View more on these topics

Cherry picking and systemic weaknesses: Why Aviva Investors was fined £17.6m

Aviva Investors operated systems which were open to abuse and allowed traders to “cherry pick” funds, the FCA has found.

Earlier today the FCA fined Aviva Investors Global Services £17.6m for systems and controls failings that meant it failed to manage conflicts of interest fairly.

From 20 August 2005 to 30 June 2013, Aviva Investors employed a “side-by-side” management strategy on certain desks within its fixed income area.

The firm’s incentive structure meant side-by-side traders had an incentive to favour funds paying higher performance fees.

Between August 2005 and November 2012, two fixed income traders cherry picked hedge funds and long-only funds. This meant that a trader could buy an instrument at 9am intending to allocate it to the hedge fund, but by 3pm, seeing that the instrument had fallen in value, allocate it to a long-only fund.

By cherry picking trades, side-by-side traders could enhance the performance of hedge funds so they benefitted from favourable intraday price movements, and lead to increased incentive payments to traders.

Between 20 August 2005 to 30 June 2013, £27.4m was paid to certain traders as a result of hedge fund performance.

Aviva Investors operated a ‘three lines of defence’ model of risk management.

But “significant deficiencies” in responsibilities, procedures, systems, management information and culture meant the first line of defence failed.

The FCA says there was a lack of clarity as to who had responsibility for risk management in the fixed income division, with frequent changes to personnel and reporting lines.

The regulator also found that Aviva Investors’ systems did not contemporaneously record when an order was placed. This meant that traders could misreport the time they had executed trades.

In addition, the management information provided to the business was not timely and did little to enable line managers to gauge whether traders were following processes.

The FCA found the culture within the fixed income business was “heavily focused on performance”, and risk and controls were perceived by some as hindering performance.

The firm’s second line of defence was meant to act as a safety net to catch issues that were not detected by the first line policies and systems.

But the FCA says this did not operate effectively, as trade compliance monitoring used limited sample sizes, and compliance was “under-resourced” and lacked the necessary skills and experience to challenge business practices.

Finally, the regulator found that weaknesses in Aviva Investors’ third line of defence – an internal audit – meant issues were not addressed adequately.

The FCA says there were “systemic weaknesses” in the firm’s systems and controls, which went unaddressed for almost eight years and created an unacceptable risk of trader misconduct.

Recommended

Antonio-Horta-Osorio-700x450.jpg
3

FOS upholds 74% of Lloyds complaints

Lloyds Banking Group has emerged once again as the most complained about financial services group to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Lloyds Bank, which was separated out from TSB in 2013, received the highest number of complaints against an individual business, with 24,245 complaints against it between 1 July and 31 December. A massive 74 per […]

Steve-Webb-thoughtful-response-in-2014-700.png
10

Webb turns screw on providers over legacy charges

Pensions minister Steve Webb has once again threatened to “name and shame” providers who refuse to tackle legacy issues. Pressure has been growing on providers to tackle old, relatively expensive schemes since an audit found up to £26bn of assets subject to charges over 1 per cent.  A 0.75 per cent cap on auto-enrolment default […]

Cash-Money-Currency-Dollars-Pounds-700x450.jpg
9

Labour to roll allowances into 50% banker bonus tax

Labour will include allowances in a 50 per cent one-off tax on banker bonuses designed to fund a compulsory jobs guarantee. Allowances do not count towards the EU bonus cap, which limits bonuses to 100 per cent of salaries or 200 per cent with shareholder approval. However, last year, the European Banking Authority called for allowances […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 2 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. And how many have been banned from ever trading again? – I guess none and how many jailed – I guess none – and how many lost their bonuses – I guess none. Lucky they wren’t messing about with welfare claims or they’d all be actually named, shamed and jailed as I think they deserve.

  2. or train tickets 🙂

    drunk driving is acceptable though as senior F-pack staff have already set that precedent i understand.

Leave a comment