July 24, 2014

FSA Expresses Concerns About Outsourcing by Asset Managers

On December 11, the UK Financial Services Authority (FSA) published a “Dear CEO” letter which had been sent to the CEO’s of regulated asset managers outlining its concerns about asset managers’ outsourcing arrangements.

The FSA stated that as a result of discussions with asset managers it had identified that the asset management industry outsources a growing number of activities, and that the small number of outsource providers are usually part of complex international banking groups. Accordingly, the outsource providers generally have balance sheet exposure, at group level, to activities other than the provision of outsourcing activities. The FSA is concerned that if an outsource provider were to face financial distress or severe operational disruption, UK asset managers would not be able to perform critical and important regulated activities and that customers of the asset managers would be disadvantaged.

The FSA sets out concerns about the effectiveness of firms’ recovery and resolution plans, and highlights the following issues:

  • Reliance on an outsource service provider being a large financial institution that regulators might look to rescue using public funds is inconsistent with the FSA’s policy of allowing such organizations to fail. The FSA states that “this approach lacks prudence and is inconsistent with the FSA’s policy of allowing such organizations to fail.”
  • Bringing outsourced activities back in-house would take many months and firms would not immediately have the capacity and expertise required.
  • The operational challenges arising from transferring outsourced activities to another provider are substantial. The FSA believes that there are considerable operational challenges involved and it is likely that a transfer could not be implemented swiftly enough to protect customers. It may also not be a realistic option due to concentration risk in the supply of certain activities.
  • The FSA believes that “step in” rights in a stressed scenario might prove difficult to enforce, and there could be undue delay and/or operational risks arising which would be to the detriment of customers.

The FSA considers that it is the responsibility of firms’ boards of directors to consider the implications of outsourcing to external parties, and to ensure that they have in place an adequate resilience plan enabling the firm to carry out regulated activity if a service provider fails. It requests CEOs to review their firm’s’ contingency plans, taking into account the FSA’s observations in the letter and firms’ obligations under chapter 8 of the FSA’s SYSC (Systems & Controls) sourcebook.

Read more.

©2014 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

About the Author


Edward Black, a partner in Katten Muchin Rosenman UK LLP, has a wide range of funds and financial services experience. He has acted for securities, commodities and derivatives brokers and dealers, banks, investment banks and investment managers for over 20 years. This has led to substantial involvement in commercial and transactional work in the financial services field as well as extensive regulatory expertise, and to significant experience with employment law matters.

+44 2 20 7776 7624

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notati