In recent developments, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has reviewed its controversial “name and shame” proposals, opting to maintain its existing approach to publicizing enforcement inquiries. This decision comes after the extensive consultations and criticisms from various stakeholders, reflecting the complications inherent in balancing regulatory transparency with market stability and fairness to firms under investigation.
The birth of ‘Name and Shame’ Proposals
In February 2024, the FCA introduced a consultation paper (CP24/2) proposing a new approach to publicizing enforcement investigations. The primary objective was to foster transparency, deter misconduct, and safeguard consumers by announcing investigations at an earlier stage. The FCA believed that multiplied openness could bolster public confidence and serve as a deterrent against potential wrongdoing.
However, the proposals faced major opposition from industry stakeholders, legal experts, and parliamentary committees. Critics argued that premature disclosure of investigations could lead to unjustified reputational harm to firms, especially considering that a substantial proportion of investigations do not result in enforcement action. Concerns were also put forth about potential market instability and the competitiveness of the UK’s financial sector.
Revisits and Consultations
In response to the feedback, the FCA published a further consultation in November 2024 (CP24/2, Part 2), proposing noteworthy changes to its initial approach:
- Public Interest Test Enhancements
- Extended Notice Periods
- Exclusion of Existing Cases
Despite these revisions, concerns were still there. The House of Lords Financial Regulation Committee labeled the FCA’s plan an “abject failure,” stating that it lacked an acceptable balance between transparency and the risks to firms and market stability. They underscored the potential reputational damage to companies and the fact that over half of the investigations concluded without enforcement actions.
The Decision and Reactions
In March 2025, the FCA announced its decision to put down and abandon the proposed changes, opting to retain the existing “exceptional circumstances” test for publicizing investigations. FCA Chief Executive Nikhil Rathi focused on the need for building consensus while defending the initial proposals as necessary to protect investors. However, the lack of consensus and the potential negative impacts on the financial sector led to the decision to maintain the status quo.
This outcome has aroused mixed reactions. Consumer groups and advocates for greater transparency expressed disappointment, arguing that the decision grades industry interests over consumer protection. Conversely, industry representatives and legal experts welcomed the move, affirming that it prevents unjust reputational harm and preserves market stability. The Managed Funds Association (MFA), for instance, appreciated the FCA’s consideration of the potential unintended aftermath of the original proposal and acknowledged the revised framework’s incorporation of key safeguards.
Implications for FCA’s Enforcement Transparency
The FCA’s decision highlights the challenges regulators face in emphasizing on transparency without compromising fairness and market confidence. While the intention behind the “name and shame” proposals was to safeguard consumers and deter misconduct, the potential for unjustified harm to firms and broader market implications necessitated a cautious approach.
The FCA may need to explore various other alternative strategies to achieve its transparency objectives. This could involve refurbishing internal processes to expedite investigations, thereby diminishing the period of uncertainty for firms and the market. Additionally, the FCA might consider enhancing its communication with stakeholders to build consensus on future proposals, guaranteeing that both consumer protection and industry stability are adequately balanced.
The FCA’s reversal of its “name and shame” proposals underscores the intricate as well as detailed balance regulators must strike between transparency, consumer protection, and the interests of the financial industry. While the decision reflects responsiveness to stakeholder concerns, it also highlights the complications involved in reforming regulatory practices. As the financial scenario continues to evolve, the FCA’s approach to enforcement transparency will likely remain a pivotal point for both industry participants and consumer advocates.
To read more on this, click here.
