Investment Management in United Kingdom

Key dates

2026-11-03

FCA publishes PS26/22 and final rules for the ESG ratings regime; Part 1 of Annex D comes into force.

2027-02-01

FCA Pre-Application Support Service is expected to be available to prospective ESG ratings applicants.

2027-06-24 Deadline

FCA authorisation gateway opens. Providers with annual revenue of £500,000 or more should apply during the first application period, from 24 June to 29 July 2027.

2027-07-29 Deadline

End of the first staggered authorisation application period for providers with annual revenue of £500,000 or more.

2027-07-30

Second staggered authorisation application period opens for providers with annual revenue below £500,000.

2027-08-31 Deadline

End of the second staggered authorisation application period for providers with annual revenue below £500,000.

2028-06-29 Deadline

The ESG ratings regime takes effect. In-scope providers must be FCA-authorised and hold the relevant permission before carrying on the regulated activity, unless an exclusion applies; unauthorised activity may breach the FSMA general prohibition and constitute a criminal offence.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should map all ESG scores, assessments, opinions and rating products against article 63U, PERG 2.3 and the FCA perimeter guidance, including whether the firm both produces and makes the rating available and whether it is likely to influence a specified investment decision.
• Potential applicants should identify the legal entity requiring authorisation or variation of permission and assess whether an exemption applies, including exemptions connected with other regulated activities, investment research, fund marketing, benchmarks and overseas persons.
• Firms should perform a gap analysis against PS26/22 covering transparency disclosures, methodology governance, data validation, quality assurance, record retention, complaints handling, rated-entity engagement and advance notification of material methodology changes.
• Providers should consider documenting controls for AI and other automated processes, data limitations, model or methodology changes, reproducibility of rating outcomes and the competence, independence and integrity of rating personnel.
• Compliance teams may wish to review conflicts arising from charging models, consulting or advisory services, commercial relationships, remuneration and personal transactions, and determine how conflicts will be prevented, managed and disclosed.
• Firms should assess governance, senior-management accountability, systems and controls, outsourcing oversight, UK presence expectations and financial-resources and wind-down arrangements relevant to the authorisation application.
• Potential applicants should consider engaging with the FCA Pre-Application Support Service from February 2027 and preparing the application materials before the relevant staggered application window.
• Users of ESG ratings should consider reviewing supplier due diligence, data procurement, investment governance and sustainability disclosure processes so that ratings are interrogated rather than treated as definitive or objectively comparable ESG measures.

What changed

Providing an ESG rating becomes a regulated activity under article 63U of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order, subject to the statutory perimeter and exclusions. A provider is generally in scope where it produces and makes the rating available, carries on the activity by way of business, and the rating is likely to influence a decision to make a specified investment; merely distributing another provider's rating is outside this activity.

Key dates

2026-11-03

FCA publishes PS26/22 and final rules; the FEES amendment relating to the regime comes into force.

2027-02-01

FCA expects its Pre-Application Support Service for ESG rating authorisation applications to become available.

2027-06-24

FCA authorisation gateway opens for ESG rating providers.

2027-07-31 Deadline

Larger firms, defined by the FCA as firms expecting at least £500,000 of UK ESG-ratings revenue in the 12 months following application, should apply during the first month of the gateway, before the end of July 2027.

2027-08-31 Deadline

Other firms should apply during the second month of the gateway, by the end of August 2027.

2028-06-29 Deadline

The ESG ratings regime comes into force. In-scope providers must have FCA authorisation and the relevant permission unless an exclusion or exemption applies.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should inventory every product, score, opinion, label, ranking, colour-coded category and platform output that assesses one or more environmental, social or governance factors, including products not marketed as ESG ratings.
• Compliance teams may wish to apply the PERG 19 decision framework to each product: whether the activity is carried on by way of business, whether the firm produces and makes the rating available, whether investment decisions are likely to be influenced, the territorial connection, and whether an exclusion or exemption applies.
• Firms should document the distinction between unranked ESG data and provider-produced ratings, including the methodology, default thresholds, categories and user-configurable outputs embedded in software or analytics platforms.
• Potential applicants should identify the legal entity requiring permission, assess whether the activity is standalone or embedded in another regulated service, and prepare a regulatory business plan, governance map, resources assessment and threshold-conditions evidence.
• Prospective applicants should use the FCA’s Pre-Application Support Service from February 2027 and consider submitting applications promptly after the 2027 gateway opens.
• Larger firms should plan to submit applications during the first month of the gateway, before the end of July 2027, where forecast UK ESG-ratings revenue is at least £500,000 in the 12 months following application. Other firms should plan to apply during the second month, by the end of August 2027.
• Firms should perform a gap analysis against PRIN, SYSC, SM&CR, GEN, DISP, ESG-sourcebook and financial-crime expectations, with particular attention to methodology governance, data quality, conflicts, complaints, records, outsourcing and senior-manager accountability.
• Providers should review commercial terms, marketing and distribution arrangements to determine whether products could reasonably be expected to influence specified investment decisions, including where outputs are supplied through third-party financial platforms.

What changed

Providing an ESG rating becomes a regulated activity under article 63U of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001, as amended by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (ESG Ratings) Order 2025. The activity generally requires a provider to produce and make available an opinion, score or combination based on an established methodology and defined ranking system, where the rating is likely to influence a decision to make a specified investment.

Key dates

2026-10-23

The FCA published the multi-firm review findings and associated supervisory expectations.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider performing a documented gap assessment against the review findings, including whether their conflict framework reflects the substance of UK activities rather than only formal delegation or legal arrangements.
• Compliance teams may wish to refresh business-model and transaction-level conflict inventories to cover multiple funds, vintages, continuation and evergreen vehicles, affiliated businesses, shared services, capital-structure conflicts, remuneration, valuation, financing, redemptions, asset transfers and exit decisions.
• Firms should consider testing whether conflict identification occurs repeatedly from origination through valuation, allocation, monitoring, restructuring and exit, rather than only at onboarding or transaction approval.
• Firms may wish to define and evidence materiality thresholds, escalation triggers, accountable decision-makers and governance forums for complex or material conflicts, including when engagement with LPs or LP advisory committees is appropriate.
• For cross-fund transfers and continuation transactions, firms should consider independent challenge, valuation oversight, analysis of competing investor interests, documented alternatives and evidence supporting the fairness of the outcome; investor consent or disclosure alone may not demonstrate adequate management.
• Firms should consider reviewing gifts and entertainment controls beyond monetary thresholds, including purpose, recipient, frequency, patterns, inducement risk, approvals, record keeping and compliance monitoring.
• Firms may wish to assess whether information barriers use physical, organisational and system controls, with monitoring and oversight of information sharing, rather than relying primarily on staff judgement and training.
• Senior management and control functions should consider whether second-line compliance has sufficient independence and authority, and whether periodic internal-audit or other third-line reviews provide effective assurance and challenge.

