Goldman Sachs Handed Record Fine by the FCA
In the first of a series of shorter posts today, we will react
to the news that Goldman Sachs has been handed a financial penalty by the FCA
for misrepresenting a vast number of transactions over the past decade.
In the largest fine of its kind ever given out by the
regulator, the FCA has fined Goldman’s London Unit £34.4 million for ‘failing
to provide accurate and timely reporting relating to 220.2 million transaction
reports between November 2007 and March 2017’. Because Goldman agreed to
resolve a proportion of the issue – issues relating to the firm’s change
management processes and its maintenance of counterparty reference data – the figure
of £43.4 million is actually a reduction on what should have been a £49 million
fine. The firm is guilty of not complying with the rules of the Markets in Financial Instruments
Directive, or MiFID, and is the second such action taken against a bank by
the FCA in less than a month after UBS was
fined £28 million for the same thing. In total, the regulator has now taken
action against 13
organisations for this breach, including Merrill Lynch, Deutsche Bank, Société Générale, and Barclays amongst
others.
The regulator is rightfully cracking down on these breaches
because the data it would obtain from efficient record keeping is used to
identify market abuses and financial crime. Such a widespread and historic
flouting of these regulations fundamentally affects the capability of the
regulator to efficiently monitor the marketplace, which is why the FCA were
clear in their press release that ‘these
were very serious and prolonged failures… accurate and complete transaction
reporting helps underwrite market integrity and supervise firms and markets’.
There is a focus on financial crime across the globe (perhaps in name mostly,
but there is a focus) and this news must be attached to the continuing
developments in Malaysia where Goldman is being sued over its role in the 1MDB
scandal. However, perhaps it is too much of a reach to combine these issues
and suggest that the banks do not take tackling financial crime seriously
enough. Maybe. Yet, one angle that must be rejected is the notion put forward
by Goldman that ‘we
are pleased to have resolved this legacy matter’ – this is not a legacy matter. Furthermore, it would be
preferable to remove this term and concept from the wider conversation because
it is particularly unhelpful. Failings from 2007 to 2017 do not constitute legacy
issues, and the composition of these large organisations and, crucially, their
behaviour, show that very little has changed. The protection afforded by
attempting to designate something as being part of the past ought to be removed
if real and affectual change is to take place in the culture of financial
services across the globe.
Keywords – Goldman Sachs, FCA, Compliance, MiFID, Europe,
Financial Regulation, @finregmatters
Comments
Post a Comment