The FCA would have put forward its controversial ‘name and shame’ proposals differently in hindsight, the boss of the regulator has told the House of Lords.
Nikhil Rathi was asked whether the FCA would have published their name and shame proposals with hindsight.
The chief executive told the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation committee there was still a “live debate” around the proposals.
It launched a consultation on the controversial plans in February 2024, but following backlash it made “significant changes” to its original plans to publicly announce enforcement action.
This included giving firms more notice it would be publishing details and additions to a public interest test.
Yesterday (January 22), Rathi told peers with “100 per cent hindsight” the FCA would have done things differently than it had back in 2024.
He said: “We would have done things differently in terms of how the first consultation went.
“I would still stand behind the rationale for more transparency on our part, particularly in this context of accountability, but also because of the consumer protection and other angles we have.
“What is not always fully digested is the number of unauthorised cases we’re dealing with where we don’t have the same powers as we do for regulated firms. Our ability to talk about that is quite important in this very fast changing risk environment.”
Rathi said the FCA’s “broad remit” can be a challenge for the regulator, meaning it has to prioritise resources and take judgements about what is potentially most harmful.
The CEO concluded by stressing it made sense for the FCA to consult on the initial name and shame proposals, adding “but we would certainly have done it differently”.
tara.o’connor@ft.com
What’s your view?
Have your say in the comments section below or email us: ftadviser.newsdesk@ft.com
