I’ve said for ages that we shouldn’t be able to recommend unregulated investments. The problem here is what’s actually in regulated investments. Woodford took what turned out to be too much risk by investing in shares which, when push came to very big shove, couldn’t be sold. Could have gone the other way, and he’d have been a hero. He was actually trying to make money for, rather than rip off, his investors. Should we go caveat emptor or nanny regulator? Latter, of course, had money with him.
“Advisers fearful of further compliance and regulation”
We know, of course we know, that regulation is, or at least should be a ‘good thing’. If those who need or should seek advice can be confident that they’ll be told the right thing, that someone has looked at those ’too good to be true’ investments before they’re allowed to take your money; or, in the case of a Woodford, while they’re raking it in to make sure it’s going where it’s supposed to.