What changed

This is supervisory guidance and a statement of FCA expectations, not a new rule or formal implementation deadline. The FCA expects firms to identify, assess, record, manage, mitigate and disclose actual, potential and perceived conflicts across the full investment lifecycle, based on the substance, scale and complexity of their UK activities rather than their formal legal structure.

Key dates

2026-10-22

FCA published CP26/37 and opened the consultation.

2027-01-22 Deadline

Deadline for consultation responses.

2027-06-30

End of the first half of 2027, during which the FCA expects to publish final regulatory requirements; the exact publication date is not specified.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should assess the consultation proposals against their current SMF population, including whether SMF18, SMF22 or the existing SMF7 definition is used and how responsibilities would be reallocated.
• Dual-regulated and Enhanced firms should review whether SMF5 and SMF10 to SMF15 appointments would move from prior approval to notification, while considering the continuing need for documented fitness and propriety assessments.
• Compliance teams may wish to model whether the proposed £200 million, £100 billion, £75 million and £750 million Enhanced thresholds would change the firm's classification, including group-level and three-year rolling-average calculations.
• Firms should plan to preserve accurate internal Statements of Responsibilities and Management Responsibilities Maps even if routine FCA submissions are removed.
• Firms should review Prescribed Responsibility allocations and identify the impact of removing nine responsibilities, including the proposed retention of A, D, Z and J-3.
• Certification-function inventories, annual certification processes, regulatory-reference procedures and Directory reporting should be mapped so that transition arrangements can be implemented if the proposals are finalised; firms should not discontinue current obligations before final rules and commencement.
• Conduct and HR teams should assess changes to training, staff notifications, disciplinary classifications, appeal processes and breach-reporting workflows, distinguishing staff subject only to Individual Conduct Rules from those also subject to Senior Manager Conduct Rules.
• Firms should retain processes for prompt notification of matters of regulatory significance under Principle 11, SUP 15 and SUP 10C, because the consultation does not remove those obligations.

What changed

The FCA proposes to make SMF5 (Head of Internal Audit) and SMF10 to SMF15 functions notified rather than subject to prior approval at specified dual-regulated and Enhanced firms. It proposes to remove SMF18 (Other Overall Responsibility) and SMF22 (Local Responsibility), narrow SMF7 (Group Entity Senior Manager), and retain SMF24 (Chief Operations Function) as a pre-approved function.

Key dates

2026-10-22

The FCA and PRA published parallel Phase 2 SM&CR consultations.

2027-01-22 Deadline

Deadline for responses to the FCA and PRA SM&CR Phase 2 consultations.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review the FCA consultation CP26/37 and PRA consultation CP14/26 and consider submitting responses by 22 January 2027.
• Firms should continue operating existing SM&CR approval, certification, Directory, Conduct Rule and responsibility-mapping processes unless and until final rules and any required legislation take effect.
• Firms may wish to map current Senior Management Functions and identify Chief Actuary, Risk Committee Chair and Audit Committee Chair roles that could move from pre-approval to notification, while retaining evidence of fitness, propriety, competence and suitability assessments.
• Compliance teams should identify employees who could fall outside the proposed Certification Regime and assess how internal competence, performance, disciplinary and conduct controls would operate without annual regulatory certification.
• Firms may wish to model the effect of the proposed Enhanced-regime threshold increases on their classification, governance documentation, prescribed responsibilities and approval processes.
• Firms should review Conduct Rule breach-reporting workflows and training curricula, but should not apply a higher reporting threshold or reduced training scope until the relevant final rules are published and effective.
• Governance teams may wish to assess the proposed removal of ongoing Statements of Responsibilities and Management Responsibilities Map submissions and determine what internal records will still be needed to demonstrate clear accountability.
• Firms with cryptoasset activities or planned authorisation may wish to consider the interaction between these proposals, the FCA's modification-by-consent approach for cryptoasset firms and the wider cryptoasset perimeter work.

What changed

The regulators propose removing pre-approval for a range of functions, including Chief Actuaries and Chairs of Risk and Audit Committees, with firms instead notifying the regulators and retaining responsibility for fitness and propriety. Chief Executive, Chief Financial Officer and Chair roles would generally remain subject to regulatory pre-approval, while regulators could require pre-approval for otherwise notified roles in high-risk cases.

Key dates

2019-01-01

In 2019, Dawkins sold Vector Wealth to a director who had previously been disqualified and who subsequently described himself as the firm's CEO; the FCA found that Dawkins falsely represented that he remained in control.

2020-09-22

Kadir Kanizi was appointed as a director of Vector Wealth.

2021-01-01

The FCA's permanent restriction on marketing speculative illiquid securities, including relevant mini-bonds and loan notes, to retail investors took effect, subject to applicable high-net-worth and sophisticated-investor exemptions.

2021-09-06

The FCA approved Kadir Kanizi for his senior management role at Vector Wealth.

2025-01-28

Vector Wealth's FCA authorisation ended.

