Financial publishing under fire – 18 tips to prepare

This article will probably get me into a world of trouble.

Colleagues will hate me for it.

Most readers will find it off-topic and boring.

Here I stand; I can do no other.

Why this topic – and why now?

Undervalued-Shares.com is a hybrid of a personal website and a financial publishing business. Some may even call me a 'finfluencer', although I dislike the term because it is both too vague and heavily associated with TikTok personalities. In any case, any website or channel you operate nowadays falls under some form of regulation. This is even more true when you are dealing with something as important as investing and people's savings.

I have been involved in the financial publishing industry since 1993, across multiple jurisdictions in Europe and North America. I would be the last person to hold myself out to be a legal expert. Nevertheless, I have had the good fortune of observing the legal aspects of this industry from a multi-jurisdictional vantage point, allowing me to gather a wide range of observations.

In 2022, I decided it was time to start collecting material for the article you now have in front of you.

That year, Australia's financial regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), was widely reported to have "banned" so-called finfluencers.

Australia's ABC News ran the headline: "Did ASIC just kill the 'finfluencer'? Corporate regulator cracks down on unlicensed advisers".

Exactly what constitutes a finfluencer is a subject for later. Suffice it to say that the enforcement action taken by ASIC four years ago should have been a wake-up call to anyone publishing financial information online. Reportedly, 90% of people producing investment-related content in Australia shut down almost overnight (or moved to Bali).

The ABC News report stated:

"ASIC has now released guidelines that make it clear that unlicensed finfluencers could face five years' jail time or fines of more than $1 million if they talk about stocks, investment funds or financial products

...

Greg Yanco, Australian Securities and Investments Commission's executive director of market supervision, said finfluencers could not rely on disclaimers on posts, or an exemption that applies to media commentators. 

'If you're an influencer, and you're providing financial advice, then we'd expect you to have a licence. In fact, you're required to have a licence. And if you don't have a licence, then you need to be careful not to provide financial advice,' Mr Yanco said. 

'The safe areas of providing information are about, what is a share, and what are the different types of investments you can make, without going to the stage of suggesting particular types of shares or investments.' "

Few people realise that Australia has a long history of innovating financial regulation. Measures introduced by ASIC often end up being adopted elsewhere in the world.

Ever since, I have made a conscious effort to gather information on this subject from a broad variety of sources. Earlier this year, for example, I travelled to an event in Florida to hear a specialised US lawyer speak on the topic at John Newtson's excellent annual FinPub conference. The two-hour presentation, combined with a Q&A session involving fellow practitioners, further informed this article and more than justified the trip.

Why all this effort?

Because I saw this coming as far back as 2018.

That year, I was preparing the relaunch of Undervalued-Shares.com after an eight-year publishing hiatus. I intend to keep publishing for as long as I can string a sentence together, which is why I carefully considered every aspect of the website's operation. That included its legal and regulatory standing, and how that standing was likely to evolve over the coming years and decades.

It's tempting to dismiss such concerns and say: "I'll just slap a disclaimer on my website and that'll be enough."

If you take that view, you'll be in the same camp as perhaps 90% of everyone writing about investing on the Internet.

However, when push comes to shove, pointing out that you are merely doing what everyone else is doing is rarely an effective legal defence.

My own approach was to become the legal equivalent of a prepper. Before publishing my first article, I created a folder documenting the legal precautions and regulatory standards I intended to follow. At the time, this seemed paranoid and excessive. Later, it proved to be neither.

Eventually, I received an enquiry from a financial regulator asking me to explain how Undervalued-Shares.com complies with relevant regulations.

Because I had prepared that folder in advance, I was able to deliver a detailed response quickly, supported by professional advice. Few emails have felt better to send. The regulator was satisfied, and the matter was closed.

I am fairly certain that anyone publishing financial information online is more likely than not to receive similar enquiries or notifications from regulators within the next one to three years – possibly sooner. This may be true even if your entire publishing activity consists of posting on social media.

How well prepared are you for an exchange with a financial regulator?

Are you confident that you have even a basic understanding of this subject?

If you publish an investment-related blog, Substack, social media account, or any similar publication dealing with investments, I would urge you to pay attention.

But first…

A legal disclaimer

To stay true to form, I'd like to make clear that:

• None of what follows constitutes legal advice.
• This article takes a deliberately generalist approach, ideally to stimulate debate.
• My analysis is not limited to – but is biased towards – those who write about publicly listed securities and charge subscription fees. For other asset classes and publishing models, the situation may be entirely different and will often vary by country.

Whether this disclaimer is effective or not is itself an interesting question – and one closely related to the broader subject of this article.

Let's begin with the bigger picture.

Investment advice – or not investment advice?

Visit the website of almost any financial publisher and its disclaimer will likely state prominently that its publication "does not constitute investment advice".

Needless to say, Undervalued-Shares.com contains this sentence as well.

Personally, however, I have always found this type of disclaimer somewhat problematic.

If you stood in front of a VW Beetle and declared, "This is not a VW Beetle", would that be enough to make it legally something else?

Can a unilateral declaration in the small print change what something is in reality?

People would rightly laugh at you if you publicly announced that gravity does not exist.

Yet many websites that arguably provide financial advice operate on the assumption that a short disclaimer is sufficient protection, regardless of what the rest of the website contains. Is such a blanket approach really the get-out-of-jail card that many believe it to be?

As it happens, this question has been debated in court, and there remains no universally accepted legal interpretation or globally recognised standard.

To address the issue as effectively as possible, I adopted a belts-and-braces approach from the outset. Undervalued-Shares.com does not merely state in its legal disclaimer that the material published on the site does not constitute investment advice. Similar reminders appear throughout the website, articles, and reports.

