Does culture outweigh code? The paradox of insurance innovation
Cuddly, Cutting-edge, Creative: China’s Soft Power Spreading Through Global Brands
This is not Financial Advice
October 2025
Recent guidance from the Monetary Authority of Singapore on digital advertising activities should be required reading for communicators at financial institutions. Here are some implications for how the industry works with social media influencers.
Financial institutions (FIs) in Singapore that market their products or services online are careful about how they do so.
In advertisements or advertorials, Instagram carousels or TikTok videos, disclaimers can be found warning investors that past performance is no indicator of future performance, that they should do their own research, and that all content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.
It is time for the industry to do more, though, particularly in the field of social media.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) on Sep 25 announced new guidelines on standards of conduct for digital advertising activities.
Among other things, FIs should select “appropriate digital marketers” who comply with regulatory requirements and take “appropriate disciplinary actions against errant digital marketers for improper conduct”.
When advertised returns depend on holding periods, this condition should be clearly stated. Disclosures of sponsorship, remuneration or commercial arrangements should be clear and conspicuous. And reference materials should be provided to digital marketers to help them understand any relevant regulatory requirements.
FIs also should not disclaim responsibility for segments of video advertisements, and should instead review the video holistically to identify and address any inappropriate or unapproved content.
The move is a positive one from the perspective of responsible communicators, who would have long been advocating such principles to clients and other stakeholders – especially when it comes to the use of financial influencers.
er platforms represent a powerful tool in any FI’s kit, and should be wielded with precision by those who understand how it works and how to use it.
The latest guidance is no reason for FIs to steer clear of social media, but should serve as a nudge to review communications strategies.
Trust in the social media sphere
Few finfluencers have the necessary education or certifications to give advice, yet their content tends to be highly trusted.
Recent research conducted by academics at the University of Cologne in Germany suggested “finfluencer sentiment positively predicts crowd sentiment in the short term”. The researchers also showed a predominantly positive relationship between influencer sentiment and asset values.
Another study, by researchers at the RV Institute of Management in India, suggested finfluencers are significant mediators in the investment decisions made by the Gen Z cohort. Finfluencers also tended to perpetuate behavioural biases such as herd thinking and overconfidence.
Finfluencers tend to hide behind a long list of disclaimers and disclosures to avoid accusations that they have misled investors or provided risky advice, but such research shows that warning labels won’t keep investors safe.
MAS has rightfully, therefore, asked FIs to monitor developments and trends in their digital media use. It has even suggested that FIs expand their surveillance scope to incorporate complaints and misconduct cases.
Key takeaways for FI communicators
Does the latest guidance place too great a burden on the shoulders of FIs? Should individual investors be made to bear more responsibility for their own education and decisions? Whatever happened to caveat emptor?
These are questions that some FI communicators may now be asking themselves. Yet, these are the wrong questions to be concerned with.
The more important question is: Whose reputation is harmed when investors make a bad decision? Unfortunately, it is rarely the reputation of the irresponsible influencer.
So, how should FIs respond to MAS’ recent guidance? Here are three ideas.
First, emphasise expertise. Communicators assessing finfluencers should not be prioritising the following of the finfluencer, but should instead consider the level of knowledge.
Research shows follower numbers aren’t good predictors of influence anyway, so look more closely at the quality of the individuals or institutions behind the platform. Certifications, education and job experience should be important criteria on the list.
Second, don’t use disclaimers as a crutch. Even if you tell investors that the content you put out should not be considered as financial advice, remember that most investors still think of it that way.
The best practitioners will keep their family and friends in mind when reviewing any communications. Is this something you would be happy to tell your parents, children or co-workers?
Finally, embrace the finfluencer trend. It should be clear by that finfluencers are, well, influential. Any FI that serves individual investors should be engaging this community.
A strong offence is often the best defence. For communicators, this means filling your void in the social media sphere before the wrong voices fill it for you.
Related news & insights:
