08 September 2008

IMA questions value of transparency as regulatory tool

The value increased transparency will offer needs to be carefully balanced against what it will cost and any unintended consequences it might have, IMA warns responding to the FSA's Discussion Paper "Transparency as a Regulatory Tool".

The value increased transparency will offer needs to be carefully balanced against what it will cost and any unintended consequences it might have, IMA warns. By proposing to publish information such as firm-specific complaints data and details on the use of its supervisory powers the FSA runs the risk of simply publishing for publishing's sake rather than achieving any real value for the end consumer, the association argues.

 

IMA also has specific concerns in relation to proposals to publicise supervisory notices with regard to changing a firm's permission to do something.  Publicising these could be viewed as "public censure" on a firm without giving it the due process it should have under the Financial Services and Markets Act.      

 

"Publishing large amounts of data is not the same as informing clients about the choices they need to make”, Guy Sears, Director - Wholesale at IMA said.

 

Responding to the FSA's Discussion Paper "Transparency as a Regulatory Tool", IMA called for further consultation and analysis before the FSA publicly discloses further firm-specific information. 

 

Full response

© IMA