Rather than relying solely on a disclaimer that few people read, I try to ensure that the overall 'net impression' left on readers aligns with that position – an important legal concept that will reappear throughout this article.

Does that provide perfect legal protection?

No.

If there is a better strategy, I'd genuinely like to hear it.

Needless to say, all of this also depends, to some extent, on where you publish from.

As far as I can tell, the current situation across different jurisdictions is best summarised as follows:

• The United States has the most developed legal framework for this industry, including an important 1985 Supreme Court decision. Even so, the regulation of financial publishing is not entirely settled in every respect. The framework remains subject to evolving legal interpretations, changes in the industry itself, and the differing views of multiple government agencies operating within the same jurisdiction. That said, it seems unlikely that the current administration will pursue any major tightening of the regulatory environment. President Trump is widely associated with a more laissez-faire approach to regulation. While agencies such as the SEC operate independently and set their own enforcement priorities, many observers believe that broader political attitudes inevitably influence the regulatory climate. Others argue the opposite: that periods of "light touch" political rhetoric can encourage regulators to pursue a handful of high-profile case in order to demonstrate their continued relevance and effectiveness.
• The United Kingdom occupies a broadly similar situation. In my observation, financial publishers in the UK benefit from the second most mature and clearly developed regulatory framework, largely because of the industry's long history there. There are also signs that policymakers may be moving towards a somewhat more innovation-friendly approach to financial regulation, both for businesses and consumers. My expectation is that the existing framework will continue to be refined and clarified, but without fundamentally altering the position of financial publishers.

• For much of the rest of the world, however, I suspect there may be trouble ahead. Based on what I have seen and heard from regulators across the APAC region, the Middle East, and the European Union, my baseline assumption would be that financial publishers should carefully review both their current operating model and their response plan for potential regulatory scrutiny. In my view, the legal framework governing financial publishing is generally less mature outside the US and UK. As a result, it is often more susceptible to sudden shifts in policy, political priorities, and broader cultural attitudes. Governments have a habit of ignoring an issue for years and then abruptly over-regulating it once public attention and political pressure reach a critical threshold.

Within this broad-brush assessment, however, are endless variations and complications.

Imagine, for example, that you operate a one-to-one trading coaching service from your home in Hong Kong, publish in German, and distribute your content through the US-based Substack platform.

Would you know – off the top of your head – which financial regulatory regime applies to your activities? Or how regulators in different jurisdictions might view the same business model?

My suspicion is that someone pursuing this approach could easily find themselves facing legal or regulatory difficulties in at least two of those three jurisdictions if they are not careful – or simply unlucky.

Welcome to the regulatory hellscape that many financial publishers may soon find themselves navigating.

Publisher – or Financial Advisor?

One of the key questions – though certainly not the only one – is whether writing about investments constitutes financial advice.

This issue, and the financial publishing industry more broadly, attracted considerably more attention from regulators during the 1980s and 1990s. The two largest markets for financial publishing were the US and the UK, and both jurisdictions developed what became known as the 'publisher's exclusion'.

In simple terms, if you are engaged in publishing about investments rather than providing personalised investment advice, your publication does not generally require a financial-services licence.

In the UK, this principle found expression through the Article 54 exclusion. At the time, regulators often used the example of Sunday newspapers to explain both the problem and its solution. Newspapers such as The Sunday Timesregularly carried investment columns and analyses of specific shares. Did this amount to financial advice? Clearly, it would have been impractical to require newspapers to become regulated investment-advisory businesses. To address this issue, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) – now the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) – developed guidance that effectively created a publisher's exclusion. In essence, if you are operating as a publisher rather than an investment-advisory service, you generally do not require authorisation. What exactly constitutes a publisher is reasonably well defined, although there remains room for interpretation.

A similar principle already existed in the US, where the issue was examined in detail in the 1985 Supreme Court case SEC vs. Lowe. Interestingly, the matter was not primarily decided on First Amendment grounds (Freedom of Speech), as many people assume. Instead, the Court focused on the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, which was designed to protect investors receiving personalised, one-to-one advice. By contrast, the Act distinguished such advice from "non-individualised investment advice" delivered through "bona fide publications" offering "disinterested commentary". The decision, together with subsequent cases and regulatory interpretations, helped establish a framework for distinguishing personalised financial advice from financial publishing. Free-speech considerations may have lurked in the background, but the majority of the Court did not consider it necessary to rely upon them.

How is the issue approached elsewhere?

Australia used to be the most interesting jurisdiction to watch, but that is no longer the case.

Today, there are several jurisdictions worth following closely:

• Hong Kong. Did you assume Hong Kong remained a freewheeling capitalist paradise where entrepreneurs could largely operate without regulatory interference? It may be time to think again. In November 2025, the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) secured a conviction against local author Chau Pak Yin. According to the SFC, Yin operated a subscription-based Telegram group (!) in which he "circulated commentaries, recommendations and target prices on various securities and responded to questions raised by paid subscribers." He reportedly earned approximately USD 6,000 in subscription fees. The SFC deemed him a 'finfluencer' providing financial advice without a licence. Yin received a six-week custodial sentence and became one of the first prominent examples of a regulator treating online financial content as licensable financial advice rather than publishing.