2026-10-21

The FCA published the enforcement announcement concerning Dawkins and Kanizi.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review ownership, control and governance records following any acquisition or disposal, verify that the person exercising actual control is accurately disclosed to the FCA and assess whether a change-in-control notification under FSMA sections 178 to 191 was required.
• Firms should consider testing that directors, controllers and senior managers meet the applicable fit-and-proper standards and that no disqualified person is exercising management or operational control indirectly or through nominee arrangements.
• Firms that issue, approve or distribute mini-bond, loan-note or similar promotions should consider a product-level assessment of whether the instrument is a speculative illiquid security and whether the promotion is prohibited or qualifies for a valid exemption under the FCA rules.
• Financial promotion approval processes should be reviewed to ensure that risk warnings are prominent, balanced and comprehensible, and are not undermined by claims suggesting fixed returns, simplicity, safety or FCA endorsement.
• Where high-net-worth or sophisticated-investor exemptions are used, firms should consider verifying the relevant declaration and process before providing access to the promotion, rather than treating a generic self-certification as evidence that all conduct and disclosure obligations have been satisfied.
• Firms should consider documenting who reviewed the promotion, the evidence supporting the target market and exemption, the underlying use of investor funds, liquidity and default risks, and the rationale for approving the communication.
• Boards and senior managers may wish to review escalation, oversight and record-keeping arrangements for unregulated investment activity conducted alongside regulated business, particularly where the firm's FCA authorisation could give investors a misleading impression of product safety or compensation protection.
• Firms should consider confirming that senior managers understand their individual accountability for consumer communications and risk oversight, and may wish to include high-risk investment promotions in conduct monitoring and Consumer Duty assessments where relevant.

What changed

This is a final enforcement action rather than a new rule or industry-wide implementation deadline. It applies the existing prohibition in section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 on unauthorised financial promotions, the FCA's financial promotion rules in COBS 4, including the restrictions applying to speculative illiquid securities, and the change-in-control notification regime under sections 178 to 191 of FSMA.

Key dates

2025-12-08

FCA opened DP25/3, Expanding consumer access to investments.

2026-03-06

FCA closed the DP25/3 feedback period.

2026-10-16

FCA published FS26/3, summarising feedback and setting out next steps.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to monitor the FCA's planned review of financial-promotion rules for high-risk investments and assess whether current product classifications and promotional controls would remain defensible if similar-risk products are brought into a more consistent regime.
• Firms may wish to inventory customer-facing risk information for mainstream investments and identify disclosures, digital journeys and governance processes that could require revision following the FCA's planned early-2027 consultation.
• Platform operators and distributors may wish to review appropriateness-testing journeys, including customer understanding, repeat transactions, exemptions, escalation and recordkeeping, in anticipation of FCA stakeholder engagement during 2027.
• Manufacturers and distributors of model portfolio services may wish to test product governance, target-market definitions, distribution strategy, cost and risk disclosures, and evidence of good consumer outcomes before the FCA publishes its multi-firm review findings in Q1 2027.
• Firms may wish to review whether digital interfaces, trading-app functionality, gamification features and other friction-reducing design choices support informed decision-making and remain consistent with Consumer Duty outcomes.
• Industry participants may wish to engage with the FCA's future consultations and stakeholder work, while avoiding treating FS26/3 as permission to relax existing financial-promotion, suitability, appropriateness or consumer-protection controls.

What changed

FS26/3 does not introduce new requirements, thresholds or effective dates for firms. The FCA will review whether financial-promotion rules for high-risk investments treat products with similar risks consistently; it plans to consult in early 2027 on changes to rules and guidance concerning risk information for mainstream investments; and it will review how appropriateness assessments operate in practice, including the merits of alternative models, with stakeholder engagement planned for 2027.

Key dates

2025-11-07

The FCA published its multi-firm review of CFD providers’ provision of price and value, identifying concerns including narrow fair value assessments, opaque overnight funding charges and charges on matched long and short positions.

2026-05-01

The FCA surveyed 81 CFD firms about changes made or planned after the November 2025 review; the source identifies May 2026 but does not specify an exact day.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to document a comprehensive fair value assessment covering spreads, commissions, overnight funding, ancillary fees, cash-balance interest and all other amounts charged to consumer accounts, rather than focusing primarily on execution costs.
• Firms should consider testing whether overnight funding rates are reasonable against prevailing reference or base rates, relevant UK-regulated peers, the underlying asset class and the benefits delivered, with documented rationale for material outliers and wide long-versus-short spreads.
• Firms may wish to assess separately the treatment of matched or hedged positions, including whether applying the full funding spread to both legs is proportionate where there is no net market exposure and whether any reduced-margin or promotional arrangements encourage clients to maintain costly open positions.
• Firms should consider reviewing client-facing disclosures at each relevant stage of the journey, including onboarding, product pages, deal tickets and account interfaces, and explaining the calculation, rate, frequency, leverage effect and potential cumulative impact of overnight charges in accessible language.
• Firms may wish to present projected overnight costs using an annualised percentage measure alongside daily or monetary charges, while retaining clear explanations that actual costs may vary.
• Appropriateness and target-market processes should be reviewed for robustness, including any income thresholds, enhanced scrutiny, vulnerability monitoring and escalation arrangements introduced after the November 2025 review.
• Firms should consider whether interest paid on client cash or margin balances, and the absence of such interest, has been properly assessed as part of the overall price and value outcome.
• Management information may need to evidence the review of charges, peer comparisons, complaints, customer understanding, vulnerable-client outcomes and remediation decisions because the FCA states it will follow up individually where concerns remain.

What changed

This is supervisory guidance and good-and-poor-practice feedback, not a new binding rule or implementation deadline. The FCA expects firms to assess all costs and charges in their fair value assessments, use relevant UK-regulated peer comparisons, consider consumer outcomes rather than treating fair value as a compliance exercise, and review whether overnight funding rates are reasonable in light of prevailing base rates, peer pricing and the benefits provided.

Key dates

2026-10-08

FCA published the consultation announcement and CP26/35, Fair redemption terms for authorised funds investing in illiquid assets.

