
How to get a nation of savers investing
In a bid to create a wave of new investors, banks and other financial firms will be allowed to push savers towards the stock market; risk warnings on investment products could be watered down; and there will be an advertising campaign spelling out the benefits of investing.
The changes have the potential to encourage the millions of savers with hefty amounts of cash languishing in low interest accounts to consider the stock market as an option for their savings. A new form of 'targeted support' could help those who cannot or do not want to pay for financial advice but could use some guidance on big decisions.
The City regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority, found that 71 per cent of us hold a savings account, but just 39 per cent hold investments. We are far more likely to save into cash Isas than investment ones — £41.6 billion was paid into cash Isas compared with £28 billion into investment Isas in 2022-23, according to HM Revenue & Customs.
The Barclays Equity Gilts study, which tracks the performance of different asset classes back to 1899, found that stocks have returned an average of 4.8 per cent a year after inflation over the past 125 years, compared with 0.5 per cent a year for cash savings. In the ten years to the end of 2024, stocks returned 1.8 per cent a year while cash lost 2.9 per cent a year in real terms.
But there are risks with investing that many ordinary savers may be reluctant to take on. Here are some safeguards that we think the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, should consider.
• The cheap and easy way to invest (without the risk)
Industry experts warned that the Leeds Reforms, revealed after Reeves shelved plans to cut the cash Isa limit to nudge more savers towards the stock market, could amount to a quiet eroding of consumer protections. To make Reeves's revolution pay off, campaigners say that the government should ensure that City firms are not allowed to cash in through excessive charges and commissions.
'There is good in Reeves's plan. There's no doubt that people have far too much money in cash accounts and that they will struggle in retirement as a result,' said Robin Powell, who runs the investment education website The Evidence-Based Investor.
'But there's a risk that we are experiencing 'regulatory amnesia' — our collective tendency to forget why rules were put in place once the immediate crisis fades. Light regulation leads to crisis, crisis leads to tighter rules, tighter rules lead to calls for 'red tape cutting', which leads to light regulation.
'This is why we need a strong set of rules that dictate how banks and other financial companies behave when it comes to putting these reforms into practice.'
Investors are typically charged a fee for the investment products they use. Investment fund fees, which are usually charged as a percentage of how much money you hold, range from as little as 0.05 per cent to 1.5 per cent or higher.
These fees can eat into your returns over the long term. A fund that returns 3 per cent a year and costs 0.5 per cent would be worth about £37,500 over 30 years, but the same fund with a 2 per cent fee would be worth just £24,300.
James Daley from the consumer consultancy Fairer Finance said: 'One of my main concerns is that financial firms will push consumers towards investments that are high-cost. They should have an obligation to only nudge consumers towards low-cost options. There is only one certainty when it comes to investing — and that is cost.'
One way to manage this risk would be to introduce a fee cap on investment products that savers are nudged towards. It could work in a similar way to the cap on default pension funds, which workers are automatically enrolled into by their employers. These pensions cannot charge fees of more than 0.75 per cent, thereby protecting savers. It works well, and in reality most schemes charge significantly less than the cap.
These rules could also be extended to investment exit fees and charges for buying and selling shares.
Under its consumer duty rules, the Financial Conduct Authority already requires companies to ensure that any exit fees — charged when a customer wants to move their money out of an investment product — are fair and reflect the actual cost.
These exit fees could also apply to any investment products that savers are 'nudged' into, and a cap that matches the average dealing charge across the industry could be placed on such products too.
The chancellor suggests that 'savers with cash sitting in low-interest accounts' would be helped by the Leeds Reforms. While it is likely that many of these savers could benefit from considering the stock market as an alternative place for their cash, it will be less suitable for others — such as those who have the money lined up for a house deposit within the next year, or who use the account for their rainy day savings.
Financial companies could use pop-up warnings, similar to the fraud warnings on mobile banking apps, that flag to the end user that there are circumstances where these 'nudges' might not apply or be beneficial.
Powell said pop-up warnings should be added to private equity and alternative investments, which are being pushed under the reforms. Such investing often involves putting cash behind small, illiquid companies that have the potential to grow a lot — and quickly — but also come with a higher chance of failure.
He said: 'Given the government's push towards these investments, we need mandatory risk warnings that actually mean something. People need to understand that these products cost more, that they're more complex, that you cannot get your money out easily and that they are far less transparent than traditional investments. Make these warnings unavoidable.'
