By Steve Conley, Founder of the Academy of Life Planning
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the UK’s financial services watchdog, has long held a dual mandate: to protect consumers and to promote competition in the public interest. But following the latest Wealth Show podcast interview with Nick Hume, Head of Advisers, Wealth and Pensions at the FCA, one might question whether the regulator’s evolving strategy is tilting dangerously toward partnership with industry—leaving the consumer, once again, exposed.
Nick Hume’s remarks centred on “growth”: economic growth, firm growth, advice market growth. Terms like “shared objectives,” “vibrant markets,” and “targeted support” were repeated with enthusiasm. Indeed, the FCA appears more open than ever to deregulation—cutting red tape, simplifying rules, and clarifying boundaries—to unlock new commercial opportunities. The reduction in regulatory capital requirements and the piloting of tools to identify “burdensome” regulations signal a regulator increasingly focused on making life easier for firms.
Yet this rhetoric should raise red flags. The regulator talks of being “smarter,” more “adaptive,” and less “prescriptive.” But for whom? While Hume assures us the FCA remains committed to the Consumer Duty, the detail suggests that the focus is shifting—from protecting consumers from harm, toward enabling firms to innovate and grow with less regulatory interference.
A Regulator Reflecting the Industry It Regulates?
Hume describes the FCA’s current approach as one of “self-reflection,” aimed at becoming a more enabling force in the financial sector. While this may sound progressive, there is a danger that a regulator seeking alignment with the ambitions of the regulated may compromise its independence and objectivity.
For example, the Advice-Guidance Boundary Review—hailed as a flagship reform—is framed not primarily as a consumer protection measure, but as a way to help firms “grow their revenues” by expanding the “stepping stones” toward advice. This growth-first framing is troubling. It positions consumers as passive beneficiaries of market expansion rather than active rights-holders who deserve clear, impartial support.
Meanwhile, Hume’s suggestion that the Consumer Duty now sets “a higher bar” for new regulations is ambiguous. Does this mean fewer protections in future, as the FCA opts for industry partnership over consumer advocacy? If so, then the bar is not being raised—it’s being sidestepped.
The Advice Gap: Whose Responsibility?
The FCA admits that only 8% of consumers currently access financial advice. Their proposed solution—deregulate the boundary between advice and guidance to help more people “step on something rather than nothing”—relies on industry innovation, not regulatory protection. But who benefits most from this? Consumers in need of objective help? Or firms seeking to upsell?
There is a deeper issue at play here: the FCA seems increasingly to see its success reflected in the commercial performance of those it regulates. Hume even says, “our objectives are pretty aligned,” referring to the relationship between regulator and regulated. This statement should prompt public concern. Because when the referee starts identifying with the players, fair play is no longer guaranteed.
Whose Growth Matters Most?
To be clear, growth in financial services is not inherently bad. But when that growth is prioritised over consumer safety, justice, and empowerment, the FCA risks abandoning its core remit. While initiatives to prevent “polluter pays” levies are commendable, they serve good firms—not directly consumers.
Where, in this growth-driven strategy, is the promise of truly free and impartial guidance for the 92% left behind? Where is the structural support for non-intermediating models of planning that don’t hinge on product sales or private equity-backed consolidation?
Conclusion: Regulatory Capture by Another Name?
The FCA insists it is not “an amorphous blob,” but rather a body made up of “people just like advisers.” That may be true. But consumers must ask: is the FCA becoming too much like the industry it regulates?
If consumer protection is to remain paramount, the FCA must resist becoming a growth partner for firms and instead become a justice partner for the public. Anything less is a betrayal of its mandate.
“We Are Not an Amorphous Blob”: When Regulators See Themselves in the Regulated
Toward the end of the Wealth Show interview, Nick Hume offered a candid reflection that deserves closer scrutiny:
“I got some feedback that it was nice to know the FCA isn’t an amorphous blob, so that, you know we are, we are people just like financial advisors, just like wealth managers. We want to help people. We want to help people live better lives… Yes, our day jobs are different… but actually, there’s a whole… huge set of shared objectives there between regulator and regulated. Our objectives are pretty aligned.”
At first glance, this humanising comment seems innocuous—perhaps even reassuring. Yet beneath the surface lies a troubling revelation: the regulator sees itself in close alliance with those it regulates. Hume’s framing moves beyond mere cooperation; it suggests an identification of purpose, a blurring of roles.
This raises a critical question: can a regulator that perceives its objectives as “pretty aligned” with industry still act impartially when those objectives diverge?
After all, the FCA’s statutory objectives are to protect consumers, promote competition, and maintain market integrity. These are not automatically shared by an industry driven by shareholder value, profit margins, and growth imperatives. In fact, the regulator’s role should often be adversarial: standing guard between powerful commercial interests and vulnerable consumers.
By emphasising alignment and shared goals, the FCA risks drifting into regulatory capture by culture, if not by formal structure. The danger isn’t that the FCA becomes a “friend” of bad actors—but that it slowly begins to see the world through the same lens as those it is supposed to scrutinise.
This is not just semantic. If the FCA increasingly prioritises market growth, business efficiency, and reduced regulatory “burden,” it may fail to challenge systemic practices that harm consumers, even unintentionally. The rhetoric of partnership softens the sharp edges of accountability.
In effect, the regulator’s metaphorical “amorphous blob” status—detached, independent, objective—is exactly what protects its impartiality. The more it humanises itself as “just like advisers,” the more it risks taking their side by default.
If consumer trust is to be maintained, the FCA must see itself as fundamentally distinct from the industry—not because it opposes good firms, but because its job is to challenge the sector in the public interest, even when it’s uncomfortable to do so.
Your Money or Your Life
Unmask the highway robbers – Enjoy wealth in every area of your life!
By Steve Conley. Available on Amazon. Visit www.steve.conley.co.uk to find out more.
Academy of Life Planning 