If You Say “Not Financial Advice,” Maybe You Just Should Give Better Advice
Scroll through personal finance content on social media or blogs and you’ll see the same line, over and over:
“This is not financial advice.”
It’s basically the finance world’s way of saying, “I want the credibility, not the responsibility.”
But here’s the challenge: if you have to hide behind “not financial advice,” maybe you should be giving better advice in the first place.
Table of Contents
How Do I Know “Not Financial Advice” Doesn’t Hold Up in Court
I am not guessing here.
I spent years as a senior leader in Risk Management. I reported to the Chief Risk Officer at one of the nation’s largest Financial Services Firms.
Risk Management is one head of the three-headed Cerberus that oversees financial firms, right alongside Legal and Compliance.
That meant I sat in meeting after meeting with our Chief Risk Officer, Chief Compliance Officer, and senior lawyers who defended the firm in regulatory cases.
The topic of disclaimers came up often, especially when new marketing, client tools, or advisor materials were rolled out.
We talked about this stuff. Disclaimers were either because regulators required them or to deter clients from suing us. (What blows my mind is people on social media use these disclaimers thinking it protects them. It doesn’t. But I’ll get to that in a minute)
If the substance of what you wrote looks like advice, it will be treated like advice. The disclaimer isn’t a shield. It’s window dressing.
Related: 16 Investment Products That May Not Be Worth the Risk
What Compliance Won’t Tell You
Here’s an insider truth from someone who’s been there and spoken with the legal teams defending “not financial advice”. I spent more than 20 years in financial services, held multiple FINRA licenses, and ran investment risk teams at two of the biggest firms in the industry.
I sat in compliance meetings where the solution to everything was: “Just add the disclaimer.” Writing a new marketing piece? Add the disclaimer. Building a new client tool? Add the disclaimer. Hosting an event? Put the disclaimer on the slides.
It gave the illusion of safety. But in practice, disclaimers are more about protecting the company’s brand than protecting the client or the employee.
I once asked a very senior compliance officer point-blank: “If we give bad guidance, does ‘this isn’t financial advice’ protect us?” The answer: “No. It deters some people from suing us.”
It’s interesting because the more junior Compliance managers don’t even know this.
That’s the whole game. Disclaimers are optics, not legal shields.
Related: 20 Investing Mistakes the CFA Institute Says to Avoid
Why It Doesn’t Hold Up in Court
Here’s the blunt truth: judges don’t care about your disclaimers. Regulators don’t shrug just because you claimed you weren’t giving financial advice.
If you publish content that misleads people and they act on it, a “not advice” line won’t save you. What matters is whether you exercised reasonable care, presented risks fairly, and didn’t exaggerate outcomes.
Senior Compliance Leaders know this. Legal teams know this. But disclaimers make them feel safer, and that illusion filters down to creators who think copying the language is enough.
Related Video: I Am a CFA. I Believe Grant Cardone Gives Horrible Financial Advice
Seriously, The Supreme Court Agrees
And if you think I’m just ranting, here’s the kicker: the Supreme Court already settled this decades ago.
In SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, an investment newsletter tried to hide behind the idea that it was “just general information.” They sprinkled in disclaimers, thinking that would protect them. It didn’t.
The Court ruled that if your content looks like advice and people act on it, then it is advice under the law. Period.
That case is still cited today. Regulators and compliance officers know it. The precedent is clear: you can’t slap “not financial advice” on something and magically escape responsibility. Substance wins over optics every single time.
For online creators or “finfluencers,” regulators like the SEC and IOSCO (International Organization of Securities Commissions) have echoed this: slapping “not financial advice” (or “NFA”) on content doesn’t automatically protect you if it quacks like advice (e.g., specific stock picks, timing recommendations) and people treat it as such, potentially triggering registration requirements or anti-fraud rules under the Investors Advisors Act
So when you see using that line like it’s a legal force field, remember: the highest court in the country already said otherwise.
Why Everyone Uses It
I get why the disclaimer exists. Financial advice is regulated. If you’re licensed, you’ve got compliance teams directing you.
If you’re not licensed, you don’t want to get sued, or don’t know any better because you are just copying licensed people.
So the phrase has become a crutch. It’s easier to slap on “not advice” and hit publish than to figure out how to give readers something truly useful, without pretending you can predict the future or solve every situation.
The problem? Readers see through it. It doesn’t protect them, and it won’t protect you in court either. Client attorneys see through it, too.
Related: 13 Bad Financial Advice You Should Ignore, From a CFA Who Retired Young
What the Disclaimers Are Really For
So why keep using it?
If you are licensed, you use it because you are told to by the compliance decision makers at your firm.
But they know these particular disclaimers are treated as deterrents, like a “No Trespassing” sign. Saying “not financial advice” doesn’t stop regulators or lawsuits, but allow firms able to say they’ve done something. It also deters lawsuits from client’s who haven’t hired a lawyer.
I’ve heard it straight from the people defending billion-dollar companies in court: “We don’t argue the disclaimer saves us. We use it as optics.”
But if you aren’t licensed, you’re just using it because you don’t know any better. You’re just copying bad advice by saying no financial advice.
Related: Investment Red Flags You Can’t Afford to Ignore
The Real Fix: Give Better Advice
So what’s the alternative? Give better advice.
That doesn’t mean telling people what stock to buy tomorrow or promising riches in six months. It means sharing principles that actually stand up:
- Explain the trade-offs. Every financial move has risks and rewards. Show both.
- Anchor to lived experience. If you’ve done it, say what happened. If you haven’t, don’t posture.
- Teach frameworks, not formulas. Show people how to think about debt, investing, or retirement, not just “do this” or “don’t do that.”
- Respect the reader. Assume they’re capable of making informed choices if you give them the right context.
- Acknowledge personal finance is personal. The reality is if you are giving advice online you have no idea of the person’s specific situation. You don’t know their risk tolerance, time horizon, or anything else other than they are reading what you write. So stop giving blanket statements.
- Tell the truth. Be honest. You’re just selling investment products. You’re trying to gather assets.
I’ll give you an example. When I write about early retirement, I don’t just say “buy rental houses” or “max your 401(k).”
I walk through the realities, the headaches of tenants, the trade-off between liquidity and tax advantages, the emotional side of walking away from a career. I also often say, I don’t know you. I also have the benefit of I’m not selling anything. I’m just sharing what I know and paying it forward.
That’s the kind of honesty that lets readers decide what’s right for them.
Related: Should I Max Out My 401k? A CFA Who Retired Young Answers
The Bigger Problem With Copycat Advice
The “not advice” culture also fuels something worse: copycat writing. People who’ve never reached financial independence publish endless listicles about how to “get rich”, and then tack on the disclaimer to cover themselves.
But recycled advice isn’t harmless. It drowns out the voices of people who’ve actually lived it. It tricks readers into thinking they’re getting proven guidance when they’re really just reading an echo.
AI makes this even worse. I’ve seen my own content scraped, summarized, and regurgitated by other bloggers a week later, always wrapped in that same “not advice” line.
It’s lazy. And it makes financial education weaker for everyone.
Why This Matters
Financial content shapes decisions that affect people’s futures. Hiding behind “not advice” makes the whole field weaker.
It tells people you don’t trust your own words enough to stand by them.
If you’re serious about helping people, drop the safety blanket. Give advice worth giving. Be transparent about your expertise, your biases, and your limits. That’s more protection than any emoji disclaimer will ever be.
🙋♂️ If you like what you just read, subscribe to the DadisFIRE newsletter and follow DadisFIRE on YouTube. 💪