• The United Arab Emirates. It would be easy to assume that Dubai and the wider UAE remain particularly permissive jurisdictions for finfluencers, trading coaches, and similar operators. Indeed, as recently as 2024, the Financial Times pointed out described Dubai as comparatively "more lax" in its approach to finfluencers. However, in July 2025, the UAE's Securities and Commodities Authority (SCA) introduced Resolution No. 10 of 2025, creating a dedicated regulatory framework for finfluencers – the first such framework in the Middle East. To its credit, the regulation is relatively clear and pragmatic. It includes exemptions designed to avoid burdening very small operators and attempts to define the circumstances in which financial content falls within the regulatory perimeter. Nonetheless, many individuals who considered themselves financial publishers rather than financial advisors may discover that the authorities take a different view. As with most financial regulation, the language of the framework is necessarily broad. Financial publisher should bear in mind that regulatory and legal risk cannot always be separated from political risk. Cynics might argue that almost anything you write – or fail to write – could send you to less-comfortable jails if your work attracts the attention of aristocratic overlords. What was that short-selling report you published about the locally listed company in which a member of a ruling family happens to hold a stake?

• India has also joined the growing list of jurisdictions that have taken enforcement action against finfluencers and other individuals publishing stock recommendations without the required registrations. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has introduced a range of measures aimed at regulating investment-related content. Among the more unusual reported provisions is a requirement that commentary on specific stocks should rely on market prices that are at least three months old. At first glance, this may seem like a rather bizarre rule. However, regulators are often tasked with imposing order on situations that are inherently fluid and difficult to define. SEBI has also reportedly restricted certain social-media personalities with very large followings from discussing specific stocks. Why set the threshold at 1m followers rather than 100,000 or 10m? The answer is probably that regulators have to draw the line somewhere, and wherever they draw it, someone will argue that it belongs elsewhere. English-language reporting on these developments has been patchy, and the regulatory landscape has likely evolved further since SEBI began taking a more active interest in this area in 2024. Nevertheless, these developments are instructive. They demonstrate both the direction of travel and the willingness of regulators to introduce rules that may appear somewhat arbitrary.

I'd caution anyone against dismissing this subject as something that only financial publishers and finfluencers in less-developed regulatory environments need to worry about.

There has already been a glimpse of how the debate could evolve in the US. One individual who has recently found himself drawn into the discussion is Jimmy Donaldson – better known as MrBeast – the world's most-followed social-media personality, with nearly 500m followers on YouTube alone. In April 2026, Better Markets, which describes itself as "an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit promoting the economic security, opportunity & prosperity of the American people", published an article examining Donaldson's involvement with Step, an app that "allowed both teens under 18 and young adults to buy, sell, hold and receive crypto." Better Markets felt "the problem is that finfluencers are unregulated. Finfluencers need not be registered as investment advisers with the Securities and Exchange Commission or hold other certifications that would qualify them to provide financial advice. … This is why Congress and the SEC should act to regulate finfluencers."

Whether such proposals gain traction remains to be seen. For the time being, they appear less likely to succeed under the Trump administration, whose generally laissez-faire approach to regulation influences the broader regulatory climate. Equally, there is no guarantee that this assessment will prove correct, nor will the current administration remain in office indefinitely.

The more important point is the broader trend.

Financial publishers, online investment commentators, and so-called finfluencers are increasingly attracting the attention of regulators, legislators, and other governmental authorities around the world.

This trend will become more visible and forceful sooner or later – probably sooner.

Why now?

Business sectors drift in and out of regulatory focus.

From the 1980s and 1990s until relatively recently, there was little reason for regulators to devote significant attention to financial publishing. In the form discussed throughout this article, it remained a niche industry. Even today, global annual revenues are probably no more than USD 5bn – and that may already be a generous estimate. To put this into perspective, more money is spent on tobacco advertising in the US alone than is generated by the entire global financial publishing industry. Historically, financial publishing was little more than a rounding error.

Recently, however, both the size of the sector and perceptions of its influence have changed:

• The rise of social media has transformed the reach of financial content. Finfluencers and independent financial publishers can now reach tens – or even hundreds – of millions of people. That reach has, in turn, generated billions of dollars in sponsorships, affiliate commissions, and similar commercial payments. Some of these relationships are clearly disclosed. Others are not, opening up an entirely separate set of legal and regulatory questions. Keep in mind that much of this money would previously have been spent on advertising in traditional media. Put yourself into the shoes of an organisation such as The New York Times, which has not only lost high-profile journalists to Substack but now also faces the prospect of independent content creators competing for audience attention and advertising revenues. As Edwin Dorsey, the influential and widely respected author of The Bear Cave (Substack), observed in a post on X while commenting on regulatory developments in India: "I … bet we will see more regulations like this as power moves from legacy media to influencers."

• The proliferation of investment-focused Substacks and similar publications has also changed the competitive landscape. Many investors would argue that independent publishers now routinely produce more original investment ideas than the sell-side research departments of Tier 1 and Tier 2 investment banks. As a result, there are now plenty of frustrated investment banks, brokers, and sell-side analysts with an economic incentive to point fingers at this emerging competition – or perhaps to encourage regulators to take a closer look. It would be a convenient way of throwing rocks at pesky new competitors. This may be particularly true in jurisdictions where independent authors publish critical commentary about companies that are publicly listed but also partially government-owned. Recent signs that the debate is entering the mainstream include the Financial Times article "Sell-side research in the Substack era" (25 February 2026), and the recently decided criminal fraud case against Andrew Left of Citron Research, which has attracted both mainstream media coverage and extensive on-the-ground reporting via Edwin Dorsey's X account).

