Information on Appointed representatives sanctions 2019 to 2021- September 2022

1. How many principal firms have been sanctioned by the FCA as a result of the misconduct of an appointed representative in the calendar years 2021, 2020, 2019.
2. How much had principal firms to pay in penalty fees in total for the misconduct of appointed representatives in the calendar years 2021, 2020, 2019

Please provide separated figures for each of the indicated years.

The table below provides a breakdown of the 13 enforcement cases we have closed over the period in relation to the monitoring and oversight of appointed representatives.

Of those cases, a sanction[1] was imposed in one instance.  Whilst a fine was not imposed due to serious financial hardship, compensation to the sum of £400,000 was ordered to be paid.

The censure case aside, the remaining cases were closed as follows:

• 8 closed with no further action as the misconduct was not sufficiently serious.
• 4 closed due to an alternative outcome e.g., supervisory response.

Strategic Commitment: Improving oversight of Appointed Representatives

More broadly, formal sanctions are only one aspect of our work in relation to principal firms and ARs. We have recently introduced new rules in PS22/11 to make principals more responsible for their ARs as a result of the increasing harm we have seen arising from the AR model. Our new rules bring in changes to the AR regime. The new rules are focused on improving principals’ oversight of ARs; and collecting the data we need to help identify and tackle harm and apply greater scrutiny at the gateway.

We also highlighted the importance of tackling harms associated with the AR regime in Our Strategy 2022 to 2025 published April 22. Our Annual Report published in July 22 sets out the steps we have already taken in our supervision of principals and when we review applications for firms’ authorisation to better identify risky business models and high-risk principals.