Almost nine in 10 social media posts offering financial guidance showed more negative than positive quality features, raising concerns about the information reaching millions of consumers, according to a study by Queen Mary University of London, funded by Aberdeen Group Charitable Trust.

The study analysed nearly 2,500 finfluencers on Instagram, TikTok and YouTube, alongside a survey of more than 4,200 adults aged 18 and over across the UK.

The posts were assessed using a structured checklist covering factors such as creator expertise, transparency, quality of explanation, and the inclusion of risks and supporting evidence.

Only 8–9 per cent of posts assessed stated the creator's relevant expertise, while just 12–13 per cent included disclosures or disclaimers.

Overall, almost 90 per cent of posts contained more negative features than positive ones.

However, it’s worth noting that while 31 per cent of respondents said they mainly used social media platforms to find guidance about investments, only 4 per cent said the same about pensions, prioritising their employer (68 per cent), followed by government services and websites (38 per cent), and professional advisers (27 per cent).

According to the report, 31 per cent of respondents said they had followed financial guidance on social media in the last year, with 70 per cent reporting mostly positive outcomes, 27 per cent mixed results, and 3 per cent mostly negative outcomes.

A respondent cited a positive example of following pensions guidance on social media: “I have calculated how much I should put into a pension by my age and started doing this, which means I have some pension now.”

Meanwhile, another respondent reported a negative experience after following pensions guidance on social media: “I was advised to switch one of my pensions to a different fund, to spread risk. So far, there is a 12 per cent difference against me than if I had left it.”

Elsewhere in the report, 91 per cent of respondents said they were shown financial guidance on social media when they were not intentionally searching for it – 21 per cent said this information related to pensions.

Research highlighted widespread confusion around consumer protections, with more than half (55 per cent) of respondents unaware of the distinction between financial guidance and regulated advice, and 40 per cent surprised that most social media content falls outside regulation.

Around half said responsibility for tackling misleading content should sit with authorities or platforms, while respondents identified clearer disclosure of qualifications, mandatory disclaimers and links to trusted sources as the most effective ways to improve quality.

Commenting on the research, Aberdeen Group Charitable Trust chair, and Aberdeen Group plc, group head of sustainability, Kristina Church, said that regulators had raised concerns about poor quality finfluencer content.

However, both the Financial Conduct Authority’s increased social media presence and the Advertising Standards Authority’s evidence suggested that, when used responsibly, these platforms could effectively support consumer engagement with financial decisions.

“But responsibility can't sit with regulators alone,” she continued. “This research shows platforms have a vital role in making sure financial content shared online meets basic standards and to limit the spread of misleading content.

“With money tips appearing in feeds every day, improving financial literacy is essential, so people can judge information confidently and make informed decisions about their financial futures,” she said.

Queen Mary University of London report author, Eileen Tipoe, added: "There is some great content out there from 'finfluencers', however, our findings show a clear gap between how influential financial guidance on social media has become, and the level of oversight that currently applies to it.

"While social media can improve access to information, the lack of consistent standards by the platform providers and disclosures means many users are exposed to guidance that would not meet basic quality expectations in other settings."

---