How we assess senior management function applications

Once we receive your complete application[1], a case officer will assess it according to the criteria below.

We will only approve an application once the firm has demonstrated, and we are satisfied that the candidate is fit and proper[2] to perform the SMF role in question.

(The same applies to giving our consent for dual-regulated applications where the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) is the lead regulator.) 

This page covers:

• Scrutiny levels – our risk-based approach.
• Applications from candidates from overseas or other industry sectors.
• Timelines – how long assessments take.
• Interviews – what to expect.
• Outcomes – next steps if your application is approved, refused or approved with conditions
• How to withdraw an application.

Our risk-based approach  

We apply a risk-based approach to assessing SMF applications. This helps to ensure we assess candidates in a measured and proportionate way.

Many factors influence our assessment. For example, we may apply a different level of scrutiny when assessing whether a candidate is competent for the role of executive director in a large complex firm, compared to an executive director role in a smaller firm operating in a different market, or a firm where we have concerns around the firm’s governance arrangements.

The level of scrutiny we apply to reach a decision will be based on several factors, including the:

• Candidate's background and regulatory history.
• Role being applied for.
• Applicant firm’s size, background and regulatory history.
• Risks of harm posed by firms in the relevant market(s).

We evaluate each application on its own merits and circumstances, in terms of the candidate’s fitness and propriety.

We expect all firms to be honest and open throughout the assessment. We want to be confident that individuals in key roles at firms are not only competent and trustworthy now, but also likely to remain so in the future.