View more on these topics

The £30m Brexit bill: How the FCA’s costs break down

The FCA has announced that it expects to incur £30m in costs over Brexit.

The regulator’s business plan this morning shows that the bill, which is equivalent to just under 6 per cent of its total operating budget, will be funded in a variety of ways, including through reserves, reprioritisation of work and extra levies to cover new responsibilities.

In a press conference this morning, FCA chief executive Andrew Bailey said: “We take the view we can’t just add Brexit onto everything else we do. It is not feasible for us and not feasible for industry.”

While Bailey said that at a base level, “like for like budget has not increase by more than inflation”, £14m of the £30m bill will be funded by pushing back pieces of current FCA work.

Bailey noted that the role of the general counsel when the Senior Managers Regime comes into force was one of these, as was working on a digital archive of public company filings.

“We did a very rigorous prioritisation,” Bailey said: “[The digital archive] is good thing to do no doubt but we are not going to do it in the next year.”

£5m of the bill is being funded from the regulator’s reserves. Another £5m will come in the form of additional fees, “with a focus on the firms that
are most likely to be affected by EU withdrawal.”

The remaining £6m will be recovered from specific firms that fall under new responsibilities the FCA will take on, including around passporting and on-shoring credit rating agencies and trade repositories post-Brexit.

Bailey told the FCA’s press conference this morning: “Uncertainty around Brexit is a challenge, no doubt about it…. More than ever we are going to have to keep the plan under close watch.”

One thing the FCA said that it would not sacrifice to make room for the budget was advice firm supervision. Phoenixing, the practice where rogue advisers cease trading and then get authorised at a new firm in order to avoid responsibility, was being looked at by the FCA, Bailey noted.

He said: “]We are doing this] not because there are no rules of engagement. There certainly are. But we are aware the issue has arisen. We are actively working on what could be done, either within the existing rules or under new ones.”

Recommended

Trott
1

Claire Trott: How Scottish tax reform impacts pensions

New income tax rates are causing discrepancies between pension schemes Changes to taxation in Scotland is having an impact on many cross-border issues, and pensions have not escaped unscathed. Not only are administrators having to record and report their Scottish members but we now have greater disparity on the tax relief front. Pensions and property […]

5

FCA plans to absorb Brexit-related costs

The FCA plans to absorb Brexit-related costs “where possible”, according to its latest board minutes. Minutes from the regulator’s 21 and 22 February board meeting say the impact of Brexit will be included in its forthcoming business plan for the year ahead, due to be released imminently. The minutes say: “It was noted that as further clarity […]

Holding-Hands-Comfort-Embrace-Soothe-Care-700.jpg
2

Tracey Evans: How to talk to clients about mortality

Much has changed in the 30 years I have been in financial services. One of the major recent changes has been the pension freedoms, which came into force three years ago. In the ‘old days’, clients’ main choices were around what type of annuity they were going to buy at retirement with their money purchase […]

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. Interesting. Perhaps the leavers should swallow any extra costs. After all they keep telling us Remainers how much better off we were going to be with Brexit.

    6% of total costs. Well if that translates through the rest of the economy – or even half that, we are in for a real dose of inflation and misery.

  2. Dwarfed by the huge extra costs of EU membership proposed by Mario Monti’s 2017 report.

    The one that proposed an end to all member state rebates.

    The one that was being prepared before our referendum, but whose proposals were not released until after we had voted.

    Coincidentally, it would make the Red Bus claims true!

Leave a comment