Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

The UK’s financial regulator has belatedly recorded its planned enforcement action against star fund manager Neil Woodford on its official register, leading consumer groups and lawyers to brand the watchdog “inconsistent” and “confusing” in its approach.

The Financial Conduct Authority only updated its register — which is used by consumers and companies dealing with regulated entities to check their credentials — on Thursday after the Financial Times queried why its proposed action against Woodford announced 12 months ago was not reflected in its records.

The FCA issued warning notices against Woodford and his company Woodford Investment Management in February last year for “failing to act with due skill, care and diligence” over the failure of his flagship Equity Income Fund in 2019, which left about 300,000 investors nursing losses. 

Announcing the notices in April 2024 following a long-running probe, the regulator said Woodford had a “defective” understanding of his responsibilities in the run-up to the collapse of his fund. It has not yet issued a final decision on its findings, which Woodford’s lawyers have said he will challenge.

WilmerHale and BCLP, the law firms representing Woodford and WIM said in a statement last year that their clients “disagree with the FCA’s findings, which they believe are unprecedented and fundamentally misconceived”.

The FCA’s financial services register had until Thursday stated that no regulatory action had been taken against Woodford.

“Clearly, issuing a warning notice is a regulatory action, an integral part of the enforcement and disciplinary process,” said Mick McAteer, co-director of the Financial Inclusion Centre, a think-tank, and a former FCA board member. “The FCA is being inconsistent here. I can’t see any argument against the FCA publishing that it has issued a warning notice and explaining that this is currently being challenged.” 

The FCA handbook states that the watchdog will consider what information to add to its register following the serving of a warning notice. But James Daley, head of consumer group Fairer Finance said: “If the FCA feels there are strong enough grounds to publish a warning notice which includes the name of the individual or business then there’s no reason to not also attach that to their FCA register entry.”

“The (Woodford) case is in the public domain and so it could be a little confusing that it does not appear on the central register for checking the bona fides for regulated persons,” said James Tyler, a former FCA official now at City law firm Peters & Peters.

The FCA added a reference to its warning notice on Woodford’s page in the register after the FT approached the regulator on Wednesday, though Woodford was still tagged as having: “No current FCA or PRA disciplinary or regulatory action.” 

The regulator said the warning notice was “not the final decision of the FCA” and noted that Woodford had “the right to make representations to the regulatory decisions committee”, which will decide whether to announce enforcement action. It declined to comment on the lag between the notice being issued and updated to the register.

Concern surrounding the FCA’s disclosures on Woodford came after the regulator backtracked on its plan to “name and shame” more of the companies it investigates under heavy pressure from the City of London and the government. 

The FCA told the FT that its action against Woodford and WIM was “ongoing”. Meanwhile, Woodford on Monday announced plans to launch a service offering his stockpicking strategies to investors for a fee, six years after the collapse of his investment empire. 

The FCA initially declined to formally comment when the FT asked why its warning notice was not disclosed on Woodford’s registry listing. 

It later said: “We have communicated openly about our work on the Woodford Equity Income Fund, and published details of our concerns including in the warning notice statement in relation to Mr Woodford,” adding: “We have updated the register to reflect this information.”

Woodford declined to comment.