2026-12-11 Deadline

Deadline for feedback on the FCA consultation proposals.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should identify NURS portfolios containing inherently illiquid assets and assess whether current dealing frequency, redemption terms, liquidity buffers and asset-realisation assumptions are consistent with a proposed 90-day minimum notice period.
• Compliance teams may wish to compare each affected fund's prospectus, instrument constituting the fund, product governance documents, financial promotions and investor disclosures against the proposed requirement for clear access and suitability information.
• Asset managers should model the effect of 90-day and longer notice periods on liquidity stress scenarios, orderly asset sales, valuation processes, dilution and the treatment of redeeming and remaining investors.
• Firms should consider whether any fund requires a notice period longer than 90 days because its assets or strategy cannot support orderly realisation within that minimum period.
• Managers of existing affected funds should develop a transition plan covering the two-year compliance period, including the required minimum one-year investor notice and any required investor-consent, documentation or distribution steps.
• Firms should consider responding to CP26/35 by 2026-12-11, particularly on the proposed scope, definition and operational consequences of the redemption requirements.
• Distributors and advisers should review whether product descriptions, target-market assessments and suitability or appropriateness communications accurately explain the proposed limited access to capital and the distinction between long-term illiquid funds and products offering quick access.

What changed

The FCA proposes that relevant NURS investors must provide at least 90 days' notice before redeeming units. Managers could set a longer notice period where the fund's assets or investment strategy require additional time to raise liquidity. Fund documentation and communications should state clearly how quickly investors can redeem and whether the fund is suitable for investors seeking rapid access to capital. Existing funds would have two years to comply, with investors receiving at least one year's notice of the change.

Key dates

2026-10-08

FCA consultation CP26/35 opened and was first published.

2026-12-11 Deadline

Deadline for responses to the FCA consultation.

Suggested considerations

• AFMs may wish to identify NURS funds with at least 50% exposure to inherently illiquid assets and compare their current dealing frequency, redemption notice periods and liquidity profile with the proposed monthly and 90-day minimum terms.
• AFMs may wish to assess whether fund constitutional documents, prospectuses, application forms, investor communications and distribution agreements would need amendment if the proposals are adopted.
• AFMs may wish to review liquidity risk-management frameworks, asset-sale assumptions, valuation processes, cash-flow stress testing and governance arrangements for consistency between investment strategy, liquidity profile and redemption policy.
• Compliance teams may wish to assess the effect on the FIIA regime, suspension and deferred-redemption tools, depositary oversight and escalation procedures for liquidity mismatches.
• Distributors, platforms, advisers, SIPP operators and unit-linked product providers may wish to assess how longer notice periods and less frequent dealing would be displayed, explained and operationally administered for retail customers.
• Affected firms may wish to submit responses to the FCA by 11 December 2026, focusing on implementation feasibility, customer communications, operational dependencies and the treatment of indirect investors.
• Firms may wish to monitor the FCA's expected final rules in H1 2027 and avoid treating the consultation proposals as currently binding requirements.

What changed

This is a consultation rather than a binding rule change. For NURS funds with at least 50% of scheme property invested in inherently illiquid assets and offering regular liquidity, the FCA proposes minimum redemption terms aligned with LTAF requirements: redemption determinations no more frequently than once a month and a notice period of at least 90 days after acceptance of a redemption request. The FCA also proposes allowing other NURS fund managers to introduce comparable limited redemption arrangements voluntarily, subject to related rule and disclosure changes.

Key dates

2026-10-02

CP26/34 consultation opened and the FCA published the consultation paper and draft implementation materials.

2026-11-06 Deadline

Deadline for responses to CP26/34.

2027-04-03

FCA target date for publication of the final Transaction Reporting User Pack.

2028-04-03 Deadline

New UK transaction reporting rules in MAR 13, MAR 14 and MAR 15 come into force; FCA systems switch to the new schema and validation rules and UK MiFIR reporting formats cease to be accepted.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider submitting responses to CP26/34 by 6 November 2026, particularly on whether the proposed guidance and transitional provisions resolve practical implementation uncertainties.
• Compliance and regulatory reporting teams may wish to map current UK MiFIR reporting processes, fields, instrument populations, back-reporting logic and delegation arrangements against MAR 13, MAR 14 and MAR 15.
• Firms should assess the impact of reducing the reporting-field population from 65 to 52, removing EU-only instruments and excluding qualifying FX derivatives, while separately validating that CFDs, spread bets and other retained instruments remain correctly captured.
• Technology and operations teams should review the FCA draft schema and validation rules, identify data-source and transformation changes, and begin controlled testing before the 3 April 2028 cutover.
• Firms should plan for parallel controls over transaction reports, instrument reference data and order book data during migration, including reconciliation, exception management, resubmission and audit-trail requirements.
• Firms considering conditional single-sided reporting should assess counterparty eligibility, reliance controls, data-quality monitoring, contractual arrangements and fallback procedures before changing reporting responsibilities.
• Compliance teams may wish to distinguish the three-year default back-reporting period from applicable record-retention obligations and maintain evidence supporting any decision to use the reduced lookback.
• Firms should monitor the FCA's planned Q1 2027 consultation and subsequent final Transaction Reporting User Pack, and align implementation governance, vendor deliverables and staff training to the final materials.

What changed

CP26/34 does not propose a new substantive reporting perimeter; it provides implementation detail for the rules introduced in PS26/15. The FCA is consulting on guidance explaining the new rules, transitional arrangements, amendments referring to MAR 13, MAR 14 and MAR 15, and the migration of relevant existing Level 3 Materials into a new Transaction Reporting User Pack.

Key dates

2026-06-30

FCA consultation on GC26/4 opened.

2026-07-30

FCA consultation on GC26/4 closed.

2026-09-30

FCA published finalised guidance FG26/9.

2027-10-25

FG26/9 comes into force as non-Handbook guidance on COREPRU 7.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should map all regulated and unregulated activities, group dependencies and outsourced services into an inventory of risks capable of causing material harm to clients or the market.
• Compliance and prudential teams may wish to document a clear chain from business model and risk appetite through material risks, controls, stress scenarios, OFTR, LATR, early-warning indicators and management actions.
• Firms should assess own funds and liquid assets separately for ongoing operations and wind-down, test the timing of cash inflows and outflows, and evidence that thresholds meet the applicable OFR, BLAR and sectoral minimums.
• Firms should consider whether their business plan, normally covering approximately three years, has been stress tested against sufficiently severe but plausible firm-specific, market-wide and concurrent scenarios, including reverse stress testing to failure.
• Firms should review whether wind-down plans specify triggers, execution steps, timing, costs, cashflow sequencing and resource needs under stressed conditions.
• Firms should establish governance, independent challenge, version control and documentation standards that preserve the rationale, assumptions, evidence and judgments supporting the ORA.
• Firms may wish to schedule implementation work ahead of 25 October 2027, notwithstanding that the underlying COREPRU 7 obligations already apply and the guidance is non-Handbook.
• Firms should plan an annual ORA review, additional reviews following material business-model or operating-model changes, and retention of the approved ORA for at least three years.

