It is a truth universally unacknowledged—at least by the financial establishment—that registration with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is not, in itself, a reliable indicator of probity. Mr Samir Andreas Khan, erstwhile financial adviser to the late Sven-Göran Eriksson, was, after all, FCA-registered. Yet, this same Mr Khan is the man Eriksson accused of squandering his wealth, leaving him millions in debt and with the unenviable distinction of being financially ruined despite a career of enviable earnings. Notably, there exists no record of FCA or Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) disciplinary or regulatory action against Khan. Let that sink in.
The tale of Eriksson’s financial misfortune serves as an instructive parable. Here was a man who, though he could marshal world-class footballers into formidable squads, proved singularly ill-equipped to detect the creeping larceny of an adviser granted carte blanche over his finances. Mr Khan, wielding all the outward trappings of professional legitimacy, reportedly frittered away his client’s wealth on speculative investments, self-enrichment, and alleged misappropriations. And yet, through all this, the FCA—purported guardian of financial propriety—remained impassive.
The regulatory framework, such as it is, appears to operate on the assumption that so long as the right forms are filed and the appropriate fees paid, all is well in the kingdom of financial services. This is an illusion, a comforting fiction pedalled to an unsuspecting public who might assume that the imprimatur of the FCA equates to a meaningful layer of protection. It does not. The reality is that financial advice, when tethered to product sales, creates a misalignment of incentives that no amount of regulatory box-ticking can rectify. The system is designed, whether by accident or intent, to protect the industry first and the consumer only as an afterthought.
The case for erecting an insurmountable barrier between financial advice and financial product sales is irrefutable. One cannot serve two masters, and any structure that permits advisers to derive benefit from the products they recommend is, by design, fraught with conflicts of interest. The remedy lies not in ever-more labyrinthine regulation but in a fundamental reimagining of financial guidance—one in which the adviser is beholden solely to the client, with no vested interest in steering them towards particular products or services.
Sven-Göran Eriksson’s tragic financial downfall is not merely an isolated case of misplaced trust; it is an indictment of a regulatory framework that allows such misfortunes to occur with alarming regularity. If the FCA’s stamp of approval is no guarantee against financial ruin, then what, precisely, is it worth?
Comments