A guide for citizen investigators — and a preparedness note for Wealth Planners
Financial education is having a moment.
Advice firms are launching education arms.
Coaching, guidance, and “lighter-touch” services are expanding fast.
Social media is full of content promising clarity, confidence, and control.
Much of this is well-intended. Some of it is genuinely helpful.
But for anyone navigating financial harm, mistrust, or investigation — and for planners operating outside traditional advice models — it’s important to understand one simple truth:
Not all financial education is neutral. Some of it quietly points in a preferred direction.
This article is not an attack on advisers.
It’s an orientation guide — designed to help people stay safe, stay grounded, and stay sovereign.
Why this matters (especially for citizen investigators)
If you are:
- Investigating financial harm
- Trying to understand how a system failed you
- Recovering from loss, confusion, or mis-selling
- Or simply trying to make sense of complex financial structures
Then education can either:
- Restore your agency
- Or gently steer you back into the very system that harmed you
The difference is subtle — and rarely explained.
A growing trend: education as a front door
Across the UK, advice firms are increasingly launching:
- Separate financial education brands
- Guidance or coaching propositions
- “Lighter touch” advice services
One widely reported example involved Colmore Partners, which launched MoneyKats as an unregulated education business, explicitly positioned as a long-term way of:
- Building trust
- Attracting future clients
- Feeding referrals into a regulated advice firm later
The leaders involved were open about their intentions. There was no attempt to deceive.
And that’s exactly why this is worth examining calmly — not critically, not cynically.
Education can be helpful and directional at the same time
Here’s the key point many people miss:
Education does not have to be false to be directional.
Much education:
- Explains how pensions work
- Explains ISAs, investments, tax wrappers
- Explains how to “make better decisions” within the system
What it often doesn’t explain is:
- When not to engage
- When to pause rather than proceed
- When the structure itself deserves scrutiny
- How incentives, commissions, and system design shape outcomes
For a citizen investigator, that distinction matters enormously.
A simple test: “What happens next?”
When engaging with any financial education service, ask gently:
- What is the natural next step being implied?
- Who benefits if I follow that step?
- Is there a clear route back into products or advice?
- Am I being taught to question systems — or just navigate them more efficiently?
None of these questions imply bad intent.
They simply restore balance.
The quiet tension around “the regulatory perimeter”
You may notice a contradiction in public commentary:
- Some advisers criticise planners outside the regulatory perimeter
- Yet those same firms operate education businesses outside the perimeter themselves
This isn’t hypocrisy.
It’s a sign that the system is changing — and struggling to name the change clearly.
The real distinction is not regulated vs unregulated.
It is:
Sales-linked education vs agency-first education
What citizen investigators should know (plain English)
If you are recovering from harm or investigating wrongdoing:
- You do not need to rush back into financial products
- You do not need to “catch up” with the system
- You do not need to accept reassurance as resolution
Good education should:
- Help you slow down
- Help you organise evidence
- Help you understand power, process, and accountability
- Help you decide if, when, and on what terms you re-engage
Education that always ends with:
“and later you may need full advice”
…is not wrong — but it is not neutral.
A quiet reassurance for Total Wealth Planners
If you operate outside traditional advice models, you may face criticism such as:
- “You’re unregulated”
- “You’re competing unfairly”
- “You’re giving advice by another name”
- “You’re confusing people”
Most of this criticism comes from people who:
- Are deeply embedded in the system
- Have been trained to see trust as institutional rather than structural
- Genuinely fear consumer harm — and equate safety with familiarity
A calm response is often enough.
You are not anti-adviser.
You are not anti-regulation.
You are not anti-education.
You are pro-agency.
A way to explain your position
Here is language that lowers defences rather than raises them:
“What we do is different, not better.
We help people design life first, understand systems second, and choose engagement consciously — whether that involves advice, products, or not.
Our role isn’t to replace advisers. It’s to help people arrive at advisers — if they choose to — with clarity, confidence, and sovereignty.”
That framing changes the conversation.
The AoLP distinction (clearly and gently)
At the Academy of Life Planning:
- Education is product-agnostic
- There is no embedded sales funnel
- There is no assumed destination
- Success is measured by agency, not conversion
People may:
- Go on to take regulated advice
- Choose self-direction
- Pause financial engagement altogether
All outcomes are valid.
That is what makes the education trustworthy.
A final word for those navigating harm or scrutiny
If you are a citizen investigator, survivor, or system-questioner:
You are not “behind”.
You are not “unsophisticated”.
You are not required to trust anyone simply because they are familiar or regulated to sell products.
Education should expand your choices — not narrow them.
And if it ever feels like clarity is being offered only on the condition that you eventually comply with a system you don’t yet trust…
That’s not a failure on your part.
It’s a signal to pause — and choose again, consciously.
Academy of Life Planning 