Thirty-five years ago, in an interview with Vogue magazine, Linda Evangelista was asked how much she earned as a supermodel. She infamously replied: “We don’t wake up for less than $10,000 a day.”
The remark has haunted her ever since. Speaking last year, she insisted: “I don’t want to be known for that. I have done so much more than just that quote, and it’s really sticking.”1
It’s sorely tempting to revel in her eternal embarrassment, given the crassness of her original comment. Yet maybe we ought to remember the age-old warning about people in glass houses throwing stones.
After all, there’s a chance we might harbour a similar mindset – even if we don’t boast about it so openly. We have to concede that the financial adviser community is prone to what might be thought of as “the Evangelista Effect”.
Andrew Goodwin, CEO of Truly Independent, coined this term to describe a tendency to favour clients who have already “made it”. It reflects his belief – which I very much share – that our industry too often provides the greatest assistance to those who least need it.
This is a longstanding issue, of course. The unfortunate truth is that many people can’t afford professional advice – and even many of those for whom it is attainable take the view that it isn’t worth it anyway.
Alarmingly, Consumer Duty appears to have exacerbated the situation. Research has shown the significant administrative burdens imposed by the initiative have compelled many firms to abandon clients with “lower asset values”2.
Relatedly, according to a recent study, there’s an emerging trend towards raising minimum investment levels3. This can serve only to place sound, expert advice even further beyond the reach of the masses.
It therefore seems reasonable to say our industry has an inclusivity problem. Granted, this has been the case for many years – but is that really an excuse in an era when the sources of potentially bad advice have never been so numerous?
Towards positive, long-term change
Historically, people unable or unwilling to seek professional financial advice have turned to family members or friends for guidance. Fellow pub-goers have also been a popular choice4. Such assistance is almost invariably well-intentioned but very rarely rooted in relevant knowledge and experience.
Today there are lots of additional options, few of which inspire confidence. They include YouTubers, TikTokers and other self-appointed sages from the realm of social media.
Some of these “finfluencers” clearly have an idea of what they’re talking about. But many are essentially clueless and hopelessly unqualified to shape the financial lives of others.
Meanwhile, accessing investment products is in some ways disconcertingly simple. A Generation Z member might struggle to get a mortgage, yet there are plenty of opportunities for indulging in a spot of day trading or plunging into the wacky world of cryptocurrency.
All told, then, we have an advice landscape in which huge swathes of the population remain underserved, in which an ever-expanding cast of “experts” is running riot and in which the scope for ill-informed decisions is arguably unprecedented. It doesn’t sound like a recipe for success, does it?
Whichever way you look it, a rethink is required. It could be that Consumer Duty somehow eventually helps lower the cost of advice – which may or may not be part of a cunning plan by the Financial Conduct Authority – but we still have to ask what the adviser community itself can do to bring about positive change.
A useful first step would be to recognise a one-size-fits-all approach to advice represents a fundamental barrier to inclusivity. Thanks to continued technological advances, it has never been easier to deliver lighter-touch levels of service – and to charge accordingly.
In tandem, we should engage more with marginalised demographics. For example, it has been suggested just 5% of the people who receive advice in the UK are aged under 305. We have to better understand the unmet needs of such groups and try to create offerings that are genuinely geared towards them.
All this might sound unduly idealistic, not least to those susceptible to the Evangelista Effect. But I strongly suspect that in the long run – not least given that there are only so many wealthy clients to go around – a determination to look beyond those who have already “made it” will not only benefit a much broader range of stakeholders but also play a major role in securing our industry’s future.
Cara Robinson is Training & Competency Supervisor at Truly Independent.
Sources
[1] See, for example, Daily Mail: “Linda Evangelista reveals her regret over infamous ‘We don’t get out of bed for less than $10,000 a day’ quote”, September 9 2024 – https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-13828929/Inside-heyday-Linda-Evangelista-wake-10000-punishing-cost.html.
[2] See, for example, Octopus Money: “Unlock your firm’s potential”, December 2024 – https://octopusmoney.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Octopus-Money-Unlock-your-firms-potential-Whitepaper.pdf.
[3] See, for example, Dynamic Planner: “Advice 2025 – what 400+ UK firms reveal about the future of advice”, June 2025 – https://dynamicplanner.com/resources/advice-2025/.
[4] See, for example, Daily Telegraph: “Consumers turn to friends and family for financial advice”, June 26 2011 (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/money-saving-tips/8600595/Consumers-turn-to-friends-and-family-for-financial-advice.html); and Peer2Peer Finance News: “Fifth of young people use social media for financial advice”, May 26 2021 (https://p2pfinancenews.co.uk/2021/05/26/fifth-of-young-people-use-social-media-for-financial-advice/).
[5] See, for example, FT Adviser: “Almost 90% of people receiving financial advice are over 40”, March 4 2025 – https://www.ftadviser.com/intelliflo/2025/3/4/almost-90-of-people-receiving-advice-are-over-40-/.
