Copy article

NatWest’s 500,000 advice target raises questions over what counts as advice

ended 13. August 2026

Source: Citywire/New Model Adviser reporting on NatWest’s plans to significantly increase the number of customers investing with it. Service details below are taken from NatWest’s own published information.

NatWest aims to increase the number of Retail Banking customers investing with it from 170,000 to more than 500,000 by the end of 2028.

Scott Gallacher, director and independent financial adviser at Leicester-based Rowley Turton, believes the ambition raises a wider question about what the industry now means by “financial advice”.

“More than 500,000 investors is an impressive ambition, but presenting this as growth in financial advice risks blurring some important distinctions.

“NatWest itself calls its digital service ‘Online Investment Advice’, so there is no question that it is presenting the proposition as advice. The more interesting question is what that advice actually consists of.

“According to NatWest, the online process takes around 40 minutes and determines whether someone should invest, how much they can afford to invest, and which of five NatWest ready-made funds is right for them. It does not provide advice on existing investments, insurance, pensions or wider retirement planning.

“To the casual observer, that could be forgiven for looking a lot like product distribution rather than what most people would traditionally understand as holistic financial planning.

“There is also an interesting charging issue. NatWest says the £200 advice charge is only payable if the customer actually invests. On the face of it, the advice fee therefore appears to be contingent on the customer proceeding.

“That does not mean NatWest is breaching the Financial Conduct Authority’s contingent-charging rules, which specifically restrict this practice in areas such as defined benefit pension transfer advice. But the FCA’s concern in that market was that only getting paid when a transaction proceeds can create a potential conflict between advice and outcome.

“The £200 charge may initially sound inexpensive compared with traditional financial advice, although NatWest says the online process itself takes around 40 minutes. More importantly, comparing the price risks missing the point because the services are fundamentally different.

“Comprehensive financial planning can involve pensions, existing investments, tax planning, retirement strategy and an ongoing relationship. NatWest’s online proposition appears designed to answer a much narrower set of questions: should I invest, how much should I invest, and which of these five funds is right for me?

“There also appears to be no ongoing advice relationship included within the £200 proposition. It appears to be essentially a point-in-time recommendation from a restricted range, rather than comprehensive financial planning where an adviser takes ongoing responsibility for a client’s financial journey year after year.

“Technology undoubtedly has an important role in closing the advice gap, and NatWest’s service can legitimately constitute regulated investment advice. But consumers hearing the words ‘financial advice’ could reasonably assume that different advice propositions are broadly comparable when they are anything but.

“Perhaps the most interesting question raised by NatWest’s ambition is therefore a simple one: what does being an ‘advice client’ actually mean today?”

Interestingly, NatWest’s own published target describes increasing Retail Banking customers “investing with us” from 170,000 to more than 500,000, rather than explicitly describing all 500,000 as advice clients.

What do advisers think? Is technology genuinely bringing regulated advice to hundreds of thousands more people, or are the boundaries between investment distribution, restricted advice and comprehensive financial planning becoming increasingly blurred?

3 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Copy

Editor
Nouran MoustafaVerified
Practice Principal & IFA at Roxton Wealth
Technology absolutely has a role in closing the advice gap, and getting more people investing is a good thing. But we need to stop pretending that every form of regulated advice is the same.

There is a huge difference between technology helping someone decide whether to invest and selecting from a limited range of funds, and an adviser sitting with someone and joining together their pensions, tax position, protection, mortgage, family plans, retirement and existing investments.

The danger isn't NatWest offering the service; innovation and accessibility should be welcomed. The danger is consumers hearing 'financial advice' and assuming they are getting the same depth of service.

I don't think technology replaces advisers here. I think it creates another layer of the market. If anything, it makes it more important that we become much clearer about what advice actually includes, what it doesn't, and who is taking responsibility for the bigger financial picture.
Copy

Editor
Matt CoulsonVerified
Founder at Heron Financial Ltd
I'd start by welcoming the intent. Most people get no advice at all, so a low-cost digital route into investing beats the alternative, which is nothing. The problem is the word "advice". A 40-minute questionnaire ending in a choice of five of the bank's own funds, with no look at your pensions, existing holdings or wider situation, is guided product distribution. That can be genuinely useful, but it's a different thing from full advice, and the risk is consumers hear the word and assume they've had the whole picture when they haven't. This is where I get twitchy about scaling advice with technology. I'm all for using it to widen access, and we use it heavily ourselves. But you can widen access by narrowing what's on offer, then call the narrow version by the broad name. The honest fix: label it for what it is, so people know whether they're getting a look across the whole market or a route to one provider's shelf. Both have a place. They just shouldn't share a name.
Copy

Editor
Paul DenleyVerified
CEO at Oakham Wealth Management
There's a sleight of hand in the language here. NatWest's target is for customers "investing with us" to rise from 170,000 to 500,000 - not necessarily 500,000 advice clients.

I'm broadly supportive of the ambition. Technology has a potentially important role in closing the advice gap, and a low-cost way of giving more people regulated investment advice can only be a good thing.

The question I'd ask is how likely the system is to inform a customer they should not invest.

If the outcome of a 40-minute process can be "you shouldn't invest right now", that is meaningful advice. If the commercial model and proposition are fundamentally geared towards getting customers into one of five investment solutions, the boundaries between advice and distribution become much less clear.

Will the system readily identify customers for whom investing isn't in their best interests?