That’s positive in principle.

But there are serious concerns. Where’s the line between “support” and “advice”? If it’s blurred, consumers could wrongly believe they’ve had regulated advice — and the protections that come with it — when they haven’t.

And unless the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) is fully aligned with the proposals, it’s a dead duck. Advisers won’t risk offering “support” if there’s any danger FOS will later judge it as full advice and apply the same standards and liabilities.

The FCA must be crystal clear on definitions, consumer protections, and how targeted support complements — rather than replaces — full regulated advice.