Let’s talk about “progress.” The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), ever the champion of consumer protection (ahem), has unveiled its grand plan: to fling financial products that wealthy folks no longer want into the laps of the masses. Yes, these are the same products that insurance companies stopped flogging at the turn of the century and banks abandoned a decade ago. Why? Because they were terrible value for money. But hey, times have changed. Apparently, what didn’t work for the rich will now work wonders for the rest of us. And they call this progress.
According to Emily Shepperd, the FCA’s chief operating officer, this is all part of “building consumer trust.” Yes, nothing says “trust us” like relaxing suitability rules so the financial industry can bombard everyday people with investments they don’t understand, can’t afford, and probably don’t need. But don’t worry—this is all in the name of “consumer resilience” and “mutually beneficial financial choices.” Translation: the City wants to make more money, so the Government gave the FCA its marching orders, and here we are.
Advice? Guidance? Nope, Just Product Flogging
The FCA loves a good rebrand. A sales pitch is now “advice” if someone holds your hand through it, or “guidance” if they don’t. But let’s not kid ourselves—it’s still product flogging. And here’s the kicker: the FCA seems to have forgotten its primary job—to protect consumers from harm. Instead, it’s prioritising orders from the hierarchies of profit and power, shoving risk-laden products down the throats of people who can least afford to lose.
Remember when the regulator cared about suitability and fair treatment? Those were the days. Now it seems their role is to roll out the red carpet for profit-hungry firms, all while waving the flag of “consumer empowerment.” Because nothing screams empowerment like being sold an investment you didn’t ask for by someone who’s incentivised to close the deal, not protect your interests.
“Consumer Resilience” or Corporate Greed?
Let’s unpack this gem: “Consumer resilience.” Apparently, that means giving us more options to take on risk we don’t understand, all in the name of “choice.” Shepperd even hinted that these products could “offer better returns in the long run,” as if risk is a pesky little detail we shouldn’t worry about. And who benefits from this newfound resilience? Not you, dear consumer. It’s the City, with its armies of asset managers and investment salespeople, who will rake in the profits.
The FCA has dressed this up as a noble mission to “support economic growth.” But whose economy are we growing here? Certainly not the average pension saver, who’s already juggling enough financial uncertainties without being sold a dodgy investment disguised as an opportunity.
Progress? Spare Us
This isn’t progress; it’s a regression to the bad old days of hard-sell tactics and questionable products. And for what? To facilitate investment in the economy? To support growth? If that growth comes at the expense of consumer trust and financial security, it’s not progress—it’s exploitation.
If the FCA really wanted to build trust, it might consider putting the brakes on this race to the bottom. Instead of pandering to the City’s demands, it could focus on its actual mandate: protecting consumers from harm. But that would require standing up to power, wouldn’t it?
A Final Word
So, as we brace for the inevitable deluge of “new” investment opportunities, let’s call this what it is: a thinly veiled attempt to flog old, unsuitable products to a mass market that’s been told it should know better. The FCA can dress it up in all the buzzwords it likes—resilience, trust, choice—but at the end of the day, it’s the same old game. And we’re the pawns. Progress, indeed.
Comments