The FCA has, yesterday, told payment and e-money institutions that they must produce wind-down plans (WDP) as a condition of authorisation. The move is the latest in a chain of measures designed to reinforce the integrity of the UK’s financial system by protecting consumers from undue economic harm in the case of an institution’s collapse.
fscom will be hosting a webinar on what should be included in a regulated firm’s winddown plan to help clients with the complex task of drafting their own. The webinar will be free to join and of interest to clients in the payments and e-money, cryptocurrency, banking and investment sectors.
As we enter our 12th week of lockdown, the FCA has begun a process to obtain regular, specific data from a substantial number of firms to better predict the vulnerability of financial services firms, and thereby the impact on consumers. E-money issuers, payment service providers, CFD providers, advisers and intermediaries are among the targeted sectors and emails advising those selected for the first batch have already arrived with our clients. In this blog I will explain what the FCA is looking for and what you should be doing.
Payment and e-money institutions have long called for clearer guidance on the FCA’s expectations of how they meet their obligation to protect customers’ funds. Friday week ago, the FCA issued a consultation on temporary guidance they wish to put in place on safeguarding and capital adequacy ‘in light of the exceptional circumstances of the coronavirus pandemic’.
The FCA last week published a statement in which they set out their expectations of solo-regulated firms operating under the ongoing strain of COVID-19. While emphasising the need for ever-adaptive governance arrangements in the face of an evolving challenge, the FCA have clarified that no single Senior Manager is expected to assume responsibility for a firm’s coronavirus response. In addition to this and regarding dual-regulated firms, a joint statement released by the FCA in collaboration with the PRA demonstrated the regulators’ intention to assume a more flexible approach under the current circumstances.
At the beginning of February this year, eight weeks prior to the original 29th March Brexit date, we published a blog entitled “No-deal Brexit – is there a regulatory backstop?” In this blog, we attempted to summarise what firms could expect in the event we crashed out having failed to agree transitional provisions with the EU27. Eight months, four failed votes and one prime minister later we find ourselves in a painfully similar situation eight weeks before the new Brexit date of 31st October. In this blog we will revisit some the issues addressed in our initial blog, and how these may have changed since the time of writing. I write this though at a time of the utmost uncertainty, with legislation proposed to remove the possibility of No Deal, another Prime Minister under threat, and the possibility of a General Election that might yet result in a new referendum. Nevertheless, let’s deal with the here and now…