• The growing influence of online financial content is also attracting attention from regulators and policymakers. In a recent Canada-wide survey released by TikTok, approximately one in five Canadians (22%) reported using social media, online forums, or finfluencers as sources of financial information. Make no mistake about it: the rise of Internet-based information sources for self-directed investors poses a threat to some powerful incumbents. Every self-directed investor is potentially one fewer customer for parts of the mutual fund and wealth-management industry. The world's largest financial institutions spend significant sums on lobbying and public-policy initiatives. Do firms such as BlackRock really want to see increasing numbers of retail investors making their own decisions and opening Robinhood accounts instead of investing in traditional products? Whether one agrees with that view or not, it should come as no surprise that the sector has returned to the attention of regulators and policymakers.

And what attention it has attracted.

In April 2026, no fewer than 17 (!) regulators worldwide participated in a coordinated "week of action" involving enforcement activity, consumer-awareness campaigns, and educational programmes aimed at what they described as finfluencers.

The participating jurisdictions included:

• Australia, Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC)
• Belgium, Financial Services and Markets Authority (FSMA)
• Brazil, Comissão de Valores Mobiliários (CVM)
• Canada, Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF)
• Canada, BC Securities Commission (BCSC)
• Canada, Ontario Securities Commission (OSC)
• Denmark, Danish Financial Supervisory Authority (DFSA)
• Hong Kong, Securities and Futures Commission (SFC)
• India, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI)
• Ireland, Central Bank of Ireland (CBI)
• New Zealand, Financial Markets Authority (FMA)
• Norway, Finanstilsynet (NFSA)
• Qatar, Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority (QFCRA)
• Qatar, Qatar Financial Markets Authority (QFMA)
• Singapore, Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)
• United Arab Emirates, Capital Market Authority (CMA)
• United Kingdom, Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)

What these regulators focused on – and how aggressively they pursue the matter – varies significantly from one jurisdiction to another. Analysing the specifics of each country would be beyond the scope of this article.

What I can offer, however, is a selection of practical observations and insights that may help financial publishers reduce the risk of finding themselves in an uncomfortable situation.

What you can do RIGHT NOW

To be clear, we are dealing with a regulatory framework that remains highly fluid and, in many respects, poorly defined. There is no guarantee for anyone to be on safe ground. Financial regulation around the world is often drafted in deliberately broad terms. Regulators generally have considerable discretion when deciding whether a person (or business) warrants further scrutiny, and the boundaries of acceptable conduct are not always obvious in advance.

Cynics may point to the famous observation attributed to Lavrentiy Beria, the head of Joseph Stalin's secret police: "Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime." In Stalin's Soviet Union, authorities often targeted individuals first and only afterwards manufactured charges, staged show trials, or extracted confessions to justify a conviction. Needless to say, that is not how modern financial regulators operate.

Yet the underlying concern – that broadly written rules can create uncertainty – has not entirely disappeared.

A more contemporary expression of the same idea can be found in "Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent". This little-known 2012 book sets out how "the average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague."

Try arguing with the financial regulator of the UAE that a particularly critical article you published about the stock of Emaar Properties (the Dubai property firm closely aligned with the government) was "objective, transparent, and impartial". That's the requirement in Regulation 10 of 2025.

That said, every financial regulator I have dealt with in the Western world has struck me as reasonable, professional, and constructive. What regulators generally want to see is that you take compliance seriously and that you are making a genuine effort to follow both the letter and the spirit of the rules. Being able to demonstrate that effort – and having documented processes to support it – goes a long way if and when you are asked to explain yourself.

With that in mind, here is my quick-and-dirty list of 18 rules and recommendations for staying on the safer side of the financial publishing business.

NOT LEGAL ADVICE.

(In case you were wondering.)

1. Base your publishing operation in the US or UK

The US and the UK have regulated this sector not just for years, but for decades.

Parts of that framework have already been tested in court.

There is also a particular legal and cultural tradition in both financial services and publishing that makes these jurisdictions comparatively predictable.

Put simply, the US and UK have the clearest guidance and case law on the distinction between publisher and adviser, as well as relatively well-developed enforcement procedures and due process protections.

No jurisdiction is perfect, but I would rank the US and the UK among the most attractive jurisdictions for anyone operating a serious financial publishing business.

Of course, one can also make the opposite argument. The UK, for example, has introduced an extremely broad financial-promotion regime. While this framework is primarily aimed at distributors of financial products rather than publishers, there is some regulatory overlap. Some readers may well argue that the US and UK are high-risk jurisdictions precisely because enforcement is experienced, well-resourced, and taken seriously.

The UAE deserves an honourable mention for Resolution No. 10 of 2025. I like almost everything about this regulation and would even describe it as exemplary in terms of clarity. Whether anywhere in the Arab world represents a stable long-term place for a financial publishing operation is something every publisher will need to decide for themselves. However, the Dubai framework already appears to be influencing discussions in other jurisdictions.

One further thought: publish everything in English rather than French, German, or Zulu. Doing so may make it harder for regulators elsewhere to argue that your publication is primarily directed at the citizens of their country and therefore falls within the practical scope of their regulatory interest.

2. Invest in your disclaimer

I have seen investment publishers with disclaimers so poor that I was tempted to send the proprietor an email.

A disclaimer should not merely be adequate. It should be ahead of the (regulatory) curve.

For many publishers, it is one of the most neglected sections of the website. In reality, it deserves a serious investment of time, attention, and professional fees. It should also be reviewed and updated every year or two.

For example, does your disclaimer merely state that your publication does not constitute investment advice, or does it also explicitly state that you do not provide individualised advice? If it omits the latter, it may already be falling short.

The contractual relationship you establish with your readers matters enormously, and the relevant documents should be drafted accordingly.

Treat your legal disclaimer as the asset that it is. It forms the first line of defence in the legal bulwark you are trying to build around your publishing activities.

