Principles-based, risk-based regulation and effective enforcement

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511770456.025

24 - Principles-based, risk-based regulation and effective enforcement

from PART II - Perspectives in financial regulation, SECTION 1: European perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 August 2010

Eilis Ferran

Edited by

Michel Tison ,

Hans De Wulf ,

Christoph Van der Elst and

Reinhard Steennot

Show author details

Michel Tison: Affiliation:
Universiteit Gent, Belgium
Hans De Wulf: Affiliation:
Universiteit Gent, Belgium
Christoph Van der Elst: Affiliation:
Universiteit Gent, Belgium
Reinhard Steennot: Affiliation:
Universiteit Gent, Belgium

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Enforcement intensity may impinge on capital market competitiveness. It also has implications for the development of international securities regulation, which is increasingly likely to depend on determinations of equivalence as between different national (or regional) regimes.

The UK Financial Services Authority is not enforcement-led and, in tune with its principles-based, risk-based approach, it employs a range of compliance-promoting strategies. Its measured approach to enforcement divides opinion and particular controversy surrounds its application in relation to market abuse. This chapter reviews the Financial Services Authority's enforcement record in this difficult area and identifies challenges that lie ahead.

What does principles-based, risk-based regulation mean?

The essence of the distinction between rules and principles lies in their specificity. At opposite ends of the spectrum lie: a ‘rule’ which is written in such detailed and precise terms that all questions about what conduct is permissible are settled in advance leaving only factual issues for later judgment; and a ‘principle’ (or ‘standard’) written in open-textured language that leaves open both specification of what conduct is permissible and judgment on factual issues. Many, if not most, regulatory requirements will occupy the space between these endpoints showing more (or less) of the characteristics of a rule (or principle), being as Cunningham has put it, ‘hybrids along a continuum’. The combination of principles, rules and all points in between within a legal system can, in jurisprudential terms, be seen as a compromise between two social needs: ‘the need for certain rules which can, over great areas of conduct, safely be applied by private individuals to themselves without fresh official guidance or weighing up of social issues, and the need to leave open, for later settlement by an informed, official choice, issues which can only be properly appreciated and settled when they arise in a concrete case’.

Type: Chapter
Information: Perspectives in Company Law and Financial Regulation , pp. 427 - 448

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511770456.025 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Braithwaite, J.B., ‘Rules and Principles: A Theory of Legal Certainty’, Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, 27 (2002), 47–82Google Scholar

Schauer, F., ‘Prescriptions In Three Dimensions’, Iowa Law Review, 82 (1997), 911–22Google Scholar

Schauer, F., Playing By The Rules: A Philosophical Examination of Rule Based Decision Making in Law and Life (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991)Google Scholar

Kennedy, D., ‘Form and Substance in Private Law Adjudication’, Harvard Law Review, 89 (1976), 1685–1778CrossRef Google Scholar

Alexander, L. and Kress, K., ‘Against Legal Principles’ in Marmor, A. (ed.), Law and Interpretation: Essays in Legal Philosophy (OUP, 1995), 279, reprinted in Iowa Law Review, 82 (1997), 739–86Google Scholar

Raz, J., ‘Legal Principles and the Limits of Law’, Yale Law Journal, 81 (1972), 823–54CrossRef Google Scholar

Dworkin, R., Taking Rights Seriously (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977), 22–3.Google Scholar

Kaplow, L., ‘Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis’, Duke Law Journal, 42 (1992), 557–629.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cunningham, L., ‘A Prescription to Retire The Rhetoric Of “Principles-Based Systems”‘ in ‘Corporate Law, Securities Regulation, and Accounting’, Vanderbilt Law Review, 60 (2007), 1411–1493, at 1492.Google Scholar

Hart, H.L.A., The Concept of Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), 127.Google Scholar

Ford, C.L., ‘New Governance, Compliance, and Principles-Based Securities Regulation’, American Business Law Journal, 45 (2008), 1–60.CrossRef Google Scholar

Black, J., Hopper, M. and Band, C., ‘Making a Success of Principles-based Regulation’, Law and Financial Market Review, 1(3) (2007), 191–206.CrossRef Google Scholar

Tiner, J., ‘Chief Executive's Report’, FSA Annual Report (2006/7).Google Scholar

Baldwin, R. and Black, J., ‘Really Responsive Regulation’, Modern Law Review, 71 (2008), 59–94, at 65–68.CrossRef Google Scholar

,‘The Five Principles of Good Regulation’, Annex B to Better Regulation Task Force, Regulation – Less is More: Reducing Burdens, Improving Outcomes (2005).Google Scholar

Grant, J., ‘Bernanke Calls for US to Follow UK's “Principles-based” Approach’, Financial Times, 16 May 2007, 1.Google Scholar

