header-logo header-logo

30 March 2012 / Paul Adams , Lista M Cannon
Issue: 7507 / Categories: Opinion , Regulatory
printer mail-detail

Twin peaks regulation

Will the proposed changes to financial regulation work, ask Lista M Cannon & Paul Adams

Since the start of the financial crisis in 2007, the “tripartite” model of financial regulation, which saw responsibility for financial regulation shared between HM Treasury, the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority (FSA), has been widely criticised for its inability to prevent, and effectively deal with, the financial crisis. Under the tripartite model, the FSA has responsibility for:

  • the direct supervision of all regulated firms for both prudential and conduct of business purposes; and
  • taking enforcement action against firms where it identifies regulatory failures.

The FSA’s “light touch” approach to regulation was widely criticised as inadequate and the decision was taken that its operating model needed to change.

On 27 January 2012, the government published the Financial Services Bill (the Bill). The Bill will introduce a new model of firm-specific regulation which will see the separation of “micro-prudential” regulation (or the regulation of individual firms’ financial stability through the monitoring and assessment of

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ward Hadaway—19 promotions

Ward Hadaway—19 promotions

19 promotions across national offices, including two new partners

Brabners—Ruth Hargreaves

Brabners—Ruth Hargreaves

Partner promoted to head of corporate team

Slater Heelis—Liam Hall, Jordan Bear & Joe Madigan

Slater Heelis—Liam Hall, Jordan Bear & Joe Madigan

Chester office expansion accelerates with triple appointment

NEWS
As AI chatbots increasingly provide legal and commercial advice, English law is beginning to confront who should bear responsibility when automated systems get things wrong
Businesses are facing a ‘dramatic rise in prosecution risks’ as sweeping reforms to corporate criminal liability come into force, expanding the net of who can be held responsible for wrongdoing inside organisations
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has reignited debate over what exactly counts as the ‘conduct of litigation’ in modern legal practice
A controversial High Court financial remedies ruling has reignited debate over secrecy, non-disclosure and fairness in divorce proceedings involving hidden wealth
Britain’s deferred prosecution agreement regime is undergoing a significant shift, with prosecutors placing renewed emphasis on corporate cooperation, reform and early self-reporting
back-to-top-scroll