It is a peculiarity of the British financial industry that those who purport to offer sage financial counsel are often the very same individuals entrusted with handling clients’ money. This conflation of roles is not merely imprudent; it is an invitation to conflict of interest, malfeasance, and, as we see with alarming frequency, outright criminality.
The expectation that the public should place blind faith in these so-called ‘advisers’—who, for all intents and purposes, are glorified salespeople masquerading as impartial professionals—is absurd. The fundamental question is this: why should an adviser be the custodian of a client’s capital? Advice, by its very nature, should be independent, untainted by the lure of commission or discretionary control. Yet, in the United Kingdom, financial intermediaries are all too often permitted to straddle both roles, an arrangement that all but guarantees temptation will win over integrity.
Consider the latest in a long line of cautionary tales: Lisa Campbell, erstwhile director of Campbell & Associates Independent Financial Advice Ltd (or, if one prefers the grander moniker, Campbell & Raffle Independent Financial Advice Ltd). The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) alleges that between 2013 and 2023, Campbell engaged in a breathtaking display of duplicity, misappropriating more than £2.3 million from clients, among whom were friends, family members, and, in a particularly egregious detail, a vulnerable child. She is said to have fabricated documents to placate her unsuspecting victims, all the while assuring them that their investments were secure.
This is hardly an isolated case. The FCA register—a supposed hallmark of credibility—has time and again proven itself no more a badge of honour than the lapel pin of a second-rate hotel concierge. Time after time, we are regaled with yet another sorry tale of an ‘adviser’ who has, in reality, been a charlatan, a fraudster, a financial predator cloaked in the banal respectability of regulatory approval. And yet, the industry continues as though this is a regrettable but unavoidable reality, rather than a structural failing of staggering proportions.
The solution, one would imagine, is glaringly obvious. There must be an impenetrable wall between financial advice and financial product. An adviser should do precisely that: advise.
Their remit should be confined to analysis, recommendation, and education, leaving the business of money management to entirely separate entities. It is a model employed successfully in other professional spheres—one does not expect a doctor to dispense their own pharmaceuticals, nor would one entrust a solicitor with the physical custody of a client’s estate. Why, then, do we persist in allowing financial advisers to oversee both guidance and execution?
The FCA, for its part, will doubtless make an example of Campbell. They will proclaim, in their most authoritative tones, that consumer protection is their foremost concern and that the system is working precisely as intended. But what good is a fire extinguisher if the entire house has already burned to the ground? The regulatory architecture remains fundamentally flawed, its loopholes as gaping as ever, its conflicts of interest a veritable playground for the unscrupulous. Until this industry is forced to embrace the division of advice and product, we shall continue to read about more Campbells, more victims, and more misappropriated millions.
And so, the public is left with little choice but to navigate this treacherous landscape unaided, hoping against hope that their ‘adviser’ is one of the honest few. But hope, as history has repeatedly demonstrated, is a wretchedly inadequate safeguard against exploitation.
The wall between advice and product must be built—and built high.
Comments