News

May16

FTfm comments on European regulators

Oliver Lodge comments stir up European regulators

Comments made by Oliver Lodge and quoted in FTfm today have broken the taboo which has led to the fiction that UCITS funds are equally secure, regardless of which European country they come from. Lodge was quoted as saying that regulators in Dublin and Luxembourg were more interested in promoting their financial services industries than in protecting consumers. The origin of this is the near 100% export of the financial services that are domiciled in those countries.

The comments were made in the context of the wider review of UCITS that is taking place, which is expected to lead to some tightening of the scope. Abuses of the current scope which have been permitted by ‘export-led’ regulators are resulting in a backlash by other EU nations less heavily involved in financial services, but more concerned about the protection of consumers. In many respects the UK stands in between these two extremes, having a large financial services sector and a large population of consumers to protect. But the UK also has a tough regulator which takes supervision and enforcement, as well regulatory standards, seriously. In the context of UCITS it is not the standards that are at fault; the problem lies, in Lodge’s view, with regulators who have little incentive to uphold them.

Posted in: UCITS
Tagged in: , , , , , , ,
Mar7

HMT proposals for the reformed UK regulatory structure

No one could fairly accuse the Treasury of doing less than a thorough job in drafting its consultation paper on the UK’s proposed regulatory structure. Indeed the neatly titled “A New Approach to Financial Regulation: building a stronger system” helps most effectively to sharpen the focus on those areas where the proposition looks weakest, albeit also providing a fleeting glimpse of real confidence that two regulators are better than one.

Keen observers (aka the anoraks) will be familiar with the government’s determination to drop the legislative obligation, previously binding on the regulators, always to consider the impact of their actions on the competitiveness of the industry. Possibly a contributor to the causes of the crisis, this is now widely viewed as presenting a policy conflict that regulators are not well equipped handling. Although this was fully expected, two surprises emerge from it. Having understood the whole concept to have been ejected, it is interesting, then, to see the cultivation of competition emerge as a key statement in the objectives of the unborn FCA. HMT is noticeably reluctant to explain the logic of its decision, preferring to leave that challenge to the reader.

So my conclusion is this: competitiveness is about the UK industry competing with the rest of the world, outward-looking, the regulator not inhibiting the industry’s ability to compete; competition is about the UK consumer’s ability to choose from providers from across the world, non-protectionist, but no assurance of a level playing field either. They are not opposites, one does not exclude the other; we could have had both. Instead we are shifting from producer-focus to consumer-focus, from exporter to importer. Thus speaks the Treasury; the Foreign Office has no remit here.

But then, as you read on, the second surprise hits you: lurking among the  many UK aspirations for the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) is a call for them to consider, more clearly than European institutions have hitherto, the need for “reforms……..supporting EU competitiveness in global financial markets”. How can we reasonably urge this on European regulators when it is no longer deemed appropriate for domestic consumption? If this is dangerous talk for UK regulators, why is it different when provided with a Continental accent? This may have been a renowned weakness of Europeans in the past, but when you join them, you can hardly expect to beat them.

And that’s not all. As you settle in on a Saturday evening with New Approach to FRBASS weighing gently on your knee, the realisation dawns on you that half of all the planning for the great divide deals with how best to ensure that the new bodies, the Prudential Regulatory Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority, work effectively together. When a firm is dual regulated, as many will be, how will the regulators handle the authorisation, the individual approvals, the new permissions, the supervision, the enforcement, the compensation and the waivers? How too will they produce consistent policy and properly represent in international fora the financial stability and consumer protection needs of this country? In its best-seller, HMT sets out to deal with all these tiresome questions. There will be no shortage of liaison and memoranda of understanding. Thousands of man-days will be devoted to it every year. But will it work?  The sad truth is that, only when these elaborate arrangements break down, as they are occasionally bound to do, will the world ever notice what effort is required  behind the scenes, except, of course, when called on to pay for it. Among the most important of these questions is how the UK will be most effectively represented on the directing boards of the new European regulators, but this is also the area in which the proposed solution is among the weakest, with still more memoranda of understanding promised. Whether it works or whether it does not, much of the effort of the new regulators will be focused on bridging the gap that the government is so keen to create.

 Published in Financial Times on 7th march 2011

Posted in: FSA
Tagged in: , , , , , , , , ,
Feb23

UCITS Upgraded – Could this be a genuine benefit from the EU?

Aware that I am even more Euro-sceptical than most, it is really quite rare for me to suggest that an EU action might genuinely provide a benefit, either to the industry or to consumers. But so it is this time. However, as no silver lining comes without its cloud, we will get the good news quickly out of the way so that we can then focus on the inevitable drawbacks.

For really quite a long time, like ten years, the European Commission has been trying to introduce a ‘management company passport’ for UCITS. After a number of ham-fisted attempts, they may have finally pulled this off in UCITS IV. The purpose of the management company passport is to make it possible for a UCITS operator (NB we are not talking about the investment manager) to run a UCITS fund that is domiciled in another EEA country. However modest that may sound, it is quite a significant step and tackles head on the protectionism that is particularly noticeable in Dublin and Luxemburg. It is not difficult to see why this passport might be unpopular in countries that have developed financial services on an entirely export basis with no significant domestic sales. The regulators in those nations have little interest in investor protection and much in attracting the regulatory arbitragers and the business that clings to the coat-tails of investment funds, so well evidenced by the branches and subsidiaries established in those jurisdictions.

But for the UK it is a different story. We have the expertise, we have no shortage of manpower and we still have the reputation of a major financial centre. We also have rigorous regulation, of which we may as well make a virtue in our marketing. If tax dictates that funds should be based elsewhere, that will no longer drag the operator with it. London must be the natural home for scheme operation and has the scope to dominate the market for UCITS. That is what UCITS IV facilitates. The battle for supremacy begins on 1st July. There will be price competition for the operation of new funds; we may even see a tendering war break out to take over the operation of existing funds. And operators will at last be able to provide disinterested advice on the selection of the best domicile for the fund. 

Hand in hand with the new management company passport goes the improved availability of the marketing passport for UCITS funds. No longer will protectionist national regulators be able to stall over providing access to promote UCITS within their territory. The home state regulator will merely notify the host state and, as soon as that is done, marketing can begin, all within the space of a fortnight. The combination of this restructured procedure and the introduction of arbitration for dealing with inter-regulator disputes should assure reasonable access to the whole EEA. 

And at last we have the UCITS Directive properly facilitating the master-feeder structure by lifting the spread requirement from UCITS funds designated as feeder funds.

So what’s the snag? The joint HM Treasury and FSA consultation was launched just in time for Christmas fairs to enjoy that old game of Guess the Weight of the Rules Appendix. A two hundred page tome of new rules is seldom the present that the industry hopes to find lurking at the bottom of its Christmas stocking. And to those who wish simply to opt out of all that passport stuff to save the hassle of implementation, the news should be broken gently that the new rules apply whether you use the facilities or not.

Chief among the new obligations is the key investor information document. Compulsory for all UCITS from 1st July 2011, with transitional relief of 12 months from then, KIIDs are the replacement for the failed ‘simplified prospectus’. More like the key facts document in concept, KIIDs will be short and to the point, but must leave none of the essentials uncovered. 

Somehow it has become difficult to continue to express surprise when EU regulations are introduced with too little time for the industry to implement them. Inherent in the structure of directives, with their two-year implementation cycle, is inadequate time for the industry. On this occasion, consultation will close in Month 21; the rules may be confidently expected in Month 23. In Month 24, let the competition begin.

Oliver Lodge

February 2011

Posted in: FSA, UCITS
Tagged in: , , , , ,