View more on these topics

Should we regulate based on fear?

Be afraid. Be very afraid. That clearly is the message that the FSA wants the financial services sector to take from its review of financial penalties, now the subject of a consultation exercise.

The press response has focused on the proposed increase in penalties for market abuse.

However, the wider impact is likely to be in relation to the penalties that the FSA will now seek to impose on authorised firms and individuals who fail to discharge their regulatory obligations. And it is the proposals for fining individuals for serious regulatory failings that are likely to be the most controversial.

The example that the FSA uses is a person holding an SIF at a large financial institution who, as a result of a serious lack of competence, but without acting dishonestly or recklessly, fails to ensure proper oversight of the sale of a particular investment product, thus putting customers at risk. In such a case, based on the individual’s gross annual income of £135,000 (comprising salary, bonus and benefits) the FSA says it would look to impose a financial penalty of in excess of £25,000. (This is in addition to any fine imposed on the firm itself and the cost of remediation).

The calculation of the penalty assumes full cooperation by the individual (which earns a derisory 3 per cent discount) and a further 30 per cent reduction for early settlement. The FSA has also made it clear that it would only reduce the level of penalty for “serious financial hardship” where payment would reduce the individuals annual net income and total capital below £14,000 and £16,000 respectively.

There are some serious issues that arise from all of this. For example, what happens if the firm wants to admit to breaches but the individual denies culpability – or at least the extent of his/her responsibility? The FSA has also said that it will increasingly use its powers to remove people from the industry where issues of competence (and not just integrity) arise. If so, is it fair to both ban and fine someone for incompetence? On a holistic level, are the proposals likely to encourage good people to take on SIFs?

The FSA’s proposals also assume that those on the end of enforcement action will be willing to agree to reach settlements based on penalties of the range being proposed. If settlements are not agreed, then matters are referred to the Tribunal as the ultimate arbiter. The inevitable consequence of a system which is seen as operating unduly harshly is that it will be challenged and so referrals to the Tribunal are likely to increase. That being the case it is debatable whether the FSA’s new policy (assuming it does not change during the consultation process) will survive review by the Tribunal.

It is to be hoped that the FSA will take these issues into account as part of the consultation process. The fact that the FSA wants to bring more transparency and consistency to the process of setting penalties is laudable. But it is debatable whether a regulatory system based on fear of the consequences of getting things wrong is what we should aspire to.


Tax year-end planning for annual allowance

Last tax year-end there was a lot to think about in relation to planning. The introduction of the tapered annual allowance and the implications of moving to a fixed pension input period, the reduction in the lifetime allowance and potentially applying for protection, and the concern about changes to tax relief, to name a few. […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


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

  1. Fors and againsts
    I can see both fors and againsts of what the FSA is proposing here. I do however think that the FSA has not made best use of some of the things it coudl already do. The FSA register for instance only shows disciplinary history when someone has been struck off. Would it not be better for fines, disciplinary action and concerns as to competence to be shown publicly so that both clients and prospective employers can make a decision as to whetehr teh conerns are warranted (or not) before employing someone or making use of their services.
    Fines seem to be a sledghammer to crack a nut. The FSA also need to be very careful about mistakenly fining someone when they have no clear right of appeal as the reaction of a farmer throwing slurry across a building and response to the FSA coudl be similar where individuals do not believe they have recieved impartial justice.

  2. Julian Stevens 24th July 2009 at 4:49 pm

    Should we regulate based on fear?
    A pity that Clive Briault wasn’t given similar treatment. Instead, he got paid a golden parachute of £535,000 (with our money). As usual, it’s one set of rules for them but quite another for the rest of us. Some things never change ~ though with luck, they might just before too much longer.

Leave a comment


Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers. Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm