BBA has responded to FSA's papers on:
- transparency as a regulatory tool: it welcomes FSA's discussion paper and supports regulatory transparency in principle, and many of its actions. However, it says some of the proposals might not achieve FSA's regulatory objectives and may lead to unintended effects. It is worried that disclosure does not proactively manage issues in the same way as supervision, enforcement and policy making do. It also thinks FSA has not considered the role of intermediaries. It does not think disclosure of firm-specific complaints would be an effective driver of FSA's desired consumer behaviour. Finally, it feels the proposals risk breaching the FSMA safeguards against FSA regulatory intervention without due process, in particular if it makes non-fundamental OiVOPs; and
- the DEPP and EG review: BBA's main recommendation is that FSA take the opportunity to bring all enforcement-related materials together, including dear CEO letters, newsletters and speeches. It also feels FSA has not consulted sufficiently on enforcing the MLR and Transfer of Funds Regulations. Its other main concern is that FSA has not considered the Attorney General's paper on plea negotiation when producing its paper. It supports FSA becoming a "specified prosecutor" so it can offer statutory immunity. Finally, it is again concerned about OiVOPs and how overuse could mean FSA "short-circuiting" enforcement and thinks it is moving too fast and too far. FSA should explain when it would plan to use OiVOPs and build the RDC into any process.