The UK Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) revised 'Name and Shame' proposals pose as much a threat to firms as the original and undermine the UK's global competitiveness

The UK FCA continues to risk significant harm to firms by publishing details of enforcement investigations at their outset.

Today, AIMA, the world’s largest alternative investment association, filed a response to the FCA's revised Name and Shame proposals, outlining serious concerns and offering a constructive path forward to prevent undue damage to firms, individuals, and investors.

Beyond the shortcomings of the proposals, it remains the case that the FCA already has the sufficient power it needs to achieve its policy goal of better informing the market of its concerns. The problem has been its overly cautious legal approach to using those powers.

We agree with the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee's concerns over the need for these proposals.

AIMA's response includes a constructive path forward where we advocate that the FCA's disclosure powers should be limited to cases where:

1. Unregulated firms' activities pose immediate mass-market harm
2. An investigation is already public knowledge
3. Consumer protection requires the publication of anonymous investigations where significant harm to retail clients and investors is likely

AIMA CEO Jack Inglis said: "The FCA's revised Name and Shame proposals have merely tweaked the wording of its widely criticised consultation and failed to address the core concerns raised by AIMA and the wider financial community."

"If implemented, these proposals still risk damaging the reputations of innocent firms and individuals and could make the UK a less attractive place to do business, directly undermining the UK Government's mandate to drive economic growth and strengthen the country's status as a global financial hub. We also side with the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee's recent report, which urges the FCA not to proceed with the proposals as they stand."