Well, well, well. The FCA has released its annual report, and it seems the financial watchdog has been rather busy cleaning house – or at least trying to. In 2023-24, the FCA cancelled the authorisations of 1,261 firms. That’s a hefty leap from the 627 firms given the boot the previous year. But before we go popping the champagne in celebration of their clampdown on retired and bad actors, perhaps we should pause for a moment and take a closer look at the watchdog itself.
The FCA, in all its glory, managed to rake in £758.3 million in income, primarily through fees – £725.1 million of which came from the very firms it polices. And yet, despite this sizeable pot, the regulator still managed to lose £44.8 million. Yes, you heard that right. The body charged with keeping financial firms in check is haemorrhaging cash like a sieve. If an authorised firm was leaking money like that, I suspect its permission would be on the chopping block quicker than you could say “financial resilience test.”
In their own words, the FCA insists it’s protecting the “integrity of the UK financial system.” And sure, cancelling twice as many firms as last year does make for some impressive headlines. But while they’re cracking down on bad actors, who’s holding the FCA accountable for its own financial health? After all, financial resilience isn’t just a buzzword they like to throw around – it’s something the firms they regulate are constantly tested on.
Perhaps it’s time for the regulator to put itself through a similar stress test. Something tells me the results might be less than flattering.
And speaking of tests, the FCA wasn’t shy about flexing its regulatory muscles, intervening in 34 firms where they had “serious concerns” – up 68 per cent on last year. They also reviewed over 3,000 audits on how firms are holding client money, while implementing a “regulatory return” to collect financial resilience data from a whopping 23,000 firms. It’s all very impressive – if only they could take a break from regulating others and have a quick glance at their own balance sheet.
In the midst of all this, the FCA has been proudly waving the banner of the new Consumer Duty, forcing 37 per cent of advice firms to change their fee structures to offer “fair value.” All good stuff, you might say. But here’s the kicker: Ashley Alder, the FCA’s chair, has all but admitted that regulated financial advice is increasingly becoming a luxury item – available only to the wealthier few. The rest of the population? Well, they’ll just have to muddle through complex pension decisions on their own. Good luck with that.
Nikhil Rathi, FCA’s chief executive, seems confident that the regulator is doing everything it can – within its limits, of course. “Like any ecosystem,” he says, “there are multiple actors in the financial services sector. Some, like ourselves, have a bigger role to play than others.” Lovely sentiment, but surely even in an ecosystem, you don’t want your top predator running out of food – or in this case, cash.
So, what’s next for the FCA? Well, as they continue to tighten the noose on rogue firms, perhaps it’s time for someone to start tightening the purse strings over at the FCA HQ. Because if they keep losing £44.8 million a year, they might soon find themselves in the very same position as the firms they’ve been so keen to cancel.
And wouldn’t that be a turn of events?
Comentarios