Talk:Financial Conduct Authority

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Neutrality

removing some of the tubthumping —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.66.2 (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Status

The FCA will not be an agency of the UK Government. HM Treasury press release “It will operate as an independent body separate from Government, financed by fees paid by the financial services industry” Misterwhiskers (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested rewording: The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), previously known as the Consumer Protection and Markets Authority (CPMA), is a future regulatory body, formed as one of the successors to the Financial Services Authority. It will operate as an independent body separate from the UK government, financed by fees paid by the financial services industry Misterwhiskers (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The press release you link to above does not contain the quite you include, nor does it contain any statement to the same or similar effect. When making a {{
verify the suggested change. DES (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
After significant searching, and several edits to add citations and information to the article, i did not find a
reliable source which stated that the new FCA will be independent (although the independence of the parallel PRA was mentioned). Edit request decliend pending the provision of specific citations which support this statement. DES (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

{{request edit}}

In the HM Treasury press release, the text quoted aboive is in the last sentence of the first note to editors. I have also found an article from a broadsheet newspaper (the FT) that states: 'As head of the independent Financial Conduct Authority, he will have enhanced powers to ban products and practices.' FT link

Also, the independent status is outlined in the UK Treasury's consultation document: 4.30 'The new CPMA will be independent of Government, and will take the corporate form of a company limited by guarantee, financed by the financial services industry'. A new approach to financial regulation: judgement, focus and stability - see page 35

The page for the FSA says: 'It is structured as a company limited by guarantee and is funded entirely by fees charged to the financial services industry.' The same description could be used for the FCA. Misterwhiskers (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  DoneI did not add this quote directly but I did update the description to call it "quasi-governmental" Gigs (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please could an editor review 'quasi-governmental' and update this to 'independent agency' Financial Times Article:“The Financial Conduct Authority, an independent agency led by Martin Wheatley,” Misterwhiskers (talk) 09:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm declining for now, but if you feel strongly I would suggest getting a second opinion or providing more context. Based on the preliminary research I did on the definition of 'quasi-governmental' and what this organization does, it seemed like an ok way to describe them, unless they are not provided with any resources by the government. "Independent" is open to interpretation, but is supported by the source.
If another editor comes upon this discussion and has a different opinion, please make whatever change you feel is appropriate. CorporateM (Talk) 17:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While there’s a case to be made that quasi-governmental could just mean ‘supported by the government but managed privately’, Wikipedia itself defines ‘quasi-governmental’ as a synonym for a quango (and a quango is popularly understood to be funded by taxpayers or financially supported by the government). See:

What does quango stand for? Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisation….an organisation that is funded by taxpayers, but not controlled directly by central government. BBC news website

A quasi-governmental organization, corporation, business, or agency (parastatal) or a "quasi-autonomous national government organisation" (Quango) is an entity that is treated by national laws and regulations to be under the guidance of the government but separate and autonomous from the government. Wikipedia

Here are some sources supporting the fact the FCA is independent from government, funded by the firms it regulates and different from the popular understanding of ‘quasi governmental / quango’.

‘The FCA will be responsible for the conduct regulation of all retail and wholesale financial services firms operating in the UK and will be the UK markets regulator and listings authority. It will also carry out prudential regulation of all firms not regulated by the PRA. It will operate as an independent body separate from Government, financed by fees paid by the financial services industry.’ HM Treasury press release

From the Financial Times (emphasises the FCA’s independence and shows where its fees come from – firms not taxpayers): ‘The Bank of England announced on Tuesday that its new Prudential Regulation Authority arm will cost £214.2m on top of the £432.1m that the independent Financial Conduct Authority has already proposed.’ FT.com

Misterwhiskers (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meriam Webster's definition of Quasi-Governmental: "supported by the government but managed privately". Since the government created the organization, but it is managed independently, this seems like a fit. Also, there are sources calling FCA quasi-governmental, so you would need to request a correction from them before asking us to make one. We can only repeat what the sources say. When I do a search on Wikipedia for quasi-governmental, the article includes "created by government" even if it's not funded by it. I think you would have better luck asking us to add information about who funds the organization, however in any case I don't see this going anywhere without a subject-matter expert, which Request Edit will not deliver. CorporateM (Talk) 15:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I've reworded the lead a bit, basically accepting this edit request. Misterwhiskers makes a good argument that we don't want the FCA to be confused with a quango, and its independent status seems apparent from the sources they presented. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CPMA

This information is misleading as the new conduct regulator was only ‘provisionally named’ the CPMA, and the TSC did not conclude that the name is ‘misleading’. The Treasury Select Committee’s TSC's Jan 2011 report on Financial Regulation [1] concluded the following: "branding the CPMA as a ‘consumer champion’ would be inappropriate, confusing, and potentially dangerous". Misterwhiskers (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested wording: The conduct regulator’s provisional name of Consumer Protection and Markets Authority (CPMA) was changed after the Treasury Select Committee concluded that branding the CPMA as a ‘consumer champion’ would be potentially misleading.

