Compliance Clarified – a podcast by Thomson Reuters Regulatory Intelligence Series 2, Episode 10: Personal accountability: structure vs substance
Jul 27, 2021
33:49
In the final episode of the second series of Compliance Clarified, Mike Cowan and Lindsey Rogerson joins Susannah Hammond to discuss the growth of personal accountability regimes.
In the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis lawmakers in countries from the UK to Singapore viewed personal accountability regimes as a way to hold individuals responsible for any future financial failures. But are they delivering? Regulators in the UK certainly say they are and responsibility maps and personal accountability statements have certainly given clarity over who is in charge of what, but scratch the surface and the jury is still out on when it comes to removing bad apples. And do regulators actually need personal accountability regimes to hold individuals to account in the first place? A recent case from Ireland suggests not.
As discussed in the podcast here are some additional resources:
UK - Evaluation of the Senior Managers and Certification Regime -
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/prudential-regulation/report/evaluation-of-smcr-2020.pdf?la=en&hash=151E78315E5C50E70A6B8B08AE3D5E93563D0168
Australia - Implementation of the Banking Executive Accountability Regime (BEAR) - https://www.apra.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-12/BEAR%20information%20paper%20December%202020.pdf
The sixth annual “Fintech, regtech and the role of compliance” survey is now open – if you would like to take part please click here - https://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/6393510/Fintech-Regtech-and-the-Role-of-Compliance-in-2022
The survey should take no longer than 10 minutes to complete. All information will be treated in the strictest confidence and the results will be shared anonymously through a special report which will be available by the end of 2021.
Further information on Thomson Reuters Regulatory Intelligence can be found at: https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/products/regulatory-intelligence?elqTrackId=73370082102a4669b4d34524158b501c&elqaid=3945&elqat=2
In the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis lawmakers in countries from the UK to Singapore viewed personal accountability regimes as a way to hold individuals responsible for any future financial failures. But are they delivering? Regulators in the UK certainly say they are and responsibility maps and personal accountability statements have certainly given clarity over who is in charge of what, but scratch the surface and the jury is still out on when it comes to removing bad apples. And do regulators actually need personal accountability regimes to hold individuals to account in the first place? A recent case from Ireland suggests not.
As discussed in the podcast here are some additional resources:
UK - Evaluation of the Senior Managers and Certification Regime -
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/prudential-regulation/report/evaluation-of-smcr-2020.pdf?la=en&hash=151E78315E5C50E70A6B8B08AE3D5E93563D0168
Australia - Implementation of the Banking Executive Accountability Regime (BEAR) - https://www.apra.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-12/BEAR%20information%20paper%20December%202020.pdf
The sixth annual “Fintech, regtech and the role of compliance” survey is now open – if you would like to take part please click here - https://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/6393510/Fintech-Regtech-and-the-Role-of-Compliance-in-2022
The survey should take no longer than 10 minutes to complete. All information will be treated in the strictest confidence and the results will be shared anonymously through a special report which will be available by the end of 2021.
Further information on Thomson Reuters Regulatory Intelligence can be found at: https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/products/regulatory-intelligence?elqTrackId=73370082102a4669b4d34524158b501c&elqaid=3945&elqat=2