May 2008

The Financial Services Authority invites comments on this Discussion Paper. Comments should reach us by 29 August 2008.

You can send your response by electronic submission using the following form or by emailing us at the address shown.

Alternatively, please send comments in writing to:

Victoria Raffé
Strategy & Risk Division
25 The North Colonnade
Canary Wharf
London E14 5HS

Telephone: 020 7066 1924
Fax: 020 7066 1925

E-mail: dp08_03@fsa.gov.uk

It is the FSA’s policy to make all responses to formal consultation available for public inspection unless the respondent requests otherwise. A standard confidentiality statement in an e-mail message will not be regarded as a request for non-disclosure.

Note: You can take a printout of your response before clicking the 'Submit to FSA' button at the end of the form, but this will only print the visible text on screen, and you may have given longer answers. After submitting your response, the form will clear, but when we acknowledge receipt of your response by email, we can return to you a copy of your full submission as received. Check this box if you would like to have a copy of your submission returned:

Submission Details









as an individual
as a representative of an authorised firm
as a representative of a professional firm
other (please specify):

 

Do you agree that transparency is a legitimate regulatory tool?

 

Do you agree that this high-level cost benefit analysis captures the main potential impacts of regulatory transparency, both positive and negative?

 

Do you agree a Code of Practice on Regulatory Transparency is the right approach to enable the FSA to achieve consistency of decision-making?

 

Do you agree with the three Principles:
• We will not publicly disclose information that we believe would infringe any statutory restrictions on us, including those set by FSMA.
• We will proactively disclose information that we believe on balance serves, rather than harms, the public interest.
• Disclosure should meet the FSA’s standards of economy, efficiency and effectiveness?

 

Do you have comments on the detailed wording contained in the Code of Practice on Regulatory Transparency?

 

Would publication of complaints data help achieve the FSA’s regulatory objectives?

 

Are there any reasons specific to the financial services sector which would make it inappropriate to publish firmspecific data?

 

What comments do you have on the specific data that is proposed for publication?

 

What comments do you have about the provision of contextual data alongside the complaints data?

 

What comments do you have about providing information on a firm or group basis?

 

What comments do you have on the proposed form of publication and what ideas do you have for making the data more accessible in the longer term?

 

What comments do you have on the proposed timescale?

 

Do you agree with our proposals concerning:
• anonymous, benchmarked results; and
• Non-fundamental OIVoPs (Own Initiative Variations of Permission).

 

Do you agree with our comments and proposals on:
• Naming and ‘faming’; and
• Risk mitigation and redress.

 

Are there other measures that you believe could be useful in improving the effectiveness of our thematic work with firms?

 

Do you agree we should take further action, over and above our existing actions, to reduce the risk of consumers making poor buying decisions because of financial promotions that are unfair, unclear or misleading?

 

Do you think that the package of measures described in paragraphs 6.56 to 6.68 will be effective in reducing the risk of consumer detriment?

 

Do you think that the benefit of creating a financial promotions Register, as described, would outweigh the drawbacks? If so, why?

 

Do you agree with our analysis of the obstacles that are impeding better progress on the TCF initiative?

 

Is the mix of measures outlined in paragraphs 6.79 to 6.87 appropriate for helping to achieve better progress?

 

Are there other measures that you would like us to take?

 

Is there data we collect in our returns whose firm specific and/or aggregate disclosure is neither precluded by directives, nor duplicative of disclosures required by directives, and which would be useful in support of our regulatory functions and objectives?

 

Do you have comments on the various proposals set out above?

 

Do you have suggestions for areas of regulatory transparency not mentioned in this Discussion Paper?

 

Do you agree with our proposals to improve the accessibility and content of our Disclosure Log?

 

What criteria do you think we should use in deciding whether to publish or publicise information ourselves, or rely on a third party?