What changed

FG26/9 provides an integrated framework for complying with COREPRU 7.2.1R and the overall financial adequacy rule, covering all regulated and unregulated activities, group and outsourcing dependencies, material-harm risks, risk appetite, systems and controls, the own funds threshold requirement (OFTR), the liquid asset threshold requirement (LATR), stress and reverse stress testing, and wind-down planning.

Key dates

2026-09-14

FCA published the Call for Input on tokenised gold.

2026-10-23 Deadline

Deadline for stakeholders to submit responses to the FCA.

Suggested considerations

• Firms developing or considering tokenised gold may wish to assess whether their proposed token, contractual rights and underlying custody arrangements could constitute a CIS, an AIF, a financial instrument or another regulated product under FSMA 2000 and the Regulated Activities Order.
• Potential issuers and platform operators should consider documenting the legal relationship between the token holder, the bullion custodian and the physical gold, including allocation, segregation, redemption, transfer, lien, insolvency and loss arrangements.
• Wholesale market participants may wish to evaluate specific collateral use cases in securities lending, repo and derivatives, including eligibility, valuation, margining, haircut, settlement finality, enforcement and treatment following a platform or custodian failure.
• Firms should consider whether their governance, outsourcing, operational-resilience, cyber-security, private-key management, ledger-access and business-continuity controls are appropriate for tokenised ownership records and programmable transfers.
• Asset managers and product sponsors may wish to review whether existing disclosures, fund constitutional documents, custody arrangements, valuation policies and investor protections adequately address tokenised gold.
• Industry participants may wish to submit evidence to the FCA by 23 October 2026, addressing practical use cases, barriers, risks, interoperability standards and the effect of CIS and AIF perimeter uncertainty.
• Compliance teams may wish to monitor subsequent FCA policy development, including possible guidance or a bespoke regime, rather than treating the Call for Input as confirmation that any particular tokenised-gold structure is currently permitted or outside regulation.

What changed

No binding rule, authorisation requirement or supervisory obligation has been introduced. The FCA has begun an evidence-gathering exercise that may inform future guidance or a bespoke regime for tokenised gold. The regulator is examining whether digital tokens representing ownership of physical gold can support wholesale collateral, including potential use in securities lending, repo and derivatives transactions, while preserving market integrity, consumer protection and the existing strengths of London's gold-market infrastructure.

Key dates

2026-07-24

The FCA conducted the Attest quantitative survey of 666 UK adults aged 18 to 40 who owned investments or were considering buying investments within 12 months.

2026-08-27

The FCA published the press release and research findings on young investors' trust in AI.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map all AI use cases across investment research, recommendations, suitability, appropriateness assessments, client communications, and financial promotions, distinguishing general-purpose tools from systems specifically configured to provide financial advice.
• Firms should consider assessing whether any AI-generated output amounts to a personal recommendation, regulated advice, or a financial promotion under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001, rather than relying on the technology's general-purpose label.
• Firms using AI in regulated activities should consider applying the same suitability, appropriateness, customer understanding, disclosure, record-keeping, oversight, and accountability standards that apply to equivalent human-led processes.
• Customer-facing communications may warrant clear explanation that general-purpose chatbot outputs are not FCA-regulated advice and do not themselves create entitlement to FSCS compensation or access to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
• Compliance teams may wish to test AI outputs for hallucinations, stale or unsupported sources, misleading performance claims, inappropriate personalisation, bias, and inadequate risk warnings, with escalation and human-review controls for higher-risk outputs.
• Firms should consider reviewing whether AI-generated content used in promotions complies with the FCA financial promotion restriction in section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and applicable FCA financial-promotion rules.
• Governance reviews may include vendor due diligence, approved-use restrictions, audit trails, model-change monitoring, incident reporting, staff training, and controls preventing customers or staff from treating AI output as a substitute for regulated advice.
• Firms may wish to monitor the FCA's expected late-2026 publication on good and poor AI practice and any subsequent FCA, HM Treasury, or industry measures addressing advice-like outputs from general-purpose AI.

What changed

No binding regulatory requirement, rule, prohibition, or implementation deadline was introduced. The FCA clarified its current supervisory position that general-purpose AI chatbots are not regulated by the FCA where they respond to varied prompts and are not specifically established to provide financial advice, research, or decision-making support. By contrast, an AI tool specifically deployed to provide financial advice would be likely to fall within the FCA's remit and could engage the existing UK regulatory framework for regulated advice and financial promotions.

Key dates

2016-01-01

The period began during which the FCA found that the investor-visa scheme operated; the exact start date is not specified in the publication.

2019-01-01

The period ended during which the FCA found that the scheme operated; the exact end date is not specified in the publication.

2021-03-12

The FCA imposed restrictions preventing Dolfin from carrying on regulated activities, following concerns including its operation of the investor-visa funding scheme.

2021-06-01

Dolfin entered special administration; the exact date in June is not specified in the publication.

2022-02-17

The Home Office closed the Tier 1 investor visa route of entry to the UK.

2026-08-26

The FCA published the enforcement announcement concerning the bans, fines and Joukovski Decision Notice.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether any product or client arrangement could create a misleading impression that a regulatory, immigration or other statutory investment threshold has been met when the client’s own qualifying capital is materially lower.
• Firms should consider testing the end-to-end governance of immigration-linked investment business, including approval of the business model, ownership and control disclosures, conflicts management, introducer due diligence, fee flows and oversight of connected or offshore entities.
• Firms may wish to reassess source-of-funds and source-of-wealth controls where client investments are supported by loans, circular funding, guarantees or funds provided by affiliated entities, and document why the resulting structure is consistent with the relevant immigration and financial-services requirements.
• Senior managers and boards should consider whether regulatory submissions, notifications and attestations fully disclose shadow directorships, controllers, beneficial ownership, related-party involvement and the true commercial purpose of client arrangements.
• Firms should consider conducting targeted reviews of historical investor-visa or residence-by-investment clients, including communications and files supplied to regulators or other public authorities, and escalating any potentially misleading statement or omission through the appropriate remediation and notification processes.
• Training and surveillance may be reviewed to ensure staff understand that conduct outside the core regulated service, including assistance with immigration-rule circumvention, can affect the firm’s and individuals’ integrity, fitness and propriety.
• Where third-party immigration agents or introducers are used, firms may wish to assess their incentives, remuneration, representations to clients, due-diligence records and ongoing monitoring, particularly where fees are unusually high or linked to visa approval.

