Our mortgages tailored support guidance sets out our expectation that firms should not enforce mortgage repossessions, except in exceptional circumstances, before 1 April 2021.
We are publishing updated draft guidance for firms from 1 April, to ensure that mortgage customers whose homes may be repossessed are treated fairly and appropriately, particularly where there are risks of harm to customers who are vulnerable as a result of coronavirus (Covid-19).  
This means that from 1 April, firms can enforce repossessions, but only if they act in accordance with our guidance, and regulatory requirements which mean that repossession should only take place as a last resort if all other reasonable attempts to resolve the position have failed. Firms will also need to comply with any relevant legislative requirements which may prevent firms from enforcing repossession in certain parts of the UK. We recognise that repossessions can be difficult and stressful but delaying repossession can lead to poor customer outcomes as a result of increased balances and equity erosion. This is why we propose to allow firms to repossess homes when it is fair and reasonable to do so.
We are seeking comment on these proposals by 10am on 10 March 2021.
For consumer credit, in January, we updated the credit Tailored Support Guidance so that firms were able to repossess goods and vehicles from 31 January 2021, but only as a last resort, and in accordance with all relevant government public health guidelines and regulations (including social distancing and shielding) when taking possession.
Continued support for consumers as payment deferral application deadline approaches
We want to remind consumer credit and mortgage consumers that the deadline for applications for new payment deferrals under the Payment Deferral Guidance (PDG) is 31 March 2021. Only consumers still in a payment deferral (under the PDG) on 31 March will be able to extend their payment deferral beyond that date. All deferrals under that guidance will end by 31 July 2021 at the latest. However, consumers should think carefully about whether they need to take a payment deferral. Support will continue to be available to consumers in financial difficulty under our Tailored Support Guidance (TSG), which may be more suitable for their needs in the long-term.
From 1 April 2021, consumers who are newly impacted by coronavirus, or find themselves impacted again (whether or not they have previously had a payment deferral), should receive support from their lender in the form of tailored support under the TSG which reflects their individual needs and circumstances. This could include short-term support such as a payment deferral, if it is appropriate, although this would be subject to normal credit reporting.
The PDG enabled firms to deal with unprecedented demand for short-term support resulting from the pandemic. However, demand for payment deferrals has reduced and firms now have the capacity to offer both shorter and longer-term support. That support should provide better outcomes for consumers as it includes a wider range of options and is tailored to their individual needs.
Next steps: firms’ implementation of the TSG
We understand that many consumers will continue to face difficulties as a result of the uncertainty caused by the crisis. We will continue to monitor and supervise how firms are implementing our guidance, to ensure that they continue to provide consumers with support that reflects the challenges that they face. We will publish the findings of our initial supervisory work in this area by the end of March.

[Read More] […]

Read More…

As required by the UK Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (MIFIR), we have published the annual equity transparency calculations. These calculations are available through FCA FITRS (Financial Instrument Transparency Reference System), our transparency calculations publications database.
The calculations include:
the liquidity assessment
the determination of the most relevant market in terms of liquidity (MRM)
the determination of the average daily turnover (ADT) relevant for the determination of the pre-trade and post-trade large in scale (LIS) thresholds
the determination of the average value of the transactions (AVT) and the related the standard market size (SMS)
the determination of the average daily number of transactions (ADNTE) on the most relevant market in terms of liquidity relevant for the determination of the tick-size regime
Based on our calculations, we assessed 497 shares and 341 equity-like instruments (a category that includes Exchange Traded Funds, depositary receipts and certificates) as having a liquid market.
In our December Supervisory Statement, we said that until further notice we would regard the shares of EU issuers who have not sought admission to trading in the UK as illiquid and subject to the pre-trade and post-trade LIS thresholds associated with having an ADT of under 50,000. The published calculations reflect this approach. However, in cases where there are discrepancies in the published results, the approach outlined in paragraph 27 of the Supervisory Statement should prevail.
The annual calculations do not change what we said about tick sizes in paragraphs 54 and 55 of our December 2020 Supervisory Statement. For EU shares, trading venues and Systematic Internalisers (SIs) can use the ADNTE figure published by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) to determine the tick size where it is larger than the published ADNTE.
We are publishing the SMS of equity instruments for the purposes of the pre-trade transparency regime for SIs. This differs from the approach set out in the Statements of Policy because the FCA now has the capability to publish calculations.
Market participants are expected to monitor the release of the transparency calculations for equity and equity-like instruments daily, to obtain the calculations for newly traded instruments.