3. Sprinkle "Not investment advice" across your publication

As an additional precaution, don't just state in your disclaimer that your publication does not constitute investment advice.

Repeat it over and over again across everything you publish – ad nauseam!

Add the message so often that readers get sick of it – and then mention it a few more times.

This is not about reader experience. It is about protecting yourself.

If a handful of readers become irritated by the constant reminders, so be it. Your legal protection is more important than avoiding the occasional complaint.

4. Clearly stay away from personalised advice

One of the central issues running through all of this is personalised advice.

Exactly what constitutes personalised advice is not always clear and probably never will be. Most things in life are not black and white, and legal interpretations of personalised financial advice will likely always involve considerable shades of grey.

The issue extends beyond what you publish publicly. It also includes what you say in emails, private messages, and one-to-one communications with readers.

Imagine a subscriber emails you and asks whether they should allocate 2%, 5%, or 10% of their portfolio to a stock you just discussed.

My view is simple: *don't* answer the question. That is getting uncomfortably close to personalised financial advice.

What you can do instead is explain your views on portfolio concentration in general terms. (Incidentally, that is one reason why I published an article discussing portfolio concentration.)

There are endless variations of this issue.

If you employ staff or work with partners, they need to understand these distinctions as well.

Related questions include whether you publish a model portfolio or provide regular updates on past investment ideas.

Because of these concerns, I decided from day one that I would not publish a model portfolio. My own view was that doing so came too close to providing de facto investment advice – or, in the language of US case law, potentially creating the sort of "personal nexus" that courts have sometimes considered relevant when distinguishing publishing from advisory activities. Needless to say, this decision attracts criticism. Some readers feel entitled to see a portfolio and have little awareness of the legal considerations sitting beneath the surface.

However, recent developments have only reinforced my caution. Malaysia's financial regulator has recently prohibited the publication of model portfolios or even own portfolios.

Given everything discussed in this article, I would not be surprised if other jurisdictions eventually move in a similar direction.

As for me, I am currently reviewing these issues yet again with the assistance of suitably qualified professional advisors. There will probably be some changes to how I operate my website.

5. Up your overall professional standard

There is what I would call the overall professional standard of your website.

Do you at least make a genuine effort to follow regulatory best practices?

The way you present yourself matters. The language you use matters. The impression you create matters.

For example, I often see Substack authors describe themselves as "fund managers". Yet what they actually manage is a Separately Managed Account (SMA). Legally speaking, an SMA is not a fund. To what extent do these fast-and-loose interpretations of technical terms signal to a regulator that you may be misrepresenting facts? Personally, I would be reluctant to hold myself out as a (licensed) fund manager if all I really did was manage an SMA. You wouldn't advertise yourself as a medical doctor if all you did was provide homeopathy. Anything that makes it appear as though you are misrepresenting facts, blurring distinctions, or pushing regulatory boundaries unnecessarily could attract unwanted attention – and rightly so.

As you will see throughout the rest of this article, the cumulative impression you create plays an important role in how regulators view your activities.

Always get your terminology right. Always use language that is consistent with regulatory best practices.

For example, in the UK it is standard practice to require that financial promotions (in itself a legal term) are presented in a manner that is "fair, clear and not misleading". Technically speaking, the financial-promotion regime does not directly apply to financial publishing. Nevertheless, I see considerable value in voluntarily adopting this principle as a gold standard for everything you publish. Doing so strengthens your overall position.

Fancy learning more about it? Below is a link to a webinar that costs GBP 340 (about USD 400) and can even count towards Continued Professional Development requirements. Guess who recently sat through it? Yours truly. Why? Because I like being able to document that I continuously monitor the operating standards of Undervalued-Shares.com in what remains a fast-changing regulatory environment.

6. Make earnings claims that withstand scrutiny

The same standard should apply to any claims you make about past profits.

If you ever find yourself in a legal or regulatory dispute, one of the key concepts that may be examined is the 'net impression' your claims create.

Your performance disclosure – assuming you choose to have one – therefore needs to be carefully constructed.

Did you highlight only the best-performing investments from your track record? Or are you presenting a fair and representative picture of your overall results?

The legal definition of net impression is ultimately concerned with what a reasonable person would conclude after reading your material.

Which leads directly to...

7. Avoid false lifestyle claims

Regulatory bodies and other government authorities do not take kindly to what are known as lifestyle claims.

Have you got a Lamborghini on your website with yourself sitting on the bonnet?

That Lamborghini had better be your own vehicle. If it is merely rented and used to present an inflated image of your success, it could be deemed misleading advertising.

Not all regulation applicable to financial publishers stems from financial-services regulation. Advertising standards and consumer-protection can play into it as well.

8. Don't fall into the social media trap

Somehow, there remains a widespread belief that all of this is less relevant – and less serious – when it comes to social media.

I regularly break out in laughter when I see one-sentence disclaimers underneath social media posts.

Given everything set out above, I am not convinced that such disclaimers will prove particularly effective. This is all the more the case if a social media-centric finfluencer receives sponsorship fees, affiliate commissions, or other forms of compensation for their work. Disclosure standards for these types of arrangement already exist and will likely become a major focus of further regulatory tightening.

Anyone operating a social media-based financial publishing business (or 'finfluencer' operation) would be well advised to establish a proper website – with suitably drafted disclaimers and other important legal documents. Social media posts can then point readers towards those materials.

