By Steve Conley, Founder, Academy of Life Planning
When the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) parades its efforts to clamp down on “finfluencers,” we should ask: are they tackling the real threats to financial integrity—or just chasing headlines?
On June 10th, FCA Chief Executive Nikhil Rathi appeared before the Treasury Committee, defending the regulator’s proactive stance against online influencers promoting financial products without appropriate qualifications. His message was clear: collaboration is welcome, but prosecution is necessary. And indeed, arrests have been made, court cases are pending, and resources are being allocated.
But while the FCA allocates time and taxpayer money—£13,050 on one influencer campaign alone—towards managing digital creators, a more sinister reality lingers in the shadows. For over a decade, real-world fraudsters have posed as regulated financial advisers, devastating thousands of lives, and the regulator has stood largely idle.
The Double Standard
These aren’t social media influencers peddling crypto tips. They are men in suits, working out of bricks-and-mortar offices, using legitimate-looking websites and FCA-style logos to lure victims into pension transfers, unregulated investments, and long-term financial ruin.
Some were even ex-regulated advisers or operated under the guise of FCA authorisation. Yet when victims come forward—often with comprehensive documentation—the regulator routinely claims it lacks the authority, declines to investigate, or refers them in endless loops between agencies.
So, we must ask:
- Why does the FCA act swiftly against teenage TikTokers but slowly—or not at all—against career criminals running multi-million-pound pension frauds?
- Is this a case of pursuing low-hanging fruit while ignoring the hard graft of systemic fraud investigations?
- Are prosecutions more about visibility than justice?
Justice Delayed — Or Dodged?
The FCA’s own data shows only 2.8% of UK adults with less than £10,000 in savings access regulated advice. That’s not just a service gap—it’s a social vulnerability. And where financial literacy is low, and trust in institutions weaker still, the conditions are ripe for exploitation.
The regulator’s answer? Spend more time in PR-friendly territory with “influencer engagement strategies” and courtroom theatrics that won’t see daylight until 2027. Meanwhile, for victims of pension scams from 2012 to 2022, there’s still no closure—and in many cases, no acknowledgement.
📦 BOX OUT: Who Really Needs Regulated Advice?
The Mismatch at the Heart of the Advice Gap
🔍 FCA Stat:
Only 2.8% of UK adults with less than £10,000 in savings access regulated financial advice.
But let’s ask the real question:
Would they even want it?
Regulated advice is often tied to product sales—investments, pensions, insurance. If you don’t have investable wealth, there’s little for a product-focused adviser to “advise” on.
💡 So why does the FCA measure the ‘advice gap’ using this model?
Because the system conflates advice with selling. It assumes financial wellbeing starts with buying a product—when in reality, most people need help with:
- Earning strategies
- Budgeting and saving
- Getting out of debt
- Rebuilding after hardship
- Protecting earnings
- Understanding pensions
- Making a life plan
⚠️ The result?
The people most in need of guidance are excluded from support—not because they’re unimportant, but because they’re unprofitable.
✅ The Solution?
A shift toward generic advice, life planning, and financial coaching—not regulated product sales. Models like Planning My Life and Financial Life Coach serve real needs without exploiting financial vulnerability.
“People with less than £10k don’t need products—they need a plan.”
A System Built to Avoid Complexity
Enforcement against digital finfluencers is convenient. It’s clean, traceable, and generates press. In contrast, tackling long-running frauds by rogue firms involves forensic work across jurisdictions, collaboration with overseas regulators, and legal pressure on institutions reluctant to admit liability.
It’s difficult. It’s expensive. It risks exposing uncomfortable truths about industry complicity and regulator oversight failures.
So perhaps it’s no surprise that those cases languish, victims are sidelined, and perpetrators disappear into the sunset, bank accounts intact.
Conclusion: A Tale of Two Enforcement Models
The FCA must reflect on the message it sends when it prosecutes influencers but allows ten-year pension frauds to drift unchallenged:
- That visibility matters more than impact
- That younger, digital-first offenders are easier targets than seasoned fraudsters embedded in the system
- That consumer protection is only actionable when it aligns with press strategy
It’s time for balance. Influencers must be held accountable—but not at the expense of ignoring industrial-scale abuse facilitated by the regulator’s own past failings.
If the FCA is serious about restoring public trust, it must be willing to investigate the hard cases—not just the headline-friendly ones.
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 