UK’s Financial Conduct Authority Has One Eye on Europe, One on Asia
The UK regulator has strong words for asset managers on best execution, while it builds bridges for fintech development with its Japanese counterpart.
Who would want to be a regulator? While I can’t claim to be acquainted with the intricacies of day-to-day life overseeing the operations of financial markets, on the surface it seems to be a thankless and often frustrating task.
This week UK regulator the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) sent out a stark warning to asset managers on best execution practices, stating in a press release that “much of the poor practice outlined in its prior thematic review has not been addressed.”
In particular, the FCA pointed out that while asset managers “had management information that allowed them to accurately view equity execution costs,” the use of the information was inconsistent, and many firms “could not evidence any improvement to their execution process based on these data and the review of it was largely a ‘tick box’ exercise.”
Another point of contention for the FCA was that many compliance staff were not empowered by senior management to provide an “effective challenge to the front office on execution quality.”
As I wrote in my Mifid II: Best Execution May See Heads Roll feature last year, Mifid II will introduce a sizable shift in how best execution is measured and demonstrated, so it’s concerning to see the regulator making such an assessment of the buy side’s readiness, particularly given that its thematic review was carried out in 2014.
The FCA said it will return to the issue this year to evaluate what asset managers are doing to remedy the gaps in their best execution practices, but stopped short of mentioning any kind of enforcement action. Should the regulator find that the industry hasn’t sufficiently moved since 2014, or even worse, gone backwards, harsher action may need to be taken.
Reaching Out
While the FCA grapples with the UK buy side to improve its best execution practices, it also has an eye on the wider fintech community. The outcome of Brexit is still far from certain and until Article 50 is actually triggered, much will remain unknown.
There has been plenty of speculation about what will happen to the London’s status as the go-to European fintech hub once the UK withdraws from the European Union, but apart from the odd contingency plan being drawn up, most firms are having to remain patient until more details are made public.
In the meantime, the FCA is attempting to build relationships outside of Europe and its latest effort is to establish a framework to develop fintech firms and innovation with its Japanese counterpart, the Financial Services Agency of Japan (JFSA).
An exchange of letters between the two regulators was published this week, outlining a project to “provide a regulatory referral system for Innovator Businesses from Japan and the UK seeking to enter the other’s market.”
While similar frameworks have already been established by the FCA with other Asian regulators, Japan isn’t exactly famous for its financial services technology industry. Hong Kong and Singapore are the main two superpowers in Asian-Pacific when it comes to fintech, but perhaps the FCA is instead looking to reach out to any potential partners it can outside of Europe before the inevitable finally happens.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@waterstechnology.com or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.waterstechnology.com/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
More on Regulation
Bond tape hopefuls size up commercial risks as FCA finalizes tender
Consolidated tape bidders say the UK regulator is set to imminently publish crucial final details around technical specifications and data licensing arrangements for the finished infrastructure.
The Waters Cooler: A little crime never hurt nobody
Do you guys remember that 2006 Pitchfork review of Shine On by Jet?
Removal of Chevron spells t-r-o-u-b-l-e for the C-A-T
Citadel Securities and the American Securities Association are suing the SEC to limit the Consolidated Audit Trail, and their case may be aided by the removal of a key piece of the agency’s legislative power earlier this year.
BlackRock, BNY see T+1 success in industry collaboration, old frameworks
Industry testing and lessons from the last settlement change from T+3 to T+2 were some of the components that made the May transition run smoothly.
How ‘Bond gadgets’ make tackling data easier for regulators and traders
The IMD Wrap: Everyone loves the hype around AI, especially financial firms. And now, even regulators are getting in on the act. But first... “The name’s Bond; J-AI-mes Bond”
Can the EU and UK reach T+1 together?
Prompted by the North American migration, both jurisdictions are drawing up guidelines for reaching next-day settlement.
Waters Wavelength Ep. 293: Reference Data Drama
Tony and Reb discuss the Financial Data Transparency Act's proposed rules around identifiers and the industry reaction.
Clearing houses fear being classified as DORA third parties
As the 2025 deadline looms, CCP and exchange members are seeking risk information that’s usually deemed confidential.