What changed

This is a final enforcement outcome for Nagy and Maraj, not a new generally applicable rule or supervisory requirement. Both were prohibited from performing any function in relation to regulated activities; Nagy’s discounted penalty was £324,800, compared with an undiscounted £464,000, and Maraj’s discounted penalty was £122,000, compared with an undiscounted £174,300. Joukovski was issued a Decision Notice proposing a prohibition order, but the proposed action has no effect pending the Upper Tribunal’s determination.

Key dates

2018-05-01

Demetrios Hadjigeorgiou became CEO of SVS Securities Plc.

2019-08-02

The FCA required SVS to cease regulated activities, safeguard assets and notify affected third parties.

2019-08-05

SVS Securities Plc entered special administration.

2023-08-10

SVS Securities Plc was dissolved.

2024-04-25

The FCA issued its initial Decision Notice proposing an £84,600 penalty and prohibition order against Mr Hadjigeorgiou.

2026-08-19

The FCA published the settled enforcement outcome: a £56,400 fine and prohibition from senior management positions in financial services.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether senior managers have documented challenge and escalation responsibilities for investments involving issuer payments, commissions, related parties or other conflicts of interest.
• Firms should consider testing whether investment due diligence appropriately assesses product risk, liquidity, valuation methodology, concentration and suitability for pension and retail customers.
• Firms should consider reconciling all fees, commissions, retained spreads and exit-value adjustments against customer disclosures, ensuring that any reduction in redemption or sale value is prominent, timely and understandable.
• Boards and senior managers may wish to evidence periodic review of model portfolios against customers’ stated objectives, risk appetite, liquidity needs and pension-transfer circumstances.
• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether management information would have identified customer detriment, unusually high issuer-related income or investment decisions that prioritised firm revenue over customer interests.
• Firms should consider retaining clear records showing how conflicts were identified, mitigated, disclosed and challenged, including the rationale for approving high-risk or illiquid products for retail and pension-related portfolios.
• Authorised firms may wish to review the FCA’s SVS enforcement materials alongside their own senior-manager accountability maps and Statements of Responsibilities, while recognising that this case does not itself create a new universal obligation.

What changed

This is a concluded enforcement action against an individual, not a new general rule or threshold applicable to firms. The FCA imposed a financial penalty under section 66 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and a prohibition order under section 56 of that Act, following settlement and withdrawal of the Upper Tribunal referral. The FCA found a breach of Statement of Principle 6, requiring an approved person to exercise due skill, care and diligence in managing the business of the firm.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review application of Individual Conduct Rule 1 (Integrity) and related training for senior managers and certified staff, using this case as a concrete example of prohibited behaviours such as falsification of documents and misleading regulators during transaction processes.
• Firms should consider revisiting governance and controls around change-in-control, acquisition and due diligence processes, ensuring that any representations to counterparties, the FCA or the PRA about ownership of assets, funding sources or balance sheet strength are independently verified and properly documented.
• Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SMCR) frameworks may need to be assessed to confirm that integrity risks are captured within fit-and-proper assessments under FIT, including checks on honesty in communications with regulators and counterparties and escalation processes where concerns arise.
• Legal and compliance functions may wish to review internal investigation procedures, including how interviews are conducted and recorded, to ensure that employees understand the expectation of candour and the potential regulatory consequences of providing false or misleading statements during internal investigations.
• Boards and risk committees at FCA-authorised firms should consider whether their culture and conduct risk programmes sufficiently stress the expectation of honesty in all regulatory engagement, and whether additional monitoring or attestations from senior executives involved in M&A or capital-raising transactions are warranted.
• HR and compliance teams may wish to update disciplinary and regulatory notification policies to reflect that dishonesty in external deal negotiations or in internal investigations can trigger regulatory reporting obligations and potential fitness and propriety concerns.
• Firms involved in potential acquisitions of regulated entities should consider implementing pre-clearance and compliance review steps for all documentation and representations provided to target firms, regulators, and advisers, focusing on verification of asset ownership and financial claims.
• Compliance monitoring plans may be enhanced to include thematic reviews of communications with regulators and key counterparties in high-risk transactions, assessing whether there is adequate oversight and evidence of accuracy and integrity.

What changed

This publication does not introduce new rules but illustrates the FCA’s application of existing powers under section 66 FSMA 2000 (financial penalties for misconduct) and section 56 FSMA 2000 (prohibition orders) to serious integrity breaches by senior managers. It reinforces the practical interpretation of Individual Conduct Rule 1 (Integrity) in the Conduct Rules sourcebook (COCON), showing that dishonest statements and falsified documents directed at counterparties and regulators in the context of acquisitions are treated as egregious misconduct.

Key dates

2026-12-31 Deadline

AST critical recommendations expected to be implemented, including same-day trade allocation/confirmation and adoption of the FMSB SSI standard

2027-10-11 Deadline

UK T+1 securities settlement cycle begins; transferables securities traded on a UK venue and settled on a UK CSD are expected to settle on T+1 basis

Suggested considerations

• Review whether the firm has completed a T+1 project plan, secured budget and governance, and mapped all required system and process changes.
• Check that trade allocation and confirmation processes can operate by end of trade date, or identify remediation needed to reach that standard.
• Confirm adoption of the FMSB standard for sharing standard settlement instructions and align client outreach to ensure clients use the same standard where relevant.
• Assess whether current settlement performance can be measured clearly, including failure rates and root causes, and whether management information is sufficient to track progress.
• Validate dependencies on custodians, counterparties, clients and third-party providers, and obtain their implementation timelines and testing plans.
• Prepare testing strategy and evidence for testing readiness, including alignment with the UK/EU joint testing plan.
• Consider whether the firm’s fund settlement cycle should move to T+2 before 11 October 2027 to reduce cycle mismatch risk.
• Increase automation where manual processes remain material, particularly in matching, confirmation and settlement instruction workflows.