Nakamoto, M., ‘Tokyo Eyes Move Towards UK-style Financial Regulation’, Financial Times, 25 October 2007, 7.Google Scholar

Bebchuk, L.A., ‘The Myth of the Shareholder Franchise’, Virginia Law Review, 93 (2007), 675–732Google Scholar

Gunningham, N. and Grabosky, P., Smart Regulation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998)Google Scholar

Coffee, J.C., ‘Law and the Market: The Impact of Enforcement’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 156 (2007), 229–311.Google Scholar

MacNeil, I., ‘The Evolution of Regulatory Enforcement Action in the UK Capital Markets: A Case of “Less is More”?’, Capital Markets Law Journal 2(4) (2007), 345–69.CrossRef Google Scholar

Baldwin, R., ‘Why Rules Don't Work’, Modern Law Review, 53 (1990), 321–37, at 328.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hopper, M. and Stainsby, J., ‘Principles-based Regulation – Better Regulation?’, Journal of International Banking Law and Regulation, 21 (2006), 387–91Google Scholar

Karmel, R.S., Regulation by Prosecution: The Securities and Exchange Commission Versus Corporate America (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1982)Google Scholar

Pitt, H.L. and Shapiro, K.L., ‘Securities Regulation by Enforcement: A Look Ahead at the Next Decade’, Yale Journal on Regulation 7 (1990), 149–304.Google Scholar

Park, J.J., ‘The Competing Paradigms of Securities Regulation’, Duke Law Journal, 57 (2007), 625–89.Google Scholar

Mayhew, D. and Anderson, K., ‘Whither Market Abuse (in a More Principles-based Regulatory World)?’, Journal of International Banking Law and Regulation, 22(10) (2007), 515–31.Google Scholar

Hopper, M. and Stainsby, J., ‘Measuring Market Abuse: Cleaning Up?’, Practical Law for Companies, 17(4) (2006), 6–7.Google Scholar

Quinn, J., ‘Insider Trading Hits One in Four Deals’, Daily Telegraph, 8 March 2007, 1 (City section)Google Scholar

Kim, V. and Masters, B., ‘ “Suspicious Trading” Ahead of 49% of North American Deals’, Financial Times, 6 August 2007, 19.Google Scholar

McBarnet, D., ‘After Enron Will “Whiter than White Collar Crime” Still Wash?’, British Journal of Criminology, 46 (2006), 1091–109.CrossRef Google Scholar

Alcock, A., ‘Five Years of Market Abuse’, Company Lawyer, 28 (2007), 163–71Google Scholar

Brickey, K.F., ‘Enron's Legacy’, Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 8 (2004), 221–76CrossRef Google Scholar

Conceicao, C., ‘The FSA's Approach to Taking Action Against Market Abuse’, Company Lawyer, 28 (2007), 43–45.Google Scholar

Burger, R. and King, E., ‘An Inside Job?’, New Law Journal, 158 (2008), 390.Google Scholar

Conceicao, C., Hugger, H. and Riolo, S., ‘Deciphering the FSA's Declining Caseload’, European Lawyer, 73 (2007), 10–11.Google Scholar

Saigol, L. and Larsen, P.T., ‘FSA Boss Admits Defeat’, Financial Times, 3 July 2007, 18Google Scholar

Saigol, L., ‘City Must Join Insider Trading Fight’, Financial Times, 23 April 2007, 19.Google Scholar

Hart, A., ‘Paul Davidson and Ashley Tatham v FSA [2006] – The Case and its Implications’, Journal of International Banking Law and Regulation, 22 (2007), 288–92Google Scholar

Band, C. and Hopper, M., ‘Market Abuse: A Developing Jurisprudence’, Journal of International Banking Law and Regulation, 22 (2007), 231–9.Google Scholar

Dewar, S., ‘Market Abuse Policy and Enforcement in the UK’: speech by FSA Director of Markets Division, BBA and ABI Market Abuse Seminar, 22 May 2007. Text available at www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/Speeches/2007/0522_sd.shtml (accessed March 2008).Google Scholar

Whittaker, A.M., ‘Better Regulation – Principles vs. Rules’, Journal of International Banking Law and Regulation, 21 (2006), 233–7.Google Scholar

Band, C. and Anderson, K., ‘Conflicts of Interest in Financial Services and Markets. The Regulatory Aspect’, Journal of International Banking Law and Regulation, 22 (2007), 88–100.Google Scholar

Black, J, Rules and Regulators (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997).CrossRef Google Scholar

Patient, J., ‘Treating Customers Fairly: the Challenges of Principles Based Regulation’, Journal of International Banking Law and Regulation, 22 (2007), 420–25Google Scholar