Unlock the Editor’s Digest without cost
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favorite tales on this weekly e-newsletter.
The UK’s monetary regulator has belatedly recorded its deliberate enforcement motion towards star fund supervisor Neil Woodford on its official register, main client teams and attorneys to model the watchdog “inconsistent” and “complicated” in its method.
The Monetary Conduct Authority solely up to date its register — which is utilized by shoppers and firms coping with regulated entities to examine their credentials — on Thursday after the Monetary Instances queried why its proposed motion towards Woodford introduced 12 months in the past was not mirrored in his entry.
The FCA issued warning notices towards Woodford and his firm Woodford Funding Administration in February final yr for “failing to behave with due talent, care and diligence” over the failure of his flagship Fairness Revenue Fund in 2019, which left about 300,000 buyers nursing losses.
Saying the notices in April 2024 following a long-running probe, the regulator stated Woodford had a “faulty” understanding of his duties within the run-up to the collapse of his fund. It has not but issued a last choice on its findings, which Woodford’s attorneys have stated he’ll problem.
WilmerHale and BCLP, the legislation companies representing Woodford and WIM stated in a press release final yr that their purchasers “disagree with the FCA’s findings, which they imagine are unprecedented and basically misconceived”.
The FCA’s monetary companies register had till Thursday acknowledged that no regulatory motion had been taken towards Woodford.
“Clearly, issuing a warning discover is a regulatory motion, an integral a part of the enforcement and disciplinary course of,” stated Mick McAteer, co-director of the Monetary Inclusion Centre, a think-tank, and a former FCA board member. “The FCA is being inconsistent right here. I can’t see any argument towards the FCA publishing that it has issued a warning discover and explaining that that is at present being challenged.”
The FCA handbook states that the watchdog will take into account what info so as to add to its register following the serving of a warning discover. However James Daley, head of client group Fairer Finance stated: “If the FCA feels there are robust sufficient grounds to publish a warning discover which incorporates the identify of the person or enterprise then there’s no purpose to not additionally connect that to their FCA register entry.”
“The (Woodford) case is within the public area and so it could possibly be slightly complicated that it doesn’t seem on the central register for checking the bona fides for regulated individuals,” stated James Tyler, a former FCA official now at Metropolis legislation agency Peters & Peters.
The FCA added a reference to its warning discover on Woodford’s web page within the register after the FT approached the regulator on Wednesday, although Woodford was nonetheless tagged as having: “No present FCA or PRA disciplinary or regulatory motion.”
The regulator stated the warning discover was “not the ultimate choice of the FCA” and famous that Woodford had “the best to make representations to the regulatory choices committee”, which can resolve whether or not to announce enforcement motion. It declined to touch upon the lag between the discover being issued and up to date to the register.
Concern surrounding the FCA’s disclosures on Woodford got here after the regulator backtracked on its plan to “identify and disgrace” extra of the businesses it investigates beneath heavy stress from the Metropolis of London and the federal government.
The FCA informed the FT that its motion towards Woodford and WIM was “ongoing”. In the meantime, Woodford on Monday introduced plans to launch a service providing his stockpicking methods to buyers for a price, six years after the collapse of his funding empire.
In its 2024 announcement, the FCA alleged that Woodford’s “unreasonably slim understanding of his duties for managing liquidity dangers” finally led to the fund’s downfall in 2019.
The FCA initially declined to formally remark when the FT requested why its warning discover was not disclosed on Woodford’s registry itemizing.
It later stated: “Now we have communicated overtly about our work on the Woodford Fairness Revenue Fund, and revealed particulars of our considerations together with within the warning discover assertion in relation to Mr Woodford,” including: “Now we have up to date the register to mirror this info.”
Woodford declined to remark.
