More significant market intervention, rather than disclosure to investors, is often necessary to regulate markets properly, international securities regulators said at a securities industry conference Thursday.

In a panel discussion at the Ontario Securities Commission’s (OSC) Dialogue 2015 in Toronto, Martin Wheatley, former head of the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), said that disclosure — long the foundation of regulator’s efforts at investor protection — simply isn’t enough. Disclosure should still be required, he said, but it doesn’t work that well to protect investors.

His view was echoed by Greg Medcraft, chairman of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Medcraft said that disclosure is largely a “waste of time” because no one, apart from lawyers, actually reads it.

The panel discussion also involved Howard Wetston, chairman of the OSC and Paul Leder, director of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of International Affairs.

Absent effective disclosure, regulators are undertaking more fundamental interventions, such as banning commissions, banning products and imposing fiduciary duties on financial advice. Wheatley pointed to the U.K.’s Retail Distribution Review (RDR) as an example of the structural intervention necessary to improve investor protection. The RDR famously did away with third-party commissions and raised proficiency requirements for advisors, among other things.

The result, Wheatley said, was that the FCA saw an almost immediate shift in the types of products being sold to investors. Certain high margin products went to just 20% of product sales from 60% in the wake of the RDR, he said, with advisors shifting to products that weren’t as remunerative. The other big shift, Wheatley said, was an increase in industry professionalism.

The biggest challenge that followed this reform, Wheatley noted, was a reduction in the availability of advice to smaller-value clients. However, he added that this has actually benefited smaller, independent advisory firms, at the expense of large institutions, as small players have stepped in fill the void. These firms have seen a “huge” increase in their business, he said, and fintech firms, such as “robo-advisors,” have also flourished in a bid to exploit this gap in advice.

Regulators should be looking for ways to better align the interests of investors and the industry, the OSC’s Wetston noted, and he suggested that more research is necessary to uncover appropriate policies.

Wetston said that Canadian regulators are still “very engaged” in examining whether a “best interests” duty is justified, and he indicated that the regulators will soon be releasing some new research that will help inform that debate.