Failing to comply with compliance regulations does not just affect the reputation of a business, which can lead to loss of profit and market share; it personally affects those in charge of the business. In a world where super-size fines no longer shock or deter bad practices, regulators have moved on to using a wider range of measures to ensure compliant behaviour from both firms and individuals. “We are in an era of greater individual accountability. It is now widely accepted that new regulations will probably lead to even more enforcement actions against individuals in future,” said Julian Korek, global head of regulatory and compliance consulting at Duff & Phelps, the corporate financial advisory group, in a recent interview with the Financial Times. FCA Regulations 2013 was the first year the UK financial conduct authority sanctioned more individuals than firms. The Global Survey on Reputation risk by Deloitte, found that responsibility for reputation risk resides within the highest levels of the organization with 36% of respondents identifying the Chief Executive Office (CEO) of any company as the individual with primary responsibility for managing reputational risk and 21% identifying the Chief Risk Officer (CRO). Post financial crisis, regulators have recognised the need to primarily change the behaviour of financial firms. Senior stakeholders will be fundamental to ensuring that all policies and procedures are designed with business considerations in mind, and will encourage the required cultural changes. In the UK, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is holding individuals in senior positions personally accountable for any compliance breach as well as the culture within their firm. It has become routine for senior executives to be named, shamed and often dismissed as part of a large enforcement case, the purpose being that even if they are not facing personal fines, their reputation, career and future prospects have been permanently damaged. With proceedings being brought against 1,761 individuals last year, enforcement actions against individuals outnumbered those against companies by a ratio of four to one last year. Related Content [Whitepaper] Why it’s Vital To Maintain Data Integrity for Compliance Purposes When Migrating Legacy Voice Recordings In 2016, enforcement actions against individuals outnumbered those against companies by a ration of four to one In January 2015, two former senior executives of Martin Brokers were personally fined a total of £315,000 and banned from performing significant influence functions at any FCA authorised firm. The FCA found that the directors failed to recognise the risk of the culture developing at Martins and to take any reasonable steps towards preventing it. According to Georgina Philippou, acting director of enforcement and market oversight at the FCA, the two directors were responsible for setting the right culture within the firm as well as ensuring that the risk management and controls were adequate. Having failed to do so and ensure compliance, they were both held responsible for misconduct. Moreover in July 2017, the FCA fined David Watters £75,000 for failing in his duties as a compliance officer when providing advice on pension transfers while working at two companies. These examples serve as a clear warning for anyone holding a significant influential position in any firm. The warning is as follows: if a firm’s misconduct can be attributed to cultural failings, senior management can be held personally responsible and will answer for it, even if they were not directly involved. While firms all too often see enforcement action as simply another “cost of doing business”, when an individual is targeted, it is more likely they will work in unison to defend themselves from what could be a devastating career-ending penalty. In fact, according to the OpenText survey, reputational risk is twice as significant as a driver for compliance (44%) versus avoiding fines and penalties (20%). One of the key measures financial institutions are adopting in order to ensure traders are not abusing the system, is technology. PwC’s market abuse surveillance survey found that the majority of banks are expecting to invest 156 million on top of their current spend to improve surveillance over the next 18 months. The survey reported that more than half of the banks believe that integrated surveillance systems would enhance surveillance functions, indicating an intention to develop more integrated capabilities from the data they collect. As a result, we have seen an increase in interest towards Speech and Text Analytics technology as it provides the necessary means to search proactively through recordings for ‘high risk’ keywords and phrases to isolate issues and prevent them from escalating, as well as quickly find and retrieve calls requested by compliance officers, consequently reducing business and personal risk. Speech analytics technology has continued to progress tremendously over the past few years, with its ability to accurately analyse calls proving to be a real asset for Compliance departments. Moreover, in light of MiFID