[Read More] […]

Read More…

The Prudential Regulation Authority and FCA have launched a joint consultation on amending certain onshored Technical Standards. These relate to margin requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives.
We propose introducing or extending exemptions for some products subject to bilateral margining requirements. We also want to align implementation phases and thresholds of the initial margin requirements to international standards.
Our proposals aim to maintain current market practice and give firms legal clarity on these margin requirements.
We want to know what you think. Our consultation is open for 10 weeks, closing on Wednesday 19 May 2021.

[Read More] […]

Read More…

In the November 2020 Spending Review, the Government announced changes to the way that the Retail Prices Index (RPI) inflation measure is calculated from February 2030.
Our Finalised Guidance 17/9: Guidance for firms on how to calculate redress for unsuitable DB pension transfers refers to both the RPI and the Consumer Prices Index (CPI), an alternative inflation measure.
The RPI change means that from February 2030 the -1% adjustment to the RPI assumption used in the guidance to calculate the CPI assumption will not reflect the assumed difference between the RPI and the CPI. It will be too large and some consumers may not receive the correct amount of redress.
This will affect consumers who transfer out of DB pensions that are uprated annually in line with the CPI. We will therefore update the CPI adjustment in the guidance to ensure that these consumers continue to receive appropriate redress.
We intend to update the CPI adjustment by mid-March 2021 and will do so without prior consultation. Consulting on this technical change would delay the correct amount of redress paid to consumers. We will backdate the change to 25 November 2020 and it applies to all calculations carried out from that date, as set out below.
What firms should do while we are updating the guidance
The actions set out below apply to calculations of pension transfer redress offers done in accordance with our guidance on or after 25 November 2020. For example, in relation to consumer complaints, reviews of past business by the firm, and complaints made to the Financial Ombudsman Service. They apply regardless of whether a redress offer has already been settled with a consumer, including on a ‘full and final settlement’ basis.
If, after considering this statement, a firm believes that a calculation might have unduly disadvantaged a customer, they should revisit the calculation:
Firms should consider whether the current approach to calculating CPI inflation in the guidance causes disadvantage to consumers, given changes to market inflation expectations reflected in the Bank of England’s UK instantaneous implied inflation forward curve (gilts) following the Government’s announcement. This is consistent with the general obligation set out in Principle 6 to pay due regard to customers’ interests and treat them fairly, as well as the specific requirements in DISP 1.4.1R to assess complaints fairly, consistently and promptly. 
We consider unfair treatment of a customer is likely to arise where a redress calculation under the guidance does not put the customer into the position they would have been in if the non-compliant or unsuitable advice had not been given, or the breach had not occurred (paragraph 2 of the guidance). Where possible, firms must ensure that the redress calculation reflects the features of the customer’s original defined benefit pension scheme (paragraph 3 of the guidance).
Where a customer was eligible for CPI-uprated benefits if they had not transferred, and firms are aware that applying the guidance results in an inflation assumption that does not reflect CPI, they must account for this in their redress calculation. If firms are unsure how to account for this, eg they need to wait for us to update our guidance before proceeding with the redress calculation, they must advise the customer of this. 
Firms that are concerned about running over the 8 week limit in our rules for responding to complaints should send a written response explaining why and indicate when they will provide a response (DISP 1.6.2R). 
Firms should not settle redress payments, including on a ‘full and final settlement’ basis, until the guidance has been updated.
Our work on DB transfers
Addressing unsuitable defined benefit (DB) transfers has been a key priority for us since the pension reforms, commonly known as the ‘pension freedoms’, were introduced in 2015. We published new rules and guidance for firms advising on DB transfers to improve the suitability of advice. We also take significant action where we consider that firms have not met the standards of advice and behaviour we expect when giving DB transfer advice. Find out more on our DB transfers webpage.

