Is the FCA’s name and shame policy now dead in the water?

On 6 February, the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee published its response to the latest iteration of the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) proposals to ‘name and shame’ firms under investigation by the regulator. 

At present, the FCA publicly announces its investigations at an early stage only ‘in exceptional circumstances’. In February 2024, the FCA published a consultation on its proposal to use what it called a ‘public interest framework’ to allow it to announce more investigations at an early stage. What was already a controversial proposal was made more so by, for example, expressly excluding the impact on the firm itself from the public interest assessment and proposing a less than generous 24-hour notice period for the firm ahead of a public announcement.

The backlash from industry was immediate and profound, with concerns as to the potentially irreparable reputational harm it would cause firms, in circumstances where 67% of FCA investigations conclude with no further action, and the broader impact on the UK’s international competitiveness. This led the FCA, in November 2024, to make a number of amendments, which sought to address these concerns. However, the committee’s new report on the matter suggests that this may very much be a case of too little, too late.

The committee report

The report’s conclusions, and the excoriating terms in which they are expressed, has put the future of the reforms in real doubt. Its very title, ‘How not to regulate’, very much sets the tone: it goes beyond mere probing some of the technical detail of implementation and calls into the question the FCA’s approach from the outset.

The committee considers the fact that the FCA was surprised by the strength of the opposition to its initial proposals ‘suggests a worrying disconnect with industry on the part of senior FCA leadership’. The FCA’s failure to trial the proposals on its regulatory initiatives grid and to engage with industry at a sufficiently early stage has, in the view of the committee, damaged the sector’s confidence in the regulator. In a particularly damning section, the committee finds the regulator’s initial stance that the proposals aligned with international standards to be ‘misplaced and misleading’, noting that the FCA has now, in the face of challenge, simply pivoted to a new position, relying upon the ‘uniqueness’ of the UK. Recognising the risk that the proposals would in fact render the UK an international outlier, the committee is ‘unconvinced’ by the FCA’s explanation as to how these reforms will further the regulator’s objective to promote international competitiveness and growth.

The wider impact

Regulatory lawyers have broadly welcomed the committee’s intervention, with many seeing it as another nail in the coffin for a scheme that has caused significant concern to clients across the financial sector. Firms, large and small, across the breadth of the financial sector have united in their opposition. Individuals too are concerned: while the proposals are at present confined to firms, the fact that the senior managers of firms are a matter of public record means that they will suffer collateral reputational damage when investigations are published. For both firms and individuals, the harm is largely caused at the point of publication: it is small comfort when the investigation is quietly shelved some months, or even years, later.