Regulators showed their teeth in 2025.
So why does the harm keep repeating — and how can 2026 be different?
At first glance, 2025 looked like a turning point.
Headlines spoke of regulators “showing their teeth”.
Large institutions were fined.
Language hardened.
Enforcement totals rose.
And yet, when we step back and look at the violations data, a quieter, more uncomfortable truth appears.
The financial sector is not just misbehaving.
It is re-offending.
Repeatedly.
The evidence shows that the same firms appear again and again across enforcement records, often years after earlier sanctions. This isn’t accidental. It’s structural. And it tells us something important:
Fines alone are not changing behaviour.
They are being absorbed.
In many cases, they are being priced in.
The Transparency Task Force analysis of Violation Tracker UK makes this explicit: the sector has become recidivist, with enforcement functioning less as rehabilitation and more as a predictable operating cost.
That doesn’t mean regulators are acting in bad faith.
It means the incentives remain misaligned.
The causal loop we’re all caught inside
Here’s the loop the data reveals — without blame, ideology, or finger-pointing:
- Certain business models generate high revenue by pushing complexity, opacity, or volume
- Risks to consumers accumulate quietly over time
- Regulators intervene late, often after harm has already occurred
- Fines are imposed on firms, not individuals
- Costs are borne by shareholders, pension funds, or customers
- The underlying model survives — and repeats
The system learns one thing only: this level of harm is survivable.
For professionals inside the system, this creates a quiet moral tension:
- You may care deeply about clients
- You may act with integrity day-to-day
- Yet you remain structurally exposed to outcomes you don’t fully control
Many advisers feel this tension long before they can name it.
A different question for 2026
So the real question for 2026 isn’t:
“Will regulators fine harder?”
It’s this:
How do we stop feeding the loop that creates the harm in the first place?
That question matters because not all change comes from the top down.
Some of the most meaningful change comes from professionals choosing:
- different models
- different incentives
- different definitions of success
Quietly. Deliberately. Responsibly.
What transitioning professionals are already doing differently
Across the Academy of Life Planning community, we’re seeing a pattern among advisers and financial professionals who are re-thinking their path:
They are not rejecting regulation.
They are moving upstream of harm.
That looks like:
- Shifting from product-led revenue to human-capital-first planning
- Designing advice that works even if no product is sold
- Prioritising clarity, sufficiency, and resilience over extraction and volume
- Building trust architectures that reduce the probability of future remediation
- Measuring success by lives stabilised, not assets gathered
This isn’t about being “anti-industry”.
It’s about stepping out of a causal loop that no longer serves:
- consumers,
- professionals,
- or long-term trust in finance.
How 2026 becomes different — without waiting for permission
2026 becomes different when enough professionals decide:
- “I don’t want my integrity dependent on enforcement working perfectly.”
- “I want a model that is safe even when systems fail.”
- “I want to help before harm — not explain it afterwards.”
That decision doesn’t require confrontation.
It doesn’t require ideology.
It doesn’t require abandoning professionalism.
It simply requires structural alignment between:
- how you earn,
- how you serve,
- and how harm is prevented.
A gentle invitation
If you’re a financial professional who has read the 2025 fines headlines and felt:
- uneasy rather than reassured
- reflective rather than defensive
- curious about what else might be possible
You’re not alone.
There is a growing, quiet movement of advisers and planners choosing to build structurally trustworthy models — not because regulators demand it, but because clients deserve it.
Exploring that path isn’t a rejection of your past.
It’s often the most coherent continuation of it.
And that’s how 2026 really becomes different.
A closer look: 2025 FCA fines vs institutional profits
One reason the causal loop persists becomes clear when we place headline fines alongside institutional profitability.
2025 snapshots
- Nationwide
- FCA fine: £44m
- Annual profit: ~£2.3bn
- Fine as % of profit: ~2%
- Barclays
- FCA fines (combined): £42m
- Annual profit: ~£4.6bn
- Fine as % of profit: <1%
- Monzo
- FCA fine: £21m
- Annual profit: ~£15–20m
- Fine as % of profit: ~100%+
- Mastercard Vocalink
- Bank of England fine: £12m
- Group profit (Mastercard): ~$11bn
- Fine as % of group profit: ~0.1%
- London Metal Exchange
- FCA fine: £9.2m
- Estimated annual profit: ~£400–500m
- Fine as % of profit: ~2%
What this comparison quietly reveals
This is not about whether the fines are large in absolute terms.
They often are.
It’s about whether they are structurally deterrent.
For large incumbents, the data suggests:
- fines are materially survivable
- costs are absorbed at shareholder level
- future business models remain intact
In contrast, for newer or thinner-margin firms, enforcement can be existential — not because the behaviour is necessarily worse, but because capital buffers are smaller.
This creates an uneven outcome:
- systemic players absorb
- challengers feel pain
- the structure itself remains largely unchanged
The missing piece: personal accountability
Perhaps the most important absence in the 2025 enforcement story is this:
No senior individual meaningfully lost their role, licence, or accumulated reward as a direct consequence of these failures.
Despite the existence of the Senior Managers & Certification Regime, the pattern remains consistent:
- fines are imposed on institutions
- bonuses are rarely clawed back
- individuals are seldom sanctioned
- careers typically continue
From an incentives perspective, this matters.
When consequences:
- fall on shareholders,
- pension funds,
- or future customers,
but not on decision-makers, the system unintentionally teaches the wrong lesson.
As the Transparency Task Force evidence notes, this dynamic conditions organisations to treat enforcement as a known, manageable cost rather than a behavioural boundary 2343.
Why this matters for professionals — not just regulators
For many advisers and financial professionals, this is where quiet discomfort arises.
You may operate with care.
You may prioritise client outcomes.
And yet you are structurally linked to decisions — or legacies — that you do not control.
This is not a moral failing.
It’s a design issue.
And increasingly, professionals are choosing to respond not with criticism, but with model change.
The implication for 2026
If accountability remains largely corporate and impersonal, enforcement alone will struggle to break the loop.
But professionals are not powerless.
By choosing:
- simpler structures,
- clearer incentives,
- product-agnostic planning,
- human-capital-first models,
many are stepping out of the risk-transfer chain entirely — reducing the probability of future harm rather than managing its aftermath.
That choice doesn’t require confrontation.
It doesn’t require waiting for reform.
And it doesn’t require abandoning professionalism.
It simply reflects a decision to align:
how you earn,
how you advise,
and how harm is prevented.
That’s where 2026 genuinely starts to look different.
If This Resonates…
If you’re a financial planner who’s beginning to sense that
products, portfolios, and performance alone no longer tell the whole story,
you’re not alone.
Many capable, ethical advisers reach a point where they start asking quieter questions:
- Is this really the best way to serve people?
- Why do some clients thrive — while others, given the same advice, don’t?
- What sits beneath money that actually shapes outcomes?
Exploring Total Wealth Planning isn’t about rejecting your past experience.
It’s about building on it — by placing human capital, agency, and life design at the centre of your work.
The Academy of Life Planning exists for advisers in that in-between space:
- those transitioning from traditional financial planning
- those curious about empowerment-led, product-free models
- those wanting to serve clients more deeply, without ideology or pressure
You don’t need to commit to anything.
You don’t need to “switch sides”.
You’re simply invited to explore, learn, and see whether this approach aligns with how you want to practise in the next chapter.
Explore the Academy and the Total Wealth Planning pathway
Sometimes the most important shift isn’t a leap —
it’s a gentle crossing.
Academy of Life Planning 