Too many regulatory debates proceed on assumptions about what retail investors want — assumptions that tend to reflect what the industry says, or what regulators infer from market activity. FAIR Canada commissioned new research to test those assumptions directly. We asked 1,500 Canadians how they rank the outcomes that securities regulation is designed to produce. The results are instructive — particularly for those currently shaping the policy agenda.
Fair treatment ranked first among all eight outcomes tested, with 56% of respondents placing it in their top three. Regulatory compliance ranked second at 53%, and advisor qualifications third at 49%. Innovation and new product development came second-to-last and last, ranked in the top three by 21% and 13% of respondents, respectively. When asked to rank their priorities, a majority chose fair treatment, compliance, and qualified advisors. That ordering should inform where regulatory energy goes.
In addition to identifying the outcomes that matter most to investors, the research also sheds light on whether the system is delivering on those outcomes. Most notably, while fair treatment ranks as the most important outcome, nearly three in ten investors with an advisor are either unsure or unconvinced that their advisor consistently puts their interests ahead of the advisor’s own. This finding highlights a gap in an area investors value most.
The private assets data from our research is also revealing. FAIR Canada has raised concerns about expanding retail access to private markets in previous issues — the March and April newsletters covered the structural liquidity risks and the inconsistent compliance record around suitability. The survey data now puts numbers to investor sentiment. Only 10% of respondents said private assets would definitely be a good fit for them, even after receiving a plain-language explanation of what these products are and what risks they carry. Investors with ten or more years of experience — those best placed to assess the risks — were the most skeptical, with only 5% saying they would definitely suit them. On the broader question of product restrictions versus leaving investors to choose for themselves, 51% supported regulators’ ability to restrict high-risk products to protect average investors, versus 43% who opposed such restrictions.
Lastly, it’s notable that nearly one-third of survey respondents were unsure whether a regulator oversees financial investments in their province, and only 16% could name their regulator without prompting. That finding is significant in its own right. A regulatory system that investors cannot identify is one they cannot hold to account.
These findings should inform how regulators think about fair treatment, not just product access this year. The full report is available on our here.