Finfluencers who monetise their audience may also find that corporate clients increasingly demanding in this regard. The need for financial firms to monitor the finfluencers they work with was once again highlighted by Australia's ASIC:

"Licensees who use influencers may be liable for misconduct by the influencers they use if the influencer is acting as a 'representative' for the purposes of the financial services laws. There are obligations for the licensees in these circumstances, including ensuring influencers/representatives are adequately trained and complying with the financial services laws. In March 2022, ASIC warned licensees to 'have sufficient compliance resourcing to monitor the influencers you use' and to 'consider if you have engaged an influencer to promote a financial product that is subject to the design and distribution obligations and whether you have taken reasonable steps so that the influencer only promotes the product to consumers in the target market.'"

9. Read the Damon Wright deck

The following is the most valuable professional advice you will receive today – and nobody is even charging you for it.

Download the presentation "Legal Compliance for Financial Publishers, Trading Educators, and Trading Tool Marketers".

It was put together by Damon Wright, a partner at Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, the 50-state law firm. Damon and his colleagues are probably among the leading legal experts in this field, at least from a US perspective.

The 85-page deck provides a rapid introduction to a wide range of legal issues affecting financial publishers, including matters that many operators have never even considered.

For example:

• Do you think the SEC is the most important regulator for financial publishers? That is a surprisingly naïve view – and one that some US publishers have learned painful lessons about in recent years.
• Do you understand the legal distinction between commercial speech and non-commercial speech, and how that distinction affects a financial publishing business? Would you know why the regulation of commercial speech makes the entire "Freedom of Speech" argument potentially irrelevant?
• Do you know what types of language consistently help frame an offering as general publishing rather than personalised advisory services?

The deck is an outstanding resource and – at least for now – available free of charge.

You can also hear Damon speak in this video published on John Newtson's channel.

10. Educate yourself broadly about e-commerce regulation

While we are on the subject, it may not even be traditional financial regulation that gets you into trouble.

For many financial publishers, the greater day-to-day risks may come from misleading-advertising rules, rapidly evolving subscription laws, consumer-protection requirements, or influencer-disclosure standards rather than classic securities regulation.

One infamous enforcement action against a major US financial publisher reportedly centred not on investment advice, but on e-commerce rules governing the handling and cancellation of online subscriptions.

You could do far worse than downloading Damon Wright's 91-page guide to e-commerce regulation, which is also available free of charge. While you are at it, it is worth exploring the broader range of e-commerce compliance resources that Wright has made publicly available.

(If you find it daunting that you are expected to remain on top of a growing collection of overlapping and often unrelated regulations, there is of course a simple solution. Don't run a financial publishing operation.)

11. Consider carefully if you operate chat groups

It would be tempting to think that operating a chat group on WhatsApp, Telegram, Discord, or a similar service somehow falls outside the scope of everything discussed in this article.

It does not, of course.

Not only is the recent Hong Kong case an interesting example in this regard.

For a start, there are often general legal responsibilities associated with operating such groups, including monitoring for potentially unlawful content and removing it where necessary. You may also need to consider data-protection obligations, which is a project in itself. If you operate a WhatsApp group, have you ensured that it complies with applicable privacy rules? Have you provided users with "transparent" terms? Have you thought through the implications of third-party platforms potentially accessing personal data and storing it in other jurisdictions? When was the last time you went down the rabbit hole and systematically identified all the legal risks associated with running such a group?

There is also a financial-regulation angle. Because of their interactive nature, chat groups can bring you much closer to the territory of personalised financial advice than a traditional publishing operation. Keep in mind the concept of 'net impression' and the overall picture your activities present to regulators.

There are record-keeping considerations as well. If financial regulation becomes relevant to your activities, you may be obliged to preserve communications. Self-destructing messages will be a no-go. Destroying evidence is rarely a winning strategy. Establishing procedures to archive and preserve communications creates another layer of cost, complexity, and operational responsibility. Simple as chat groups may appear, there is a lot to think about.

If WhatsApp, Telegram, Discord, or similar channels form part of your publishing operation, treat them as a separate legal issue that deserves careful consideration in its own right.

12. Review and revisit on a regular basis

Once a year, carry out a formal review of your legal and regulatory position.

Speak to peers about it to get their views (just as I am doing through the publication of this article).

Document the review and any changes you implemented as a result.

Even if you are not formally regulated, any future court or regulatory proceeding is likely to look at questions such as:

• What written policies did you have?
• What training did you provide to staff and contractors?
• How did you keep records (emails, DMs, chat logs)?
• How did you handle complaints, refunds, and cancellations?

All of this falls into the broader category of the professionalisation of content businesses. It also ties directly into the regulatory developments discussed throughout this article.

13. Think worst case

As part of your review, consider what a worst-case scenario might look like and how you would mitigate against it.

For example, what if an enforcement action resulted in all of your hardware being confiscated as evidence?

Without access to your computer, you may struggle to mount an effective defence.

I have seen situations broadly along these lines in real life.

How can you mitigate against such a risk?

You could consider old-school techniques, such as opening a post box somewhere and mailing yourself an (encrypted) copy of your hard drive every month. Alternatively, stick it under your mother's sofa.

Basic precautions can prove surprisingly valuable.

I am mindful of examples of governmental overreach, such as the (in)famous enforcement action brought by the FTC against Raging Bull, the US investment website. Few people realise that the FTC can be just as relevant to financial publishers in the US as the SEC. The FTC pursued Raging Bull for a variety of alleged violations. In the end, the judge concluded that key elements of the case should never have been brought and that the evidence did not support allegations of fraud. By the time that conclusion was reached, however, what had once been a business generating USD 100m in annual revenue had effectively been reduced to rubble. The owner of Raging Bull and his wife have since published an interesting video discussion about the entire affair.

Regulators are mostly staffed by good people. But negative examples do exist.