What changed

This is not a new rule notice, but it is a supervisory signal about expectations for the 11 October 2027 T+1 transition. The FCA expects firms to have completed T+1 project planning, secured budget and governance, and be well into implementation, with system and process changes underway and testing plans finalised by the time the market moves closer to 2027. The FCA highlighted specific implementation priorities drawn from the Accelerated Settlement Taskforce framework, including allocating and confirming trades by the end of trade date, adopting the Financial Markets Standards Board...

Key dates

31 July 2022

- FCA expected to make the original Consumer Duty rules following CP21/13, establishing the baseline regime and Principle 12

31 July 2023

- Consumer Duty comes into force for open (non‑closed‑book) products and services, triggering initial implementation across retail distribution chains

First half of 2026

- FCA planned consultation on revisions to the Consumer Duty scope and exemptions, including clearer delineation of business‑to‑business activity, reliance arrangements in distribution chains and removal of non‑UK customers from scope

Late 2026 (TBD)

- FCA to consult on further changes to client classification, sharpening the distinction between retail and professional markets and clarifying the treatment of sophisticated investors under the Consumer Duty

June 2026 (indicative)

- FCA expected to issue a consultation paper on Duty scope, proportionality and application to wholesale‑only and early‑chain firms, including potential changes to definitions and categorisation of manufacturers versus supporting firms

Suggested considerations

• Map all business lines and activities to identify which are genuinely wholesale, early‑chain or business‑to‑business, and assess where the firm does or does not “shape consumer outcomes” at the end of the chain.
• Review existing Consumer Duty scoping decisions for activities such as market making, custody, safeguarding and other wholesale services, and prepare to adjust those decisions in line with FCA case studies and clarified boundaries.
• Re‑evaluate cross‑border business conducted for non‑UK clients to determine which products and services may fall outside the Consumer Duty under the proposed narrowed territorial scope, and document the basis for this classification.
• Analyse multi‑party distribution chains and co‑manufacturing arrangements to clearly delineate responsibilities, reliance points and escalation mechanisms where other firms are expected to meet their Consumer Duty obligations.
• Update product governance and Consumer Duty frameworks to distinguish between “manufacturers” and supporting firms, ensuring manufacturers continue to meet full Duty requirements while supporting firms apply Principle 12 and cross‑cutting rules proportionately.

What changed

• - The FCA is consulting on clearer scope boundaries for the Consumer Duty to confirm that wholesale, business‑to‑business activities that do not shape retail consumer outcomes should normally be out...
• The FCA will provide case studies and examples of “grey areas” to illustrate when activities are, and are not, caught by the Duty, particularly for early‑chain and wholesale‑only firms.
• The FCA is clarifying accountability in multi‑firm arrangements, confirming that each firm is responsible for its own activities, can rely on other firms to meet their obligations where appropriate,...
• The FCA plans to reduce duplication of obligations across distribution chains, including refining how the “look‑through” concept and co‑manufacturing apply where firms do not directly interact with...
• The FCA is narrowing the territorial scope of the Consumer Duty so that business conducted for genuinely non‑UK customers will generally be out of scope, aligning with the principle that local...

Key dates

May 2023

- The PRA published Consultation Paper CP9/23, which proposed changes later reflected in the updated enforcement approach

30 January 2024

- The Bank of England unveiled changes to the PRA’s enforcement approach, including the Early Account Scheme and the Enhanced Settlement Discount

24 June 2026

- David Chaplin delivered the speech at the 5th Conference on Financial Law and Regulation at the University of Leeds School of Law

Suggested considerations

• Review current investigation-response procedures to ensure the firm can produce a factually complete written account and supporting evidence at short notice.
• Build escalation protocols that trigger early internal fact-finding when a potential prudential breach is identified.
• Train relevant staff to distinguish between cooperation, factual admissions, and without-prejudice settlement positions so that engagement does not inadvertently prejudice legal strategy.
• Reassess whether current incident-management playbooks are aligned with the PRA’s expectation of early candour and remediation.
• Ensure legal, compliance, and business stakeholders can rapidly agree on breach acknowledgment, remediation steps, and document preservation.

What changed

• - The PRA is now explicitly encouraging earlier engagement by investigation subjects, including proactive identification, acknowledgement, and remediation of breaches.
• The familiar enforcement pattern is changing from a late-stage admission model toward a front-loaded investigative model in which firms provide information earlier in the process.
• The PRA’s enforcement approach now places greater emphasis on written factual accounts and supporting materials during the initial investigative stage.
• Firms that participate early and make early admissions may obtain enhanced settlement discounts, while non-participants remain on a lower discount path.
• The Bank says this is not a new policy launch but an explanation of how the existing approach is operating in practice across live cases.

Suggested considerations

• Conduct an immediate perimeter review of all digital, subscription‑based, model‑portfolio, and strategy‑distribution offerings to determine whether they constitute regulated investment advice or arranging, requiring FCA permission.
• Review all online content, marketing materials, newsletters, videos, and “community” communications to identify any that could amount to a financial promotion to UK consumers and ensure they are issued or approved by an authorised firm under section 21 FSMA, or fall clearly within an exemption.
• Update internal policies and product‑governance frameworks for research, commentary, and model portfolios so that any service intended to be implemented by clients is classified and treated as a regulated activity where relevant.
• For groups using non‑UK entities to host platforms or provide content, perform a jurisdictional analysis and document how UK‑facing activities are controlled, authorised, or carved out to avoid a breach of FSMA sections 19 and 21.
• Implement or strengthen pre‑clearance procedures for senior individuals (particularly previously sanctioned or restricted persons) seeking to launch new client‑facing propositions, ensuring that any new business line is assessed for authorisation and promotion requirements before launch.

