I came across a fantastic spot of financial advice on social media the other day. It was jaw-dropping stuff, to put it mildly.
An American gentleman in sunglasses introduced his young daughter, who was about to buy her first car. She had just been to the bank, which had given her a $15,000 loan at an interest rate of 3.5%.
How did someone of her tender age secure such a deal? And how tricky might it be for her to meet its terms? No problem!
You see, she had also just ploughed $7,000 of her savings into an Airbnb property – as you do. The return on that, she declared, would cover her debt payments with ease. Excellent!
Apparently, the dynamic duo’s mini-masterclass was intended as a crash course in the wonders of arbitrage. I must try to remember it when I’m next in the vicinity of a Porsche dealership.
It’s well worth checking out this ridiculous drivel and other examples of dangerous online trash. A couple of minutes’ exposure should be enough to convince anyone with even a light sprinkling of brain cells that the need to close the advice gap has never been more pressing.
This brings us to the enduring saga of targeted support, which is poised to enter its next phase. The consultation period concluded in late August, and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is expected to issue a final policy statement before the end of the year.
The FCA’s head of asset management and pension policy, Nike Trost, recently expressed concern that younger generations in particular are likely to seek out and rely on unregulated advice. “When you look at investors aged 18 to 34,” she said, “about 45% use social media to research investments. That’s quite a lot, in my mind.”[1]
I would say “quite a lot” is an understatement. Frankly, it’s a terrifying figure – especially if even a small proportion of those unfortunate souls end up absorbing the kind of “advice” highlighted above.
So will targeted support provide the required solution? The broad consensus at present is that it could eventually make a genuine difference but is still some way from being fit for practical implementation.
One key sticking point is whether the continued monitoring of outcomes would inadvertently create an ongoing advice relationship. This has prompted suggestions that the term “better position” should be adopted.
I must confess that I find this sort of jousting dispiriting. When people start arguing about terminology, agonising over the use of this word or that, it’s often a sign that a concept is inherently fragile and perhaps even fatally flawed.
Taking responsibility for transforming perceptions
It’s six months since I last wrote about this subject. In that time, unfortunately, I haven’t seen anything to radically alter my opinion that targeted support is a noble but innately imperfect idea.
I fully accept anything beats lessons in arbitrage from a shades-sporting quack and his offspring. But I can’t help thinking we’re edging towards a classic case of dealing with symptoms rather than addressing their cause.
Let’s be blunt about this: people are increasingly turning to social media for financial advice because it’s free. In other words, they don’t believe the service we provide justifies the cost.
By extension, the advice gap exists because our profession isn’t widely regarded as affordable. Ideally, the public would see it as not only reasonably priced but absolutely indispensable.
This gives rise to a crucial question: who should be responsible for changing these negative perceptions? Ultimately, who should take the reins in trying to demonstrate the potentially enormous value of what we do?
One comment marking the end of targeted support’s consultation period struck me as especially telling. “With a few final adjustments,” said a senior figure at a major advice business, “this could be a regime that gives firms the confidence to innovate and consumers the confidence to act.”[2]
It’s a snappy soundbite, but wouldn’t it be great if we could instead give ourselves the confidence to innovate? And wouldn’t it be great if consumers drew their confidence from us?
The point is that at the moment, by no means for the first time, our industry seems content to let the regulator do all the legwork. As is traditional, we’re simply awaiting word from above.
It doesn’t have to be like this. We really don’t have to confine ourselves to fiddling around the edges if and when we’re cordially invited to do so.
Believe it or not, we have agency of our own. We have the ability to at least play a meaningful part in shaping our own destiny. We can be the difference-makers.
The age of targeted support will no doubt dawn in earnest soon enough. Maybe it will even turn out to be successful. You’ll hear no complaints from me if it somehow helps put a host of online imbeciles out of business, narrows the advice gap and enables all our stakeholders to live happily ever after.
But don’t you think it would be refreshing – not to mention remarkable – if the adviser community were to make its own conscious and collective effort to achieve these goals? I’m pretty sure this would go a long way towards transforming how would-be clients view us – and safeguarding our profession’s future in the process.
Andrew Goodwin is co-founder and CEO of Truly Independent and the author of ‘The Happy Financial Adviser’.
[1] See, for example, FT Adviser: “FCA: ‘Targeted support can reach people turning to social media’”, August 22 2025 – https://www.ftadviser.com/advice-guidance-boundary/2025/8/22/fca-targeted-support-can-reach-people-turning-to-social-media/.
[2] See, for example, Professional Adviser: “Targeted support regime welcome but rules need ‘adjustments’”, August 29 2025 – https://www.professionaladviser.com/news/4518285/targeted-support-regime-welcome-rules-adjustments.
