In that spirit, the potential changes to the ring-fencing regime make sense, but history tells us that well-intended regulatory change, which is prone to biases and misaligned incentives, can lead to negative outcomes for both consumers and wider stakeholders.
This feels particularly relevant with the volume of change proposed under the Edinburgh reforms.
A more agile regime
A key focus of the reforms is to maintain the UK as a competitive and attractive global financial centre.
In researching the Middle East recently, it became clear that their regulatory regime, while not as established as the UK's, is a lot more agile.
These more flexible regulatory regimes present a clear challenge to the UK in remaining competitive in the battle to attract global investment.
As global competition, threats and innovation gather pace, the further empowerment of the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority to negate the need for further primary legislation makes sense.
To remain competitive, we need greater agility and flexibility than the time-consuming nature of the parliamentary system, but it again comes with risk of a lack of recourse should things go wrong.
It also relies on the regulators having the capacity and vision to foresee problematic regulatory blockers and act swiftly to resolve them before significant issues arise.
The downside of that agility for advisers, and the rest of the industry, is likely to be greater regulatory volatility.
Working in the field of innovation, it is difficult to ignore the focus of the reforms on technology and innovation.
Despite the potential detractions of Brexit, the UK remains the sixth largest economy and a top destination for financial technology investment.
The UK is second only to the US in pure monetary fintech investment terms, and second only to Singapore in terms of fintech investment per capita and as a percentage of GDP.
If the UK is to retain its position as a competitive global finance centre and respond positively to increasing competition, staying ahead of the curve on the latest technology and innovation is key.
A flexible but well-respected regulatory framework is the foundation of achieving that aim – it should not be a barrier, however well intended.
When you dissect the Edinburgh reforms, it is difficult to foresee the impact on advisers, their clients and the sector as a whole.
I am confident no adviser will be found objecting to a stripping back of the more burdensome and non-value-add activities imposed by regulation. Nor will their clients object to not receiving disclosures they do not want and end up paying for.
If the government and regulators get it right, they have the chance to remove overly burdensome regulations that stifle innovation and customer outcomes, while still retaining a robust, high integrity market that protects the investments that people make in it.
