Unlock the publisher’s digest free
Roula Khalaf, editor -in -chief of the FT, selects her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The United Kingdom’s financial regulator late registered its measures to apply the law provided against the feat manager Neil Woodford in its official register, leading groups of consumers and lawyers to mark the “inconsistent” and “confused” guard dog in its approach.
The Financial Conduct Authority has not updated its register – which is used by consumers and companies dealing with regulated entities to verify their competence securities – Thursday after the Financial Times asked why its proposal for action against Woodford 12 months ago, announced did not reflect in his files.
The FCA A warning issued against Woodford And his company Woodford Investment Management in February of last year to “do not act with skills, care and diligence” in terms of failure of its flagship income fund in 2019, which left around 300,000 nursing loss of investors.
Announcing opinions in April 2024 following a long -standing probe, the regulator said that Woodford had a “defective” Understanding his responsibilities with a view to the collapse of his fund. He has not yet made a final decision on his conclusions, which the Woodford lawyers said he would dispute.
Wilmerhale and BCLP, law firms representing Woodford and Wim declared in a statement last year that their customers “do not agree with the FCA conclusions, which, according to them, are unprecedented and fundamentally poorly designed”.
The FCA financial services register had until Thursday that no regulatory measure had been taken against Woodford.
“Obviously, the publication of a warning notice is a regulatory action, which is an integral part of the process of application and disciplinary,” said Mick Mcateer, co -director of the Financial Inclusion Center, a reflection group and a former member of the FCA board of directors. “The FCA is incoherent here. I do not see any argument against the FCA edition that he issued a warning notice and explain that this is currently disputed. ”
The FCA manual indicates that the guard dog will examine the information to add to his register after the portion of a warning notice. But James Daley, head of the Fair Finance consumer group, said: “If the FCA considers that there are enough reasons to publish a warning notice which includes the name of the individual or the company, there is no reason not to attach this to their entry of the FCA register.”
“The case (Woodford) is in the public domain and it could therefore be a little confusing that it does not appear in the central register to verify the good faith of regulated people,” said James Tyler, former FCA official now at the City Cabinet in the City Peters & Peters.
The FCA added a reference to its warning notice on the Woodford page in the register after the FT approached the regulator on Wednesday, although Woodford has always been labeled as having been: “No disciplinary or regulatory action of FCA or ARP current.”
The regulator said that the warning notice was “not the FCA final decision” and noted that Woodford had “the right to make representations to the regulatory decisions committee”, which will decide on the announcement of the possibility of coagulating. He refused to comment on the gap between the opinion issued and updated in the register.
The concern surrounding FCA’s disclosure on Woodford came after the regulator back on its plane To “appoint and shame” more companies that it investigates under strong pressure from the city of London and the government.
The FCA told the FT that its action against Woodford and Wim was “in progress”. Meanwhile, Woodford Monday announced plans To launch a service offering its storage strategies to investors for costs, six years after the collapse of its investment empire.
The FCA initially refused to formally comment when the FT asked why its warning notice was not disclosed on the Woodford register list.
He said later: “We openly communicated on our work on the Woodford Equity Institute Fund and published the details of our concerns, including in the warning declaration with regard to Mr. Woodford”, adding: “We have updated the register to reflect this information.”
Woodford refused to comment.
