RegulationSep 11 2019

FCA needs to catch up with US

twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by
FCA needs to catch up with US

Co-operation between financial regulators is essential in the increasingly globalised financial services market. Much like the hurricane-inducing butterfly, pressing the enter key on a trade in one jurisdiction can cause ripples on markets halfway across the world.

Nowhere is this more relevant than in the world’s two largest financial centres, New York and London.

While the cities might be some 3,600 miles apart with an ocean in between, with today’s technology, traders could not be closer if they were in adjoining rooms. It is therefore unsurprising to learn that the financial regulators on either side of the Atlantic have a long and well-established history of co-operation and collaboration. 

The framework

Way back in the mists of time, even before the birth of the FCA’s predecessor the Financial Services Authority, the SEC executed a memorandum of understanding with the UK Department of Trade and Industry that set out the means by which both sides would co-operate on the regulation of securities and commodity futures.

Since then, the relationship between the two regulators and their successors has blossomed, each recognising that information sharing and collaborative working is vital to ensure the strong and efficient governance of the global marketplace.

Most recently, in March 2019, the FCA and the SEC reaffirmed the importance of the united approach to supervision and enforcement by signing two revised MOUs intended to bolster the two agencies’ co-operation, oversight and information sharing practices.

Key points

  • There is a special relationship between the SEC and the FCA
  • The two institutions recently signed MOUs to bolster co-operation
  • The two regulators worked together on the London 'Whale'

As SEC chairman Jay Clayton commented at the time of signing: “The SEC and FCA have a long history of effective co-operation on supervisory and other matters.”

While these latest MOUs continue to provide an important method of information sharing, both agencies continue to wield their own wide-ranging statutory powers that allow them to assist each other on a discretionary basis.

The enabling statutes on both sides – the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the UK Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 for the FCA – permit confidential information to be shared with overseas regulators, provided the disclosure is for the purposes of enabling or assisting the recipient to discharge its functions.

They also allow for the agencies to conduct investigations and gather information on behalf of foreign regulators, including exercising their powers to compel individuals to attend for interview (or be subpoenaed) and provide all and any relevant documents, even if the compelled individual is not themselves a regulated person.

In the UK, the threshold for providing assistance to overseas regulators is relatively low.

The FCA does not have to critically examine such a request and may choose, when deciding whether to exercise its discretionary power to assist, to take into account criteria such as:  

  • Whether the request relates to a breach of law or regulation of which there is no close parallel in the UK;
  • Whether corresponding assistance would be given by the foreign state to the FCA;
  • The seriousness of the case; and
  • Whether it is in the public interest to provide the requested assistance.

Crucially, the FCA is not obliged to satisfy itself of the merits of the underlying investigation, or the relevance of the information requested.

Joint working

While requests for information and assistance between the SEC and FCA are generally kept confidential, there are numerous known examples where the two regulators have worked collaboratively on cross-border cases. 

For example, in the so-called JPMorgan ‘London Whale’ trading case, both recognised the co-operation provided by the other in their respective press releases, while the FCA’s Enforcement Annual Performance Report for 2019 lauded the assistance of the SEC in the Total Debt Relief Ltd investigation as an example of the value of its relationships with foreign regulators.

Level playing field?

While the SEC is generally regarded as the more successful enforcement agency, it is important to remember that US securities laws are among the broadest and most regulator-friendly in the world.

The FCA is acutely aware of the comparison, but, in simple terms, if one agency has more potential offences available to it than another does, it should be no surprise that more enforcement outcomes follow.

Notwithstanding this, it is clear that the FCA can learn plenty from its US counterpart, which is often quicker out of the blocks on key issues. 

For example, the US has been blazing a trail on cryptoassets, which the UK has been slow to follow. So far, the FCA has concerned itself solely with perimeter issues, identifying whether companies involved in cryptoasset businesses may be carrying out regulated activities without authorisation. 

Although guidance on where cryptoassets fall within the FCA’s scope was published at the end of last month, if any enforcement is taking place it has yet to reach the public eye.  

However across the Atlantic, and while the FCA has been navel gazing, the SEC has already launched and completed a number of enforcement action related to cryptoassets, including imposing civil penalties for a securities offering registration violation involving initial coin offerings.  

The FCA should be concerned not only with how far it is behind the SEC on enforcement of the current cryptoasset market, but with how well-equipped it is to deal with its rapid evolution.

Assuming that the cryptoasset market becomes subject to its own dedicated regulatory provisions in the near future, this will give rise to a whole new set of concerns for all agencies.

Given the battle faced in detecting and preventing misconduct and manipulation in established financial markets, how will the FCA cope with enforcement on a completely new technological plane?

Cryptoassets present an increasing challenge that requires a novel approach to cross-border regulation. The FCA needs to act decisively if it is to remain an equal partner and not a sidekick in the transatlantic pact. 

In conclusion, while the special relationship between these two regulators is alive and well, the FCA should not be afraid to make further efforts to work even more closely with its American counterpart.

It has lessons to learn, but in a world of global financial markets two heads are better than one.

Claire Cross is a partner at Corker Binning