View more on these topics

Separation issues: Industry rubbishes MPs’ calls to break up the FCA

brokenchain

Regulatory experts have dismissed suggestions by MPs to break up the FCA and create a separate enforcement regulator, saying it would only serve to hike costs for advisers.

The Treasury committee last week called for a review into the potential separation of the enforcement division from the FCA and the Prudential Regulation Authority. Such a move would  end the twin peaks structure set up in 2013 and introduce a third enforcement-only regulator overseeing the financial services industry.

But concerns have been raised about exactly what shape the new organisation would take, and who it would report to. MPs have also been accused of courting public favour by calling for a standalone enforcement regulator to police the industry.

Jumping the gun?

The Treasury committee’s recommendation was included as part of its review of an independent report into the collapse of HBOS.

Given that it was the FSA that was responsible for enforcement when HBOS was bailed out during the financial crisis, lawyers are concerned moves to annex enforcement from the current regulators are based on inadequacies at the FSA without giving new rules implemented by the FCA time to bed in.

Clarke Willmott solicitor Laura Hazell says the independent report, carried out by Andrew Green QC, does not take into account the improvements the FCA and PRA have already made.

In July 2015 the FCA and PRA introduced final rules for the senior managers regime for banks – making senior individuals within those organisations accountable for their decisions. Both organisations have also collected significant fines for foreign exchange and Libor manipulation since they were set up.

Hazell says: “The Green report relates to something that happened in 2007. The criticisms are quite right but all of the conduct and failings referred to are pre-FCA and PRA. There has already been a significant change to improve things and these thoughts about separating an enforcement body are designed for public perception.

“That is something Treasury committee chairman Andrew Tyrie keeps repeating. He says ‘we need to bolster perception of the FCA enforcement functions, we need to win public confidence’.”

Since 1 April 2013 when the FCA was set up, it has collected £2.73bn in fines while the PRA has collected £19.8m. The FCA’s enforcement division currently has around 600 staff and does the bulk of the enforcement work of the two regulators, with some investigations carried out jointly.

Previous PRA enforcement action has related to firms’ IT system failures, inappropriate outsourcing processes, and firms not properly reporting their capital levels. For its part, the FCA has criminal, civil and regulatory powers.

Pinsent Masons senior associate Michael Ruck considers the separation issue is more relevant for the PRA and its enforcement abilities.

He says: “Currently, the vast majority of their enforcement work goes through the FCA’s enforcement division. They have grown the team at the PRA a little bit but, in reality, the investigations are done by the FCA enforcement division with oversight from the PRA and the smaller PRA team.”

The FCA is against a separation of the enforcement division saying it would make it a less effective regulator, as well as highlighting difficulties with the “practical and legal” issues of a split.

Speaking at a Treasury committee hearing last month, PRA chief executive Sam Woods was also against a separate enforcement regulator.

Woods told MPs: “I would be reluctant to see the entire enforcement function departing the regulators. That is because, in our pursuit of safety, standards and policy on protection, we have a suite of tools. My predecessor, Andrew [Bailey], was very clear that he didn’t think the PRA should be generally enforcement-led, and I agree, but it is important that we have that tool available to us; first, so we can use it sometimes; and secondly, in order to focus minds. I would be reluctant to see that go.”

King & Wood Mallesons partner Tim Dolan views a potential slice-up of the regulators as “odd” given the FCA and PRA are not enforcement-led organisations.

He says: “The concern is if you have a separate enforcement regulator, you have a body whose role in life is to take action rather than to try to help firms get the best outcome. My concern is we will have a body that will only recognise its performance by the scale of activity it takes each year and whether or not that activity has increased year-on-year.

“Fining firms is not the be-all and end-all of enforcement. It is often a matter of working with other parts of the regulator – supervision, even authorisation, sometimes to get the outcome that is best for the firm, for the individuals at the firm, and for consumers.”

It is also unclear whether a separate enforcement regulator could be truly independent.

Hazell predicts a separate body would likely just mean an internal reshuffle of existing enforcement staff, ultimately resulting in an extra layer of bureaucracy.

She says: “If the Government was to hive off those departments and make them separate it would just give another layer of reporting and communication. The FCA would carry on with all its other duties but then would have to report what it finds to this new separate entity. You are duplicating costs and time.”

Dolan assumes the roles that would move to the new regulator would include investigators, enforcement lawyers and those responsible for working with overseas regulators.

He says: “It is unclear if a separate regulator would report to the FCA and PRA or is accountable to the wider financial services industry.”

4 Pump Court financial services barrister Peter Hamilton considers the most appropriate reporting line for a new enforcement regulator would be the Treasury.

He says: “If it is to be independent, presumably the word independent means independent of the current regulators. Therefore, the enforcement division can’t just be pushed to a different building with a different head, it would need to be much more independent than that. I’m not sure there is anywhere else to go but report directly to the Treasury. It would, in essence, be a Government department.”

Apfa director general Chris Hannant adds the FCA and PRA are jointly more expensive than the FSA was and points out advisers hardly need the extra cost a third regulator would impose.

Hannant says Apfa has a “scepticism of reorganisation”, saying these exercises “waste money,  take time and distract people from doing their jobs.”

