The UK
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published recently the details (here) of an
enforcement case involving Credit Suisse International (CSI) and Yorkshire
Building Society (YBS). They were fined
for failing to meet the requirement that financial promotions are ‘clear, fair
and not misleading’ £2m and £1.4m respectively.
Not much new
so far but the circumstances of the case indicate how financial services are evolving
and the challenges for risks management.
The case
involves a structured product providing capital protection, a guaranteed
minimum return and the potential for achieving a higher return under certain
conditions related to the performance of FTSE100 index. CSI manufactured the product and YBS distributed
(most of) it. The product raised nearly
£800m and reached 84 thousand customers.
At the heart
of this case there is a concern that product complexity can reach a level such
that it is difficult to ensure that disclosures to retail customers are clear,
fair and not misleading. For example,
the FCA was concerned that the disclosures suggested that this was a simple
index tracker – it wasn’t. This can
distort customers’ ability to infer the likelihood of a maximum return.
In addition, there
are five interesting points to take away from this case:
1.
Distribution arrangements give rise to
significant conduct risk, even if no financial advice is provided.
2.
The chances of relevant events need to
be taken into account in financial promotions.
A ‘maximum return’ that can be achieved with nearly zero probability based
on past history is not really a ‘maximum return’!
3.
Third party consumer advocates can
have an impact. The UK Consumers Association (‘Which?’) approached
YBS and CSI in September 2010 with concerns about financial promotions and the
chance of achieving the maximum return advertised. This resulted in limited changes to disclosures:
more emphasis on the conditions required to achieve the maximum return and less
emphasis on the presentation of the maximum return.
4.
The target consumer group has
practical importance. The disclosures will be crucial to ensure
appropriate consumer outcomes if you are targeting ‘stepping stone customers’,
‘typically conservative, risk averse customers’, with a structured product and
don’t offer advice.
5.
Slow reaction to regulatory
developments persists. The relevant period when the breach took
place stretches to 30 months from November 2009 to June 2012. The earlier intervention by ‘Which?’ and concerns
raised by the FCA had limited effect.
It is
interesting to see all these different factors coming together in a case. This may be one of
the few occasions (if not the first) where a fine results because financial promotions
did not take into account the chances of the underlying events.
If you work in financial services, I
would be keen to hear your thoughts about these lessons for the management of
conduct risk. If you don’t, I would be
keen to know if these lessons resonate with your experience.
* Thanks to
my colleagues for suggesting a title.
If you found this interesting, you
can subscribe to future posts at http://crescendo-erm.blogspot.co.uk and receive them by email - no
more than once a week. You will need to provide an email address and then
confirm the subscription. Your email address will not be shared.
Alternatively, if we share a group in “LinkedIn” you can choose
"follow" Isaac Alfon.
No comments:
Post a Comment