Following FSA’s Discussion Paper last May on using transparency as a regulatory tool, publication of complaints data by specific firms and related issues, it has now given feedback and further proposals:  

  • respondents thought a Code of Practice for regulatory transparency was a good idea, but FSA has revisited some of its proposals;  
  • FSA has changed its plans on requiring firms to publish their own complaints data. Following the views of firms and trade associations and the limits EU laws might place on publication, FSA now plans to require some firms only to publish data. The requirement would cover only firms with the largest numbers of complaints. FSA would then produce comparative tables every six months;  
  • FSA will not proceed at the moment with its plans to “name and shame” firms who perform less well in areas FSA targets with thematic reviews;  
  • on financial promotions, FSA will not introduce a register of poor financial promotions but will carry on publishing anonymous examples of real life cases and variations of permissions of firms that breach financial promotion standards;  
  • FSA will take forward its plans to make more “non-fundamental own initiative VoPs";  
  • FSA will not take forward its plans to ask firms to self-certify TCF as it may encourage firms to over-state their results or set lower performance targets; and  
  • the final plan FSA will not take forward is on disclosure of capital requirements: respondents thought consumers were not likely to understand why capital requirements were set at certain levels.

 The paper includes draft new text for DISP and FSA wants comments by 30 October.