Your Comments  

FT Adviser readers say name and shame plans may damage innocent firms

FT Adviser readers say name and shame plans may damage innocent firms
The FCA's consultation on the plans closed at the end of April. (Reuters/Toby Melville)

FT Adviser readers have come out in force against Financial Conduct Authority plans to name firms under investigation at an earlier stage.

This week, FT Adviser spoke to head of regulatory intelligence at Global Relay, Rob Mason, who said the move could encourage firms to settle sooner. 

Mason argued it could allow the firm in question to move on and the regulator redirect resources to other risks. 

Article continues after advert

Readers commenting on the story raised concerns it could lead to a “trial by media”. 

One reader wrote:

They added: "If this does even cause damage to just one innocent firm in the future does this not go against the FCA's objective to protect the integrity and improve confidence in the market?"

Another reader said: “And what happens when it turns out FCA is wrong? Reputations ruined and no recourse.”

While a further reader said lengthy legal battles between firms and the regulator were not necessarily a bad thing.

Regarding this point, Mason said he believed the FCA would consider carefully when it named people. 

He added: “The idea that the FCA is going to just willy nilly name people where they've got a spurious suspicion is a little bit extreme.”

Another reader said there needed to be more oversight of the FCA from an independent body. They said: 

The regulator said naming firms at an earlier stage could increase transparency and deter wrongdoing in the first place. 

The consultation on the plans closed on April 30 but the proposal has already received criticism, including concerns about people being named then found to have done no wrong. 

Earlier this month, the regulator said: "We know that firms benefit hugely from understanding the issues that lead us to investigate and that they use that understanding to drive higher standards of conduct.

"We know that consumers benefit significantly from knowing when the regulator is on the case. And we know that a number of those to whom we are accountable have frequently and forcefully expressed their frustration at our lack of transparency hitherto."

tara.o'connor@ft.com

What's your view?

Have your say in the comments section below or email us: ftadviser.newsdesk@ft.com