A joint FCA/PRA consultation on changes to enforcement procedures following the Green Report and a 2014 Treasury review closed last month. A policy statement will follow in due course.

Adviser views

Facts & Figures Financial Planning

Director

Simon Webster

At the moment one of the problems with regulation is there doesn’t seem to be an effective communication between the FCA and the Financial Ombudsman Service. You can follow FCA rules but still fall foul of the ombudsman.

Breaking up the FCA to create a separate enforcement division is likely to add to this problem – creating more cracks in the system.

Philip J Milton & Company

Managing director

Philip Milton

I don’t think the enforcement division should be separated out from the FCA. This is just an excuse for more quangos and more highly paid individuals. The FCA already has an enforcement division, but it does seem somewhat inadequate. Rather than make this a separate body I would simply like to see it act more firmly and more effectively.

How MPs want to reform regulation

This is not the first time a separate enforcement body has been suggested. The Treasury committee references a 2013 Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards report that recommended enforcement be moved into a separate statutory body. This was later rejected by a Treasury-led review.

It argues a “re-examination” of separation is warranted because when the FSA was in operation the relationship between enforcement and supervision was problematic.

The Treasury committee puts the collapse of HBOS down to prudential failings. It says it is not right that the bulk of enforcement staff sit within the FCA, which does not play a role in the prudential oversight of banks. It therefore says an independent enforcement body should sit “equidistant” between the FCA and the Prudential Regulation Authority.

It considers a separate organisation would bolster the perception that enforcement is independent and calls the current system where the same regulator supervises, applies and prosecutes the law “outdated”. It says confidence in the impartiality of regulatory enforcement decisions could increase and that enforcement staff could “objectively scrutinise” supervisors’ actions.

Finally, it says having three regulators – the FCA, the PRA and an enforcement regulator – would give the organisations better “clarity on their objectives”. It says an FCA with fewer objectives alongside a separate enforcement body would result in better accountability and outcomes.

It concludes by saying: “The case for structural separation has merit. The Treasury committee expects the Treasury to appoint an independent reviewer to re-examine the case for a separate enforcement body.”

Recommended

FCA interior logo 620x430
6

Treasury committee calls for break-up of ‘overloaded’ FCA

MPs in the influential Treasury committee are calling for the FCA to separate out its enforcement division following a damning report in the collapse of HBOS. In a report published yesterday, the committee said an “independent enforcement function” should sit between the FCA and PRA. It says the current system – where one body supervises, […]

4

Under pressure: Is the FCA’s growing remit hurting regulation?

Financial services firms have raised concerns the FCA’s ever-expanding remit could be hampering effective policymaking as the regulator is increasingly being stretched too thin. The regulator’s scope has grown steadily since its inception in April 2013 as policymakers continue to increase its oversight of the financial services sector. It has taken on regulating consumer credit […]

FCA logo new 3 620x430
7

MPs demand leaner FCA with lower running costs

The Treasury committee has demanded greater transparency on the FCA’s running costs asking it to work towards becoming a smaller organisation. In a letter sent to FCA chairman John Griffith-Jones this week, committee chair Andrew Tyrie accused the FCA of not doing enough to implement a previous recommendation of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards […]

Frexit & contagion risk in Europe

Many commentators have suggested that the UK’s exit from the European Union will trigger a domino effect, leading to its eventual break-up. Neptune’s Rob Burnett discusses the likelihood of this happening. Read more: Important information Investment risks Neptune funds may have a high historic volatility rating and past performance is not a guide for future […]

Unfinished business?

Pension specialist Fiona Tait gives an update on three big announcements from the 2016 Budget – Pensions Advice Allowance (PAA), the Lifetime ISA (LISA) and the pension dashboard. £500 Pensions Advice Allowance What’s new Under current rules it is possible to deduct an adviser charge from a defined contribution pension fund to pay for financial […]

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. Having never been subject to any sort of regulatory enforcement (thankfully), I can’t really comment on this proposal, though I’m coming round to Garry Heath’s proposal for the FCA and its funding to be segmented, starting with a clearly defined sub-division specifically for Independent & Restricted FA’s. At present, there seems to be no accountability or scope for negotiation on how the FCA apportions its total levy bill levy between the various sectors it regulates ~ it’s just X% for the adviser sector (which goes up and up way ahead of inflation every year) and that’s it. How does this relate to the amount of regulation that the adviser sector actually warrants and is it a reasonable allocation of the FCA’s increasingly stretched resources?

  2. Aarrhh, the good ole FCA/FSA enforcement division…….

    Conjures visions of the Spanish Inquisition, red hot pokers, thumb screws, and limb dislocations……..

    I have, had experience of enforcement that came after a visit, and it to was like the Spanish Inquisition, maybe not from the physical side of the so called cure, but certainly from a financial,mental and emotional side it was all but the same. (not at all nice, when you have done nothing wrong, and its proved at the end of the process you have done nothing wrong)

    Any who, back to the question no I don’t think there should be a separation, but I do believe there should be some sacking’s the righteous, unchecked, uncontrolled, and the open licence to judge without question (a summoner if you will) is still as strong today as it was at the FSA and Sants reign of fear !

    And all to often we hear of the same people sat at the same desks, moving them to a different building will not solve the problem !

Leave a comment