• How to build a portfolio that keeps its value
At the moment there is a limit on the amount of compensation that the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) can demand for the mis-selling of financial products. The FOS is a free dispute resolution service that settles complaints between consumers and the financial firms that they use. It can demand that a business pays compensation and puts customers back in the financial position that they would have been if they had not been given bad advice, but the compensation is limited to £430,000 for complaints from April last year. The limit is £415,000 for complaints brought to the FOS the year before.
Scrapping the limit would give consumers more confidence about any 'nudges' they get from investment firms over what to do with their cash.
Since 2012 commission-based payments for investment advice have generally been banned in the UK. When financial advisers recommend a product, they are not allowed to take a percentage of the money you put into that product, but instead must charge you specifically for the advice — as a percentage fee or in pounds and pence terms.
But the investment 'nudges' or recommendations that would be allowed under the new rules will not fall under investment advice, but instead be deemed 'targeted support'.
While it is unlikely that the FCA will allow old-style commission to creep back into the selling or recommending of investment products, a strict ban on commission could be put in place to ensure that financial firms do not profit from pushing savers towards certain riskier products.
Daley said: 'Just 20 years ago most of the banks were selling investment products and getting large fines for poor conduct and bad outcomes. We need to ensure we don't forget the lessons that we should have been learning from over the past couple of decades.'
• Reeves is right, but she is walking a tightrope — with our cash
Another risk for investors is 'consumer inertia' — where you end up paying more (or gaining less) for a financial product because you stick with a firm you already use. If your high street bank 'nudges' you towards an investment product, it might be easier to stick with the bank rather than to shop around.
This could be fixed with a requirement that any firm 'nudging' a cash saver towards the stock market give information that relates to the whole of the market.
For example, under rules from the Competition and Markets Authority, banks that offer current accounts have to display 'clearly and prominently' the satisfaction ratings scored by their competitors in comparison to their own scores.
A similar approach could be taken under the reforms. For example, if a high street bank offers a ready-made investment portfolio with a fee of 0.7 per cent, it should be forced to flag that other companies offer a similar product for 0.3 per cent (even if both fall below the charge cap).
If a financial company recommends a product, information could also be provided on alternative choices in the wider market. For example, a company that does not offer a low-cost global tracker fund should still need to explain the benefits of such a product to their customer.
Tom Selby from the investment platform AJ Bell said: 'Investing is often seen as something that is only for relatively wealthy people, or something which you need a great deal of financial knowledge to get involved in. In fact, it is relatively easy, with straightforward products designed for ordinary people. And you don't need tens of thousands of pounds to get started.
'There is still a lot of work to be done to develop the plan, but this campaign could help to break some of the taboo around investing and encourage more people to get started.'
How can the government protect consumers while getting us investing? Let us know in the comments
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
12 minutes ago
- The Independent
Sheffield Wednesday players refuse to play friendly as wages are late again
Sheffield Wednesday 's players have refused to feature in a friendly this weekend after the club failed to pay their wages on time for the fourth time in five months. The Championship club were due to face Premier League side Burnley in a behind-closed-doors game but it is understood the Wednesday players are refusing to play. The Owls appointed Henrik Pedersen as their new head coach on Thursday following the departure of Danny Rohl and, just hours later, Saturday's friendly was cancelled as players and coaching staff decided to boycott the match after not receiving July's monthly salary on time. Rohl left Hillsborough on Tuesday during a chaotic summer which has seen Wednesday placed under a number of embargoes because of financial issues. Players were paid late in May and June, while this is the fourth time in the last five months that salaries have been delayed. The club are currently under an English Football League embargo for unpaid transfer fees and owner Dejphon Chansiri is trying to sell the cash-strapped Sky Bet Championship club. It is understood there is increasing concern within the EFL over the growing crisis at the club and that extends to whether Wednesday will be able to fulfil their opening Sky Bet Championship fixture at Leicester on August 10. Thai businessman Chansiri completed his takeover from previous owner Milan Mandaric January 2015 for a reported £30million and the club twice went close to promotion to the Premier League when losing out in the 2016 and 2017 play-offs. Since then Wednesday have lurched from one financial crisis to another. They were first placed under an EFL embargo in 2017 over profitability and sustainability rules and were docked 12 points – reduced to six on appeal – at the start of the 2020-21 season for further financial breaches. The Owls were placed under embargo for late salary payments to players and staff in 2024, while a player registration embargo is also in place for unpaid transfer fees. New boss Pedersen admitted the club were in 'rough waters' following his appointment, with registration restrictions and the departure of several key players leaving him with a threadbare squad. Djeidi Gassama and Anthony Musaba have been sold this summer to Rangers and Samsunspor respectively, while Josh Windass and Michael Smith had their contracts terminated by mutual consent to allow them to join Wrexham and Preston. The latest missed payments to players and staff heaps further pressure on Chansiri, who insists he is willing to sell the club for the right price. He recently revealed he had rejected one consortium's £40million bid, while talks with various other interested parties have stalled.