Reason: The new conduct regulator was only provisionally named the CPMA. It was not the name that the committee commented on, but the branding of the new regulator as a ‘consumer champion’. Misterwhiskers (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The cited document is 85 pages long. Please indicate the precise page or pages which support the proposed edit. If an alternate
reliable source that is independent, such as a news story, can also be provided, that would be better. DES (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

The text quoted in the Treasury Select Committee’s TSC's Jan 2011 report on Financial Regulation [2] is in the fifth paragraph of page 6.

Further background is in this article from the Telegraph newspaper. It states "The FCA has a new name, having been launched under the working title of the Consumer Protection and Markets Authority"

I updated it slightly based on this source[3]. CorporateM (Talk) 17:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Hi, in full compliance with WP:PAID I am working on behalf of the FCA to address certain points of context and accuracy in this article. I hope the following changes might be made to the article and I am very open to hearing any suggestions.


1. Could all of the following content be removed from the Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) section? The PSR is a separate organisation from the FCA. The information is outdated, and the remaining first paragraph of text describes the PSR’s role adequately:

On 20 June 2017, the PSR announced its final decision regarding reforms to the infrastructure of the payment systems in the United Kingdom in order to encourage "better and more innovative services for customers".[18] The regulator's review from December 2016 found that the central infrastructure for the main retail payment systems in the United Kingdom –
LINK
– do not offer effective competition. Two main changes are required:
• To undertake a competitive procurement process for future central infrastructure contracts. With this, the PSR hopes to ensure fair, open and transparent procurement of the central payment systems infrastructure and enable new technology providers to enter the market.
• To adopt a common international messaging standard (ISO 20022) for Bacs and Faster Payments. This change aims to lower barriers and encourage new entrants to the market.
 Already done ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 10:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2. The Sectors and Firms section can also be made broader and also easier to understand by writing it in paragraph form instead of bullet points:

The FCA oversees 13 different firm types from banks and investment managers to mutual societies and fintech firms, and it sits across seven different sectors: retail banking, retail lending, general insurance and protection, pensions and retirement income, retail investments, investment management and wholesale financial markets.
 Done ish. I think this section has expanded since you wrote this replacement text, but I turned the current content into sentences. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 10:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3. In the Leadership section, I see the Chairperson list has recently been updated. However, the supporting information is out of date. Can the following please be added at the end of the Chairperson subsection to bring it up to date:

Charles Randell CBE became chair of the FCA and PSR in April 2018. He will step down in spring 2022. (https://www.ftadviser.com/fca/2021/10/15/charles-randell-resigns-as-fca-chairman/).
Richard Lloyd OBE will act as interim FCA chair from June 2022 (https://www.ftadviser.com/fca/2022/02/07/fca-names-interim-chairman-as-search-gets-underway/)
 Already done ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 10:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4. WP:CSECTION recommends that sections focused on criticisms be avoided, and there is some information in this section that is poorly sourced or unduly focused on particular historic incidents. As a connected contributor I obviously would not suggest simply removing this section, but it does not provide a thorough overview of the history of the FCA.

The following claims all have inadequate sourcing and should be removed. For instance, source 35 and 36 are no longer available on those links. And it is clear from the Response Letter pdf provided in source 38 that there was a pre-appointment hearing for the John Griffith-Jones and such hearing wasn’t required for Martin Wheatley:

The FCA was rebuked by the Treasury Select Committee for lack of concern over the increase in mortgage interest rates of the Bank of Ireland's subsidiary of the United Kingdom.[35][36]
 Not done: Source numbers have changed, but currently these are [4] and [5]. The former is subscription-only but appears to exist. The latter looks fine. Were they different before? (Regardless, we'd usually prefer archive links to outright removing them.) ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 10:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There has also been criticism of Chief Executive Martin Wheatley because of his responsibility for the minibond fiasco in Hong Kong. There were not the customary pre-appointment hearings for either John Griffith-Jones or Martin Wheatley, so that people could not disapprove of these appointments by submitting evidence to such hearings.[38]
This paragraph is no longer in the article at all, nothing to do here. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 10:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

6. Finally, the below claim does not have sufficient context and is not particularly encyclopaedic; the article sourced and amount quoted is regarding a wider 2017 brand refresh, not only a new logo, which is arguably not of major historic significance:

In 2017, the FCA was criticised by MP Chris Philp, who sat on the Treasury Select Committee, for spending £66,000 on a new logo that was hardly different from their previous logo.[41]
 Already done ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 10:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking over these proposed changes. Airguedes (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to address some of these concerns. Vgbyp (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Financial_Conduct_Authority&oldid=1207225453"