Articles - Increased cost and conflict under dual regulation


 A separate UK regulator for conduct risk will boost its importance and is likely to raise costs for financial institutions, says Fitch Ratings. The newly formed Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and Prudential Regulatory Authority (PRA) will intensify regulatory scrutiny of UK banks and insurance companies.

 The rating agency comments "We expect the FCA to adopt a strong and broad agenda to improve services and protection for consumers following the banking crisis and a series of mis-selling and rate-fixing scandals. Certain products, for example those that are complex, innovative, bundled with others, or involve advice, are likely to be subject to greater scrutiny and therefore potential fines and consumer redress.

 In the annuities market, we expect the FCA to take steps to make consumers more aware of their right to shop around when buying an annuity at retirement. Some pensioners have lost out significantly by sticking with the provider they built their savings with rather than checking with others for a better deal. One area of focus in the mortgage market is fair treatment of borrowers when interest-only mortgages reach maturity and repayment strategies are inadequate. Costs and the risk of losing their homes can increase for customers if lenders take inappropriate forbearance and repossession measures.

 Many financial institutions are already feeling the effects of the shake-up as they prepare for the burden of having to deal with two regulators rather than one. In some cases they have to build relationships with new regulatory contacts. Firms are likely to experience a significant increase in management and compliance costs and could well face inconsistent regulatory decisions, at least until the new structure has bedded down.

 The two regulators will often be looking at the same issues from two different perspectives, which could lead to conflicting guidance and confusion. The FCA will be looking from a consumer protection point of view, whereas the PRA will be interested in the entity's solvency and liquidity.

 Potential areas of conflict include claims settlements, forbearance measures and mis-selling compensation. For example, the FCA is likely to have regulatory responsibility for the fairness of bonuses for with-profits policyholders from the customer perspective, while the PRA will have regulatory responsibility for reviewing the affordability and solvency implications from the insurer's perspective."  

Back to Index


Similar News to this Story

How to identify the key issues early in reserving
This article looks at how an analytical approach to reserving can help actuaries focus on what really matters, right at the start of the process. We
Closing the net on ghost brokers with email intelligence
As households face the biggest economic squeeze in generations , finding ways to cut the cost of everyday but essential living expenses such as motor
10 Plus C level Claims Executives share their insights
C-level claims executives from Arch, Aviva Canada, Berkley Mid-Atlantic Group and SageSure have just been announced as speakers for Intelligent Insure

Site Search

Exact   Any  

Latest Actuarial Jobs

Actuarial Login

Email
Password
 Jobseeker    Client
Reminder Logon

APA Sponsors

Actuarial Jobs & News Feeds

Jobs RSS News RSS

WikiActuary

Be the first to contribute to our definitive actuarial reference forum. Built by actuaries for actuaries.