BBC News
12 minutes ago
- BBC News
Morecambe 'will close on Monday'
The consortium looking to take over ailing National League side Morecambe has said that the club will close on Warriors said in a statement on Wednesday that all first-team operations had stopped because the club's insurance had group and Morecambe's minority shareholders have now said the academy will shut on Friday and that, as it stands, the club will cease to operate on Monday 4 sports investment company, who have been in talks with the club's owner Jason Whittingham for more than a year, released a statement earlier this week to say they remain "ready, willing and able" to take Shrimps were suspended by the National League until 20 August on Monday over a failure to comply with the league's Thursday's statement Panjab Warriors called on Whittingham to sign the deal "immediately".Earlier this week Whittingham said owners Bond Group Investments were ready to sell and urged Panjab Warriors to make contact.


The Sun
12 minutes ago
- The Sun
Husband handed just £325k of wife's £60MILLION family fortune in bitter divorce battle WINS bid to get more cash
A MAN who was awarded just £325,000 of his wife's £60 million fortune has now won a bitter divorce battle. The divorcee blamed "gender prejudice" for his original 0.5% payout during a hearing at the Court of Appeal. 2 2 Simon Entwistle, 42, a financial trader, was awarded just £325,000 at the High Court after a "painful" divorce battle with multimillionaire heiress Jenny Helliwell, also 42. His claim of needing £36,000 a year for flights, and £26,000 for "a meal plan just for himself", was called "aspirational" by the judge. The judge added: "He said to me, 'I can't even cook an omelette,' well my answer to that is 'learn', it is not difficult." "You do not have to be a master chef to learn how to eat reasonably well." Now, a judge has found Jenny guilty of "fraudulent" behaviour by failing to declare £48m of her £66m personal fortune. The pair, who were together from 2016 until 2022, enjoyed an "opulent standard of living throughout their relationship." Simon reportedly "enjoyed the trappings of being married into a family of exceptional wealth". This included living in a £4.5m villa in Dubai, and a Parisian wedding ceremony that cost £500,000 in August 2019. The villa had been a gift from Jenny's father - Dubai-based British businessman Neil Helliwell. Simon's own assets were worth around £800,000, including a flat in Salford. Teen Mom star Ryan Edwards begs judge not to force him to expose top-secret MTV contract and NDA in nasty divorce When the couple split in August 2022, Jenny hired lawyers to order Simon to leave their home with just 48 hours' notice. It sparked a legal battle that would see Simon asking for £2.5m of his wife's fortune, estimated to be worth £60m. Jenny had offered him £500,000, and then £800,000 to avoid a court battle, but he refused in the hopes of an £2.5m award. However, the original judge awarded just a £400,000 payout following a pre-nuptial agreement that stated the pair would keep their own assets. This came to £325,000 after he was made to pay his wife's legal fees. During an appeal, Simon claimed he was a victim of "gender prejudice", and that the agreement had been invalidated by Jenny failing to disclose around £48m in assets when he signed the document. His lawyer said: "Had the positions been reversed, it is very unlikely that he would have... so ungenerously assessed the needs of a wife after a six-year relationship." A judge has ruled that this amounted to "fraudulent" behaviour, invalidating the agreement. While Jenny did disclose around £18m in assets, she failed to disclose an additional £47m. It included around £8m of beachfront land in Dubai, and a £1.6m property in Wimbledon. This meant that Simon did not sign the agreement with full knowledge of his partner's wealth. She did not make any findings on the gender prejudice argument. The case will now be returned to the High Court, to be judged as if the agreement didn't exist. Lady Justice King said: "Since the husband in the instant case was deliberately deprived of information which it had been agreed that he should have, in my judgment, the agreement cannot stand."