UK Chancellor Jeremy Hunt Clashes with FCA over Controversial “Name and Shame” Policy

by Damian Chmiel
  • He joins the voices arguing that the FCA's plan could hinder economic growth.
  • The debate underscores the increasing tension between the government and the regulator.
Chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt (HM Treasury)
Chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt (HM Treasury)

The United Kingdom’s Chancellor Jeremy Hunt has openly criticized the Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) proposed plan to publicly disclose the names of companies under investigation at an earlier stage.

The chancellor's intervention highlights the growing tension between the industry and the regulator, being another voice of criticism coming from the UK government regarding the controversial plan.

The UK Chancellor Urges FCA to Reconsider “Naming and Shaming” Policy

The FCA's controversial proposal, which aims to "name and shame" firms under investigation more frequently and earlier in the process, has faced fierce opposition from both the government and the City of London.

Critics argue that this approach undermines the presumption of innocence and could potentially harm the UK's international competitiveness in the financial services industry.

“I think it’s completely reasonable to name and shame a failing water company,” Hunt told FT. “But I think in a financial services context, it’s different.”

Chancellor Hunt also emphasized the importance of the FCA's secondary growth duty, which was introduced last year alongside the Prudential Regulation Authority's new competitiveness and growth objectives.

He urged the regulator to reconsider its decision, stating that the proposed policy "doesn't feel consistent" with the FCA's new responsibilities to promote growth in the financial sector.

The Chancellor's statements align with previous comments made by British ministers. For instance, Kemi Badenoch, the Business Secretary and Equalities Minister, criticized the FCA for "regulatory over-reach

Private Sector Also Says No

Similarly, the FCA's approach lacks support within the private sector. Silvija Krupena, the Director of the Financial Intelligence Unit at RedCompass Labs, warned of a "real danger" that the FCA might become a watchdog that "only barks" but "does not bite."

„The FCA is caught between a rock and a hard place,” commented Krupena. “Naming and shaming shouldn’t be the FCA’s next move. Instead, the focus should be on giving the regulator teeth by providing more powers and resources to do its job better.”

Krupena cited the need to conduct annual bank exams and more thorough investigations. Currently, 65% of all cases conclude without any action, typically taking four years. This means that every second company could be "named and shamed" unjustly, which would undoubtedly have a negative impact on its reputation.

“It would significantly and pointlessly damage a firm’s reputation and value,” Miles Celic, the Chief Executive of TheCityUK, told FT. His statement clearly shows that the legal industry is also concerned. “Especially given that FCA investigations take four years on average and many conclude without requiring any action.”

What Is the FCA's Position?

The FCA has responded to the chancellor's comments by reaffirming its commitment to its primary objectives of protecting consumers, market integrity, and effective competition and its secondary objective of facilitating international competitiveness and growth.

“As we have said throughout the process, this is a consultation,” the FCA responded to Hunt’s comments. The watchdog added that it would carefully consider the extensive feedback received, including from the government, before deciding on its next steps.

Industry groups, such as the Managed Funds Association, have also called for the FCA to withdraw the proposal. They warn that publicly naming firms before any wrongdoing is established could damage the UK's position as a global financial center and prompt many firms to leave or avoid entering the UK market altogether.

“MFA is concerned that the proposals would compromise the effective and orderly operation of markets, and strongly suggests that the FCA withdraw the proposals under the Consultation Paper in their entirety,” the MFA commented in the e-mailed statement sent to Finance Magnates.

The outcome of this debate will have significant implications for the future of the UK's financial regulatory landscape and its ability to attract and retain international investment in the post-Brexit era.

The United Kingdom’s Chancellor Jeremy Hunt has openly criticized the Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) proposed plan to publicly disclose the names of companies under investigation at an earlier stage.

The chancellor's intervention highlights the growing tension between the industry and the regulator, being another voice of criticism coming from the UK government regarding the controversial plan.

The UK Chancellor Urges FCA to Reconsider “Naming and Shaming” Policy

The FCA's controversial proposal, which aims to "name and shame" firms under investigation more frequently and earlier in the process, has faced fierce opposition from both the government and the City of London.

Critics argue that this approach undermines the presumption of innocence and could potentially harm the UK's international competitiveness in the financial services industry.

“I think it’s completely reasonable to name and shame a failing water company,” Hunt told FT. “But I think in a financial services context, it’s different.”

Chancellor Hunt also emphasized the importance of the FCA's secondary growth duty, which was introduced last year alongside the Prudential Regulation Authority's new competitiveness and growth objectives.

He urged the regulator to reconsider its decision, stating that the proposed policy "doesn't feel consistent" with the FCA's new responsibilities to promote growth in the financial sector.

The Chancellor's statements align with previous comments made by British ministers. For instance, Kemi Badenoch, the Business Secretary and Equalities Minister, criticized the FCA for "regulatory over-reach

Private Sector Also Says No

Similarly, the FCA's approach lacks support within the private sector. Silvija Krupena, the Director of the Financial Intelligence Unit at RedCompass Labs, warned of a "real danger" that the FCA might become a watchdog that "only barks" but "does not bite."

„The FCA is caught between a rock and a hard place,” commented Krupena. “Naming and shaming shouldn’t be the FCA’s next move. Instead, the focus should be on giving the regulator teeth by providing more powers and resources to do its job better.”

Krupena cited the need to conduct annual bank exams and more thorough investigations. Currently, 65% of all cases conclude without any action, typically taking four years. This means that every second company could be "named and shamed" unjustly, which would undoubtedly have a negative impact on its reputation.

“It would significantly and pointlessly damage a firm’s reputation and value,” Miles Celic, the Chief Executive of TheCityUK, told FT. His statement clearly shows that the legal industry is also concerned. “Especially given that FCA investigations take four years on average and many conclude without requiring any action.”

What Is the FCA's Position?

The FCA has responded to the chancellor's comments by reaffirming its commitment to its primary objectives of protecting consumers, market integrity, and effective competition and its secondary objective of facilitating international competitiveness and growth.

“As we have said throughout the process, this is a consultation,” the FCA responded to Hunt’s comments. The watchdog added that it would carefully consider the extensive feedback received, including from the government, before deciding on its next steps.

Industry groups, such as the Managed Funds Association, have also called for the FCA to withdraw the proposal. They warn that publicly naming firms before any wrongdoing is established could damage the UK's position as a global financial center and prompt many firms to leave or avoid entering the UK market altogether.

“MFA is concerned that the proposals would compromise the effective and orderly operation of markets, and strongly suggests that the FCA withdraw the proposals under the Consultation Paper in their entirety,” the MFA commented in the e-mailed statement sent to Finance Magnates.

The outcome of this debate will have significant implications for the future of the UK's financial regulatory landscape and its ability to attract and retain international investment in the post-Brexit era.

About the Author: Damian Chmiel
Damian Chmiel
  • 1429 Articles
  • 28 Followers
About the Author: Damian Chmiel
Damian's adventure with financial markets began at the Cracow University of Economics, where he obtained his MA in finance and accounting. Starting from the retail trader perspective, he collaborated with brokerage houses and financial portals in Poland as an independent editor and content manager. His adventure with Finance Magnates began in 2016, where he is working as a business intelligence analyst.
  • 1429 Articles
  • 28 Followers

More from the Author

Retail FX

!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|} !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}