II, entry level analytic solutions have also gained in popularity, with packages now available on a competitively priced licence basis, which can be easily and effectively budgeted for. To find out more about Entry Level Speech Analytics check out our article: What is entry level analytics and why is it a must for MiFID II Compliance? Entry analytics technology removes much of the complexity of enterprise level solutions with effective key word search functionality capable of pinpointing specific trade related calls for compliance checks and fact verification. There are at least 16 distinct areas that present risk for non-compliance and which can be summarised as follows: Compliance Financial Risk Monetary fines End of a business or business line Increased capital, liquidity or solvency requirements Impact on share price Competitive disadvantages Opportunity costs of non-compliance Personal Risk Increased personal liability Forced changes to senior management Need for more highly-priced risk and compliance skills Claw-backs invoked on bonuses Operational Risk Expensive and time-consuming remedial actions including redress Enforced changes to business Expensive and time-consuming use of third party or skilled persons Inability to recruit and retain high quality skilled resources Compliance Regulatory Risk Greater regulatory scrutiny More regulation, cost and complexity for all Don’t let compliance regulations catch you off guard. Ensure you are able not only to comply and provide the information requested in full, but also prevent potential breach of compliance by proactively spotting risky behaviours and correct them before they become real threats to the firm and its employees. Share this on socials
Advice Hub 15 December, 2021 Top Tips from a Call Recording & WFO Engineer Many organisations implement and manage a call recording or Workforce Optimisation (WFO) solution. These solutions can help improve the customer experience, ensure compliance and reduce operating costs. When the right solution is implemented, organisations then need to ensure it is managed by the right supplier who will understand specific requirements. Related Content [Whitepaper}Top Tips To
Advice Hub 2 September, 2021 A Guide To Microsoft Teams Call Recording Compliance With the emergence and acceptance of homeworking, organisations are now constantly on the lookout for solutions to help them remain compliant. And Microsoft Teams Call Recording is among those solutions. Microsoft Teams as a platform has transformed the way millions of organisations work. It has enabled Team communications, supporting internal and external collaboration. With one
Advice Hub 14 June, 2021 Why it’s Vital to Maintain Data Integrity for Compliance Purposes when Migrating Legacy Voice Recordings As voice recording systems reach end of life, banks must find a way to preserve the recordings and the voice data integrity, so they remain accessible for regulatory retrieval purposes. The typical approach involves migrating the legacy voice recordings into a new voice recording system which can be a bit like putting a square peg
Advice Hub 12 May, 2021 Call Recording Support – What you should be receiving Call Recording Support – What You Should Be Receiving From Your Supplier Many organisations such as Financial Institutions or Contact Centres implement and manage call recording solutions to ensure compliance, improve the customer experience and reduce business costs. For contact centres, for example, call recording plays an important role in their call centre software operations.
Advice Hub 18 March, 2021 IVR – Interactive Voice Response What is IVR Technology? Interactive Voice Response (IVR) is a telephony menu system that allows the customer to interact with a company without the presence of an agent. The IVR will use touchstone buttons on the customer’s telephone where they will press the keypad in accordance with the service they require. The call will then
Advice Hub 3 March, 2021 Workforce Management ROI Calculator Use this simple Workforce Management (WFM) ROI calculator to understand potential savings that could help transform your workforce planning and resource planning contact centre operations.
Advice Hub 24 February, 2021 Wordwatch: A Multivendor Centralised Voice Recording Replay Portal for Financial Compliance A MULTIVENDOR CENTRALISED VOICE RECORDING REPLAY PORTAL The Financial Services Industry As businesses and organisations across Europe were racing to get to grips with the new GDPR data protection and privacy regulations, the financial services industry had another piece of seismic data legislation to contend with. Under EU law, certain areas of the financial industry
Advice Hub 24 February, 2021 Decrypting Mobile Call Recording Business Systems’ Will Davenport gives an expert overview of the Mobile Call Recording technologies available for Financial Institutions With MiFID II stating the need to keep records of all telephone conversations and electronic communications intended to result in a transaction, even if the actual transaction never materialises; mobile call recording is once again under the spotlight. In 2009,