[Read More] […]

Read More…

The FCA supports high regulatory standards in the UK, alongside ensuring our capital markets are dynamic and effective for issuers and investors. Lord Hill’s report provides a valuable contribution in assessing how UK markets and regulation can continue to meet these objectives in future.
The FCA will carefully consider Lord Hill’s recommendations for changes to our listing rules, in line with our objectives, including on free float, dual class share structures, and special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs). Where appropriate, we will act quickly, with the aim of publishing a consultation paper by the summer. This would be open to all stakeholders’ views and responses. Subject to consultation feedback and FCA Board approval, we will seek to make relevant rules by late 2021.
We support the proposal for a fundamental review of the legislative framework for the prospectus regime, with a view to better aligning documentation requirements with the type of transaction being undertaken. The FCA looks forward to working closely with the Government and market participants to discuss and develop policy options that would best achieve this to an ambitious timetable.
Read the UK Listing Review final report (PDF).

[Read More] […]

Read More…

Google UK & Ireland’s Managing Director, Ronan Harris, wrote a letter on 26 February 2021 to the FCA Chairman and CEO about the work Google have been doing to tackle scam advertisements on their platform.
This followed a meeting on 23 February between Mr Harris and the FCA Chairman, Charles Randell, FCA CEO, Nikhil Rathi, FCA Executive Director of Enforcement and Market Oversight, Mark Steward, and FCA Executive Director, Consumers and Competition, Sheldon Mills.

[Read More] […]

Read More…

Since April 2020, when it varied its permissions, Woodford Investment Management Ltd is no longer able to offer investment services to retail clients.
Mr Woodford’s new business, WCM Partners Ltd, would need to apply for appropriate permissions before commencing any regulated activity in the UK. In taking any decision on whether to authorise a firm, we consider whether it is ready, willing and organised to comply, on a continuing basis, with our requirements and standards. That includes, for example, the sustainability of the firm’s business model and the fitness of its management.
There are reports that Mr Woodford’s future business proposal may operate out of Jersey. We are in contact with the Jersey Financial Services Commission (JFSC) and agreed with them that we will both share information on any application made in in our respective jurisdictions (for both a fund or entity).
We have previously confirmed that we are investigating the events that led to the suspension of the LF Woodford Equity Income Fund (the “Fund”). The investigation is being appropriately resourced and is progressing, though there has been some impact on accessing certain documents and witnesses during the pandemic. It is important to note that any comment about the scope of this ongoing investigation is purely speculation; we have not confirmed who or what we are investigating, though it is public knowledge that there were a significant number of entities in the chain of operation of the Fund. That is important for both legal and practical reasons. In complex investigations, for instance, the scope and subjects often change as further evidence comes to light during the investigation.
I recognise the time taken to investigate causes frustration among those affected by a firm or fund failure and who are, understandably, looking for answers. They rightly look to us to provide those answers. As a result, it is vital we investigate thoroughly and investigations are not limited at their outset. Instead, we look at what all the evidence tells us before we make conclusions about what, if any, misconduct has taken place and who is responsible, if it has. It is only then that we can assess what, if any, sanction we should put in place. It is important as the decision-makers on investigations that we do not prejudge their conclusion.

[Read More] […]

Read More…

The frameworks for co-operation with these authorities are set out in 2 memoranda of understanding (MoUs) which the signatories are required to review annually, including by seeking feedback from supervised firms. Co-operation supports effective supervision and policy making by sharing information between the regulators and promotes efficiency by minimising duplication on the financial market infrastructures (FMIs).
The Bank and FCA held a consultation with FMIs and reviewed their co-operation regarding market infrastructure – seeking in particular feedback on how the authorities had co-operated during the coronavirus (Covid-19) market events of Spring 2020. The authorities concluded that the MoU’s arrangements for co-operation remain effective, with appropriate co-ordination and no material duplication. Industry respondents acknowledged the efforts made on co-operation and the Bank and FCA remain committed to effective co-operation.
The authorities recognise that policy co-operation will be even more important from 2021 as a result of the UK leaving the European Union. The authorities re-affirmed their commitment to co-operate domestically and internationally to ensure sound rulemaking that reflects awareness of each others’ objectives.
MoU on Bank of England website.

[Read More] […]

Read More…