14. Check if you can avoid mixing jurisdictions

One of the legally most complex (and riskiest) aspects of being a financial publisher is finding yourself caught between multiple jurisdictions.

To name a popular example, I remain fascinated by Substack providing financial publishers from around the world with a seemingly lightly regulated platform for publications that are often clearly targeted at markets outside the US.

Imagine, if you will, a German-language investment Substack.

Germany's BaFin could easily take the view that this is, for practical purposes, a Germany-focused operation and therefore falls within its regulatory interest.

European regulators often focus on the issue of 'targeting', which includes factors such as localisation of content, use of local social media channels, references to local tax rules, and similar indicators. BaFin, in particular, has already pursued English-language websites that clearly targeted German investors. To be clear, the strategy mentioned earlier – publishing in English – does not place you outside the reach of regulators if you are otherwise targeting their residents. However, it can still be a helpful factor in a broader multi-factor analysis.

I reached out to Substack's media department for its view of the matter. It pointed me to the publisher agreement that all users of the platform must accept. It states: "You are responsible for all your activity in connection with Substack! Make sure that you use Substack in a manner that complies with the law. If your use of Substack is prohibited by applicable laws, then you aren't authorized to use Substack. We can't and won't be responsible for you using Substack in a way that breaks the law."

Their approach could hardly be clearer. If I were them, I would take the same position. However, it also means that anyone publishing through Substack should not fall for the belief that doing so places them just under the US regulatory regime. Whether you fall under any other regulatory regimes is a matter for you to investigate, and the resulting risks are yours to take.

I would make a conscious effort to avoid becoming entangled in multiple jurisdictions, at least to the extent that this can be reasonably avoided.

This is one of the reasons why I operate my own website rather than relying on a platform based in another country and operating under an entirely different legal system.

In case you still believe this concern is misplaced, have a look at the article below about how the Chinese authorities tracked domestic users visiting overseas investment websites.

15. Don't try to be 'clever'

No one likes a smart alec.

In case you are wondering, the term traces back to 1840s New York City. It was inspired by a real-life con man, Alexander (or Alec) Hoag. Because of his manipulative schemes and his attitude of being "too smart for his own good," police officers coined the nickname "Smart Alec".

Although he temporarily escaped, Hoag was ultimately recaptured.

Generally speaking, trying to outwit regulation instead of respecting both the regulation itself and the people who work at financial regulators does not strike me as a winning strategy.

16. File away professional advice

Nothing is as powerful when dealing with regulation as having professional advice on file.

Invest in lawyers, regulatory experts, and similar advisors. Get them to issue you formal advice and create a paper trail showing that you sought such advice and followed it.

This could be the single most important point out of the 18.

17. Set up a Google News Alert (or an AI agent)

Don't rely on anyone else to stay on top of developments in this area.

Make sure you remain informed about the latest regulatory and industry changes. At the very least, set up a suitable Google News Alert. Better still, create an AI agent that monitors the subject for you.

That said, treat any AI agent output as nothing more than useful initial guidance.

18. Deliver content of a broad and general nature

To come full circle, a financial publisher should focus on qualifying for the publishers' exclusion. You really want to be able to rely on the publishers' exclusion, assuming your jurisdiction provides one. Preserving that status may be the single most important aspect of all. In fact, if I were running a serious financial publishing operation elsewhere in the world, I would seriously consider relocating to the US or UK to benefit from a framework where this concept has already been tested in court.

What actually qualifies you as a publisher is open to interpretation, but it certainly helps if:

• You publish a broad range of content – not only stock tips, but also general market commentary, strategic insights, or occasional interviews.
• You publish to a broad and general audience. If all you operate is a Telegram group with paying 50 users, you will likely not be treated as a publisher, but instead as someone providing personalised financial advice.
• You can demonstrate that your website or service is a genuine publishing business, including through revenue structure and/or a clear business plan.

From my network within the sector, I already know of cases where authors deliberately maintain a 50/50 balance between content focused on specific investments and more general material.

If I had to make ONE prediction based on this article, it would be that the coming years will see a wave of small-scale investment publications consciously structuring their content to fall within the publishers' exclusion – potentially combined with relocation to more favourable jurisdictions.

That said, don't forget to follow everything else outlined above.

It's really quite simple!

Bringing it all together

What I have set out above probably sounds scary – and it should.

That said, help is at hand. I am convinced that anyone serious about running a financial publishing business can nowadays find a way forward by researching all of these different aspects using mostly free online resources.

Keep in mind that you do not necessarily need to reach perfection. In fact, no business may ever reach perfection in today's over-regulated world. What you want is a viable path within an evolving regulatory landscape.

A regulator or government entity will typically have hundreds (if not thousands, or even tens of thousands) of individuals and businesses to supervise. Imagine they were grading each of them on a scale from 1 to 10, where 10 represents perfect compliance and 1 represents an aggressively deceptive operator.

Will a regulator use their limited enforcement resources to come crashing down on a 7 or an 8?

Ask yourself where you want to land on that scale. In my view, anyone running a financial publishing business should aim to be a 7 or higher. A 5 or 6 may still be acceptable. What you really do not want to be is a 4, 3, 2, or 1. At the same time, a small business (and most financial publishing operations are small) will probably never reach a 10, simply because they do not have the resources to operate at that level of institutional compliance.

When someone looks at your business, do they see occasional borderline judgment calls once or twice a year, or a pattern of outright aggressive behaviour that consistently pushes the limits? The key is that you are not doing anything reckless. Make it very clear that you are trying to comply with the rules. If you can demonstrate that – and you have evidence to back it up – you start from a strong position in any discussion with a regulator or government authority. They will see that you are genuinely attempting to follow the rules and are moving in the right direction. There will always be far more serious cases that make better use of limited enforcement resources. And if something minor has gone wrong, the most likely outcome is simply a request to correct course going forward.

