But is this a good thing? The amount of consolidation and the array of acquirers have reshaped what “independent” means in financial planning. The question some ask is whether the FCA is doing enough to protect the very concept of independence that sits at the heart of consumer trust.

An Independent Financial Adviser must consider all retail investment products from the entire market. They’re supposed to be free from conflicts, unshackled from product provider incentives, working purely in the client’s interest. It’s a noble ideal.

But does it survive when small IFA practices are absorbed into large consolidator groups?

Advice consolidators are building scale. But some argue that sometimes this is at the cost of the client. Others ask whether firms that own advice companies be allowed to own an investment arm? Does this create a conflict of interest?

Now, the FCA would argue they’ve got this covered. Regulatory permissions remain. Supervision continues. Firms must still demonstrate independence in their investment selection processes. But a fair question is whether ‘box-ticking’ compliance is enough when the entire commercial infrastructure surrounding advice has fundamentally changed.

Consider what independence meant fifteen years ago: a small firm, perhaps two or three advisers, deeply embedded in their community, their reputation their most valuable asset.

Now compare that with a consolidator managing two hundred advisers across multiple brands. The incentive structures are different. The accountability is different. The relationship between adviser and client, mediated through corporate structures and centralised investment propositions, is fundamentally different.

The consolidators, naturally, push back. They argue they bring benefits: better technology, more robust compliance, access to institutional pricing, career progression for advisers. These aren’t trivial advantages. Small firms struggled with regulatory burden; many sold precisely because they couldn’t sustain the cost of compliance. Consolidation has, in some ways, professionalised the industry.

But professionalisation and independence aren’t synonymous. In fact, they may increasingly be in tension. As firms become larger and more sophisticated, they may develop preferred panel arrangements, centralised research functions, and house views on asset allocation. All perfectly legitimate. But each step moves further from the founding principle: one adviser, one client, whole of market.

What should the FCA do? At a minimum, greater transparency. If you’re seeing an adviser whose firm is owned by a consolidator, you should know it. The ownership structure, the commercial pressures, the extent to which investment selection is genuinely independent or guided by central direction – all of this should be front and centre in client communications.

More radically, perhaps it’s time to revisit what “independent” means in an era of consolidation.  Should there be limits on the size of firms claiming independence? Should there be stricter separation between advice and centralised investment management?

The stakes are high. Independence isn’t just regulatory semantics – it’s the foundation of consumer trust in financial advice.  If that trust erodes because independence becomes a convenient label rather than a lived reality, the damage could extend far beyond individual firms. The FCA has the tools. The question is whether they have the will.

Robbie Lawther is Account Director at Quill PR.