Paternalistic forms of regulation for the retail investment market have been gradual and restrained, even though significant gaps exist between investors’ needs and market-based provision. As ordinary citizens reckon with a variety of savings needs and become financial citizens responsible for their own financial welfare provision, financial health is not merely an issue of individual fortunes but a social need. Adverse financial welfare consequences can at scale become a social issue, as is reflected in the social demands and critique entailing from the collapse of London and Capital Finance in the UK. The need for more regulatory paternalism goes beyond preventing mis-selling, and the outworking of welfare beyond point-of-sale remains relatively unconsidered. Post-sale welfare is, however, increasingly recognised for consumer credit and is slower to catch on in relation to savings needs and investments. This paper advocates that the regulator should not remain ambivalent about the need for more paternalistic interventions. Paternalistic protection is not only about shifting more burdens to the industry but also about the provision of public goods where there are standardised baseline needs for retail investors. This paper unpacks the roles of both the public and private sectors in addressing retail investors’ financial welfare needs.

We explore the relationships between financial trust and behaviors, attitudes, knowledge, and preferences related to utilizing professional financial advice. Using survey data from the RAND American Life Panel, we find that financial trust is correlated with advice usage and likelihood of seeking advisory services. Leveraging an experiment that randomized provision of and access to advice, we find that trust is an important predictor of who chooses to receive advice, even after controlling for demographic characteristics and financial literacy. However, providing unsolicited advice has little impact on behavior, even for individuals with high levels of trust.

Is financial literacy a substitute or complement for financial advice? We analyze the decision by consumers to seek financial advice in the form of credit counseling. Credit counseling is an important component of the consumer credit sector for consumers facing debt problems. Our analysis accounts for the endogeneity of an individual's financial situation to financial literacy, and the endogeneity of financial literacy to exposure to credit counseling. Results show counseling substitutes for financial literacy. Individuals with better literacy are 60% less likely to use credit counseling. These results suggest that credit counseling provides a safety net for poor financial literacy.

Motivated by recent policy changes across many countries, this paper discusses the rationale for various policies that target financial advice in the market for retail financial services. To set the stage, we review recent findings on how retail financial consumers make use of professional financial advice. Based on our own research, as well as other recent contributions in the economics literature, we then discuss the pros and cons of, in particular, policies that target the disclosure as well as the size and structure of commissions.

This article analyses a recent decision by the German Federal Court of Justice in the field of investor protection. At first sight it seems as if the Court held on to a model of investor empowerment by means of informational duties. However, a closer look at the reasoning of the Court reveals a tendency towards heavier intervention in the field of financial advice, oriented towards the regulation of product design. In light of this new dimension of investor protection, the article critically analyses the Federal Court of Justice's use of the disclosure-based investor protection regime.

Personal finance is a challenging topic which can benefit from a scientific approach to individual financial planning. This paper presents an individual asset liability management (iALM) model for life cycle planning which uses the methodology of dynamic stochastic optimisation and incorporates ideas from both classical and behavioural finance. Its implementation is in the form of a decision support tool for use by financial advisers or wealth managers. The investment universe is given by a set of indices for major asset classes and their returns are simulated forward over the lifetime of a household. On the liability side the foreseen cash flows of incomes and outgoings are simulated and punctuated by life events such as illness and death. The household's utility function is constructed for each time period over a range of monetary values in terms of household financial goals and preferences. Taxes and pension savings are treated using the tax shielded saving accounts specific to a national jurisdiction in terms of constraints in the optimisation sub-models. The paper goes on to present an analysis of iALM model recommendations for a representative UK household, together with an evaluation of the sensitivity of the financial plan generated to changes in market environments such as the 2007–9 crisis. The promise of this new technology is to bring modern decision support tools to individual investors in order to facilitate custom designed consumption, savings and investment policies.

This discussion paper was produced by a Working Party in April 1997 to put forward some possible ways of improving the United Kingdom financial regulatory process. It was written to contribute to the expected post General Election debate on this topic. Although the new Government announced plans in May 1997 for a new Securities and Investment Board (SIB) with statutory powers, this has not reduced the value of this discussion paper which raises some wider issues on methods of regulation.

The paper excludes the supervision and regulation of banks, building societies, insurance companies and exchanges and concentrates on areas that directly affect the public on an ongoing basis. It looks at the expectations of the main parties involved in regulation, the theory and practice of regulation, opportunities and concerns, and concludes with a summary of key issues for discussion. The thrust of the paper is that self regulation should be replaced by statutory regulation and that the present ‘prescriptive’ regulatory process should be replaced by one based on ‘outcomes’ supported by guidance.