I’ve said for ages that we shouldn’t be able to recommend unregulated investments. The problem here is what’s actually in regulated investments. Woodford took what turned out to be too much risk by investing in shares which, when push came to very big shove, couldn’t be sold. Could have gone the other way, and he’d have been a hero. He was actually trying to make money for, rather than rip off, his investors. Should we go caveat emptor or nanny regulator? Latter, of course, had money with him.
“Reeves backs down on plans to cut ISA limit”
So it looks as though Cash ISAs are safe for the moment (FTM – is that a thing?) Rachel has apparently ‘bowed to pressure’ from the banks and building societies and decided not to reduce the allowance to £4,000 for cash and to keep the £20,000 parity with Stocks and Shares ISAs. Bowed also to common sense, I’d say.
