Reference Case Number: FOI9234
Freedom of Information: Right to know request:
FTAdviser today (27/04/2022) reports "FCA: One in seven applicants do not obtain authorisation" (see online at https://www.ftadviser.com/regulation/2022/04/26/fca-one-in-seven-applicants-do-not-obtain-authorisation/).
I'd like to see a breakdown of those numbers by regime (e.g., FSMA, EMRs, PSRs, MLRs, etc) and, ideally, by portfolio within the regime however the FCA captures that information.
Also, for clarity, distinguishing between:
- Authorisations and registrations, and
- Within the PSR and EMR regimes, small and "full" applications.
FCA response:
The original numbers (one in seven) considered all applications for authorisation under FSMA, EMR and PSR in calendar year 2021. It excluded registrations under the fourth and fifth money laundering directives and registrations of Small Payment Institutions (SPI) under the PSRs and Small Electronic Money Institutions (SEMI) under the PSRs.
When these registrations are included, the rate rises from one in seven (15%) to one in five (19%).
The tables below, detail the requested breakdowns for the calendar year 2021, as originally published.
Fig 1: Breakdown by Regime
|
|
FSMA |
FSMA (AIFM) |
EMRs |
PSRs |
4MLD |
5MLD |
Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Approved, withdrawn by firm or rejected due to material errors |
2,900 |
53 |
48 |
120 |
199 |
43 |
3,363 |
|
Withdrawn or rejected due to material errors |
502 |
15 |
52 |
128 |
10 |
79 |
786 |
|
Rate |
15% |
22% |
52% |
52% |
5% |
65% |
19% |
Fig 2: Of those under EMRs or PSRs, breakdown by application type
|
|
EMRs |
PSRs |
|
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Authorised E-Money Institution (AEMI) |
Small Electronic Money Institution (SEMI) |
Authorised Payment Institution (API) |
Registered Account Information Service Provider (RAISP) |
Small Payment Institution (SPI) |
Overall |
|
Approved, withdrawn by firm or rejected due to material errors |
36 |
12 |
32 |
13 |
75 |
168 |
|
Withdrawn or rejected due to material errors |
37 |
15 |
23 |
4 |
101 |
180 |
|
Rate |
51% |
56% |
42% |
24% |
57% |
52% |
Fig 3: Across all applications, breakdown by nominal portfolio
|
|
Approved, withdrawn by firm or rejected due to material errors |
Withdrawn or rejected due to material errors |
% |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Advisers and Intermediaries |
180 |
33 |
15% |
|
Alternatives |
96 |
41 |
30% |
|
Asset Management |
39 |
12 |
24% |
|
Benchmarks |
1 |
0 |
0% |
|
Contracts for Differences (CFD) Providers |
3 |
11 |
79% |
|
Corporate Finance Firms |
1 |
1 |
50% |
|
Credit Brokers |
2,203 |
225 |
9% |
|
Credit reference agencies and providers of credit information services |
4 |
3 |
43% |
|
Crowdfunders (Investment) |
0 |
4 |
100% |
|
Cryptoasset AML |
40 |
64 |
62% |
|
Custody and Fund Services |
4 |
0 |
0% |
|
Debt Advice Firms |
14 |
11 |
44% |
|
Debt purchasers, debt collectors and debt administrators |
9 |
6 |
40% |
|
E-Money Issuer |
49 |
44 |
47% |
|
Funeral Plan Provider |
1 |
1 |
50% |
|
High-Cost Lenders |
6 |
22 |
79% |
|
Life Insurance |
1 |
0 |
0% |
|
Lloyds and London Market Intermediaries (inc Managing General Agents) |
2 |
0 |
0% |
|
Lloyds Managing Agents and London Market (Re) Insurers (inc P & I Clubs) |
4 |
1 |
20% |
|
Mainstream Consumer Credit Lenders |
9 |
10 |
53% |
|
Mortgage Intermediaries |
122 |
25 |
17% |
|
Motor Finance Providers |
5 |
5 |
50% |
|
Non-Bank Lenders |
0 |
1 |
100% |
|
Not classified |
203 |
40 |
16% |
|
Payment Services Firm |
125 |
137 |
52% |
|
Peer-to-Peer lending platforms |
2 |
2 |
50% |
|
Personal and Commercial Lines Insurance Intermediaries |
129 |
38 |
23% |
|
Platforms |
3 |
0 |
0% |
|
Principal Trading Firms |
20 |
8 |
29% |
|
Retail Bank |
5 |
5 |
50% |
|
Retail Finance Providers |
46 |
15 |
25% |
|
Retail Mortgage Lenders |
0 |
1 |
100% |
|
SIPP Operators |
4 |
0 |
0% |
|
Trade Repositories |
1 |
0 |
0% |
|
Wealth Management |
12 |
4 |
25% |
|
Wholesale Brokers |
20 |
16 |
44% |
|
Overall |
3,363 |
786 |
19% |