What changed

• - The FCA has publicly confirmed that providing model portfolios, strategies or investment recommendations via a subscription website can constitute regulated investment advice and financial...
• The FCA is treating digital “community platforms” and strategy‑copying services as potentially regulated activities, not merely education or general commentary, where users are expected to implement...
• The FCA has explicitly framed such activity as breaching the general prohibition in section 19 FSMA (carrying on a regulated activity in the UK without authorisation or exemption) when done without...
• The FCA has explicitly framed such online communications as breaching the financial promotion restriction in section 21 FSMA where no authorised firm approves or issues the promotions.
• The regulator has commenced civil proceedings and is actively seeking an injunction from the court to force the immediate cessation of the allegedly unlawful advice and promotion activities.

Key dates

06 December 2023

– FCA publishes CP23/28 “Updating the regime for Money Market Funds,” consulting on higher liquidity minima (15% DLA and 50% WLA), delinking, enhanced KYC, and broader resilience measures

14 May 2026

– HM Treasury and the FCA publish the joint policy statement “Reforms to Money Market Fund Regulations,” confirming the Government’s intention to replace the UK MMFR with a new framework and that most MMF requirements will be set in FCA rules and guidance, including higher liquidity expectations

15 May 2026

– FCA issues its statement “FCA update on reforms to the UK Money Market Fund Regulation,” setting out updated proposals, including retention of current minimum WLA in rules, the new “adequate resilience” liquidity rule, and supervisory expectations of 40% WLA for stable NAV and 20% WLA for variable NAV MMFs, and indicating that CP23/28 measures such as delinking and enhanced KYC will largely be taken forward

Q4 2026

– The UK’s new MMF regime is expected to be in place, subject to Parliamentary approval of the enabling legislation, after which the detailed FCA rules and guidance (including the new resilience rule and WLA expectations) will apply

TBD (as soon as Parliamentary time allows)

– HM Treasury will lay the statutory instrument replacing the UK MMFR with the new legislative framework under which FCA rules and guidance for MMFs will be made

Suggested considerations

• Conduct a comprehensive gap analysis comparing current MMF liquidity management frameworks (DLA, WLA, and stress‑testing assumptions) against the forthcoming FCA “adequate resilience” rule and the 40% (stable NAV) / 20% (variable NAV) WLA supervisory expectations.
• Update MMF liquidity policies, board‑approved risk appetites, and internal limits to reflect the new WLA expectations, including documentation of when and how funds may temporarily operate below 40%/20% WLA and the governance required to approve such deviations.
• Implement enhancements to liquidity monitoring and MI reporting so that portfolio managers, risk, and compliance have near‑real‑time visibility of DLA and WLA levels, breaches of internal and supervisory thresholds, and redemption‑driven use of liquidity buffers.
• Review and update fund prospectuses, KIIDs/KIDs, and investor disclosures to ensure that descriptions of MMF liquidity management, the availability of liquidity management tools, and the operation of stable NAV structures are accurate under the new FCA regime.
• Revise and strengthen investor KYC procedures for MMFs to capture concentration risks and potential correlated outflows, including segmentation of investor types, monitoring of large holders, and scenario analysis around key client redemption behaviour.

What changed

• - The FCA will introduce a new overarching rule requiring that all UK‑domiciled MMFs must hold sufficient liquidity for “adequate resilience”, explicitly linking fund liquidity to financial stability...
• The FCA will retain the current minimum WLA requirements from the existing UK Money Market Fund Regulation (UK MMFR) in its rules, instead of the previously consulted increases to 50% WLA for all...
• The FCA will issue guidance setting out strong supervisory expectations that stable NAV MMFs should hold 40% WLA and variable NAV MMFs should hold 20% WLA to meet the new resilience requirement,...
• The FCA makes clear that falling below the 40%/20% WLA supervisory expectations should only occur to meet redemption requests or due to factors beyond the manager’s control, and should be rare, with...
• The FCA will retain existing minimum daily liquid asset (DLA) requirements from UK MMFR in rules and does not plan to issue new guidance on DLA levels, but expects DLA and WLA together to be...

Key dates

July 2025

- HM Treasury published its Policy Update on applying the FSMA model of regulation to the UK CRR and proposed revoking the remaining CRR provisions while restating only necessary definitions

July 2025

- PRA published CP19/25 proposing the transfer of CRR definitions into the PRA Rulebook Glossary and consequential amendments across the Rulebook

January 2026

- PRA published earlier final policy work on CRR restatement and related implementation measures, indicating the wider restatement programme was already underway

February 2026

- HM Treasury published a policy update confirming it would proceed largely as consulted on, with a change to the statutory definition of “securitisation” for consistency with PRA Basel 3.1 rules

February 2026

- The commencement statutory instrument revoking CRR Articles 4–5 was made, with effect from 1 January 2027

Suggested considerations

• Review all internal policies, manuals, and regulatory interpretation documents that currently cite CRR Articles 4, 4A, 4B, or 5 and replace those references with the corresponding PRA Rulebook Glossary definitions.
• Update capital adequacy, prudential reporting, and risk management systems to use the new PRA Rulebook terminology where definitions have moved from the CRR text.
• Reconcile group supervision materials, governance papers, and consolidation analyses against the revised SS15/13 wording to ensure group structures are assessed using the updated definitions.
• Map every affected business line and legal entity to determine which Rulebook Parts and counterparties rely on the transferred CRR definitions.
• Test template agreements, customer disclosures, and internal controls for terminology drift where contractual drafting depends on CRR-defined concepts.

What changed

• - The PRA has finalised new and restated PRA Rulebook Glossary definitions that replace the CRR definitions previously found in Articles 4, 4A, 4B and 5 for PRA Rulebook purposes.
• The PRA has made consequential amendments across other Parts of the PRA Rulebook to align internal cross-references and terminology with the new glossary structure.
• The PRA has updated Supervisory Statement SS15/13 – Groups to reflect the transfer of CRR definitions into the PRA Rulebook framework.
• The PRA has stated that the vast majority of definitions are restated without substantive policy change, but some definitions were clarified for drafting consistency and readability.
• HM Treasury has set the legislative timetable so that the relevant CRR Articles 4–5 will be revoked from 1 January 2027, while the statutory restatement of selected definitions was made in April 2026.