FCA admits errors over plan to ‘name and shame’ firms under investigation

The City regulator has admitted that it mishandled plans to start naming firms it is investigating after the proposals faced a fierce backlash from the financial services industry.
In a sign that the Financial Conduct Authority is preparing to compromise on elements of its plan, a senior official at the watchdog used a speech on Tuesday to reassure the industry that the regulator was listening to business concerns.
Therese Chambers, joint executive director of enforcement and market oversight, conceded that proposals to disclose more details of its investigations had become a “lightning rod” and that “the companies we regulate were overwhelmingly against”.
Chambers also acknowledged missteps in the way that the regulator had broached the proposed changes, saying that “we heard loud and clear that the criteria we consulted on were too high level and lacked specificity”.
“We are not going to rush this,” she told a conference held by the Association for Financial Markets in Europe. “I want to reassure everyone here today that we have heard the strength of feeling on this, from all sides, and that this is very much an ongoing conversation.”
The authority has come under criticism from the industry since revealing in February that it was planning a shake-up of its policy of mainly keeping investigations secret.
Under the proposed new approach, the regulator would identify companies that are the subject of its inquiries if it believes there is a public interest in doing so.
This would bring the authority into line with other British watchdogs, including the Serious Fraud Office and the Financial Reporting Council, which usually announce when they have started an inquiry. The FCA believes that a more open approach will help whistleblowers come forward with evidence and act as a deterrent to poor conduct in the industry.
However, the authority has faced criticism that it will “name and shame” firms, even though the majority of the watchdog’s investigations are ultimately closed without any further action being taken. A consultation on the plan closed in April and the industry has lobbied heavily against the proposals.
Chambers said: “We have been reflecting on the range of serious concerns raised and working to build understanding. We do think the case for a degree more transparency remains strong. But it needs to be seen within the vital context of a focused number of cases likely to deliver the greatest deterrent.”