You can never reduce regulatory risk to zero – but you can reduce it significantly.

Being a 7 or an 8 still carries risk, but that is the nature of running a business.

Within all of this, how you portray yourself matters.

Consider the following: someone working at a regulator in this space might earn 150k a year (pound sterling, euros, or US dollars). That is not a bad salary. But imagine that person sees someone online presenting themselves as a typical "finance bro" or "baller", claiming they make 10m a year and suggesting others could do the same if they only bought their product. How much sympathy will that employee have for such an individual?

You do not just want to be a 7 or higher – you also want to come across as professional. You want your business to have the DNA of what a reasonable person would consider legitimate.

If you achieve that, then a single minor regulatory issue is unlikely to result in major enforcement action.

That said, you should also be aware that regulators sometimes conduct dragnet-style operations.

For example, a regulator may choose to send hundreds (or even thousands) of notice letters across an entire sector. These are often used as a shot across the bow, prompting widespread voluntary compliance. Such letters typically state that the recipient is not currently suspected of wrongdoing, but that they are being put on notice to ensure compliance with applicable law.

In the age of AI, compiling lists of relevant operators becomes increasingly easy. It is even easier if any of the following apply to you:

• Your publication is listed in a directory of similar services.
• You are mentioned in a tweet listing "The 100 finfluencers worth following".
• You have won a finfluencer award.
• You publish on platforms such as Substack or Beehive, where operators can be easily identified and analysed.

If so, the odds are significant that you may find yourself on such a list sooner or later. You may receive a letter reminding you of your obligations, or asking you to explain which regulatory regime you fall under and how you comply with it.

Keep in mind that legal risks are widespread in this industry, and planning for a worse-case scenario is a prudent baseline approach.

Always keep in mind: what is the net impression your publishing operation gives off?

Also, do not forget the more "obvious" areas of regulation that are already well established. This article has not focused on market manipulation, touting/pump-and-dump schemes, short-selling regulations, or undisclosed paid promotions, because those areas are already widely covered and relatively well understood. If you are operating a financial publishing business and are not familiar with these concepts, you should correct that immediately.

For the particular case of short-selling and the ramifications of the Andrew Left court case (which led to a lot of media attention during the past few days), I recommend the analysis published by Edwin Dorsey. Edwin isn't just deeply knowledgeable of the short selling sector and publishing industry, but attended the court case in person. He just released part 1 of his analysis, which is well worth buying his subscription. In his X post, he called on the government to provide clear guidance for the sector. This is yet another indicator that an overhaul of regulation and legislation may be due, even in the US!

Consider all of this carefully, and then err on the side of caution. When it comes to compliance, it always pays to err on the side of caution.

For example, when giving a presentation, it is NOT enough to show a disclaimer briefly at the beginning in small print. You may need to repeat it multiple times throughout the presentation, in a font size consistent with the rest of the material. In fact, using equal font size for disclaimers is now even a formal (!) UK regulatory requirement – and that illustrates the direction of travel. Would you have known that? And does your publication deliver on that?

You may even want multiple paragraphs of disclaimers in every  piece of correspondence sent to attendees, and again in follow-up communications.

That is what it means to err on the side of caution in practice.

You can do it!

There is also something positive in all these complex legal and regulatory developments.

So far, the sector has suffered from somewhat unclear regulation.

Regulators may not always be popular, but they are generally staffed by people with good intentions.

I was reminded of this by a 6 March 2026 article titled "FCA consumer investment goals include communications and 'finfluencer' support

Plans by a UK regulator to provide support to legitimate financial influencers and develop a stronger investment culture in the country, highlight its increased commitment to smarter regulation, according to an expert. 

….

Elizabeth Budd, a financial services regulation expert with Pinsent Masons, said the publication doubled down on the FCA's commitment to smarter regulation of the sector. 'The regulator will expand dedicated supervisory contacts and will work towards being more risk based,' she said. 'This means leaving those firms that are doing the right thing – or putting every effort into doing the right thing – and focussing on where the risk is the greatest.'"

Regulation is a fact of life for anyone working in financial services, or industries adjacent to it. You can either get used to it and work within it, or leave the industry altogether.

If what you are building is not just a bona fide publishing business but also a strategically built content "fortress" that respects regulation and uses it intelligently, then you have nothing to fear.

Now go forth and publish – and keep those documents in the drawer for when the regulator(s) or other government authorities come knocking. Because, inevitably, they will!

Feedback and thank you

As I said at the outset, I wrote this piece to establish the future baseline for Undervalued-Shares.com, and to run a form of peer review with like-minded colleagues in the publishing industry. In that sense, publishing it also serves as evidence of proactively monitoring the regulatory environment.

In the end, a dozen colleagues provided feedback on the draft of this article.

Their input was invaluable. The published version of this article is significantly better than the draft they reviewed.

I extend my deepest appreciation to them. You know who you are!

If you want to send further feedback, please do so by email.

Also, do not forget that none of this is legal advice. In fact, assume there is a significant likelihood of factual errors or poor judgment in this article. I am not a member of the legal profession. Seek your own legal advice if your business (and freedom) is worth it.

Last but not least, please share this article with colleagues in the industry. The responsibility is on all of us to raise standards and remain in good standing with the authorities.

Did you find this article useful and enjoyable? If you want to read my next articles right when they come out, please sign up to my email list.

Share this post: