Market abuse undermines the integrity of the UK financial system, eroding confidence and lowering participation, to everyone’s detriment. Firms are a vital first line of defence. They must have the right culture and safeguards in place to spot, report and reduce the risk of market abuse.
We want to continue to build resilience to market abuse across primary and secondary markets, ensure access to inside information is properly controlled and markets disclosures are timely and accurate. Our aim is to have robust detection and investigation capability and deliver deterrents through a range of supervisory, civil and criminal sanctions.
Access
Outcome 1: Increased confidence in the integrity of UK markets which maintains high levels of participation across the buy-side and sell-side
| Metric code | Metric description | Source | Baseline Value | Year 1 values | Year 2 values | Latest status (year 2 value compared to baseline) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMA1-M01 | Increase in perceived effectiveness of FCA action to promote market integrity | FCA and Practitioner Panel survey[1] | Over the last 12 months % of firms who think the FCA have been very or fairly effective at protecting UK markets from:
| N/A | Over the last 12 months % of firms who think the FCA have been very or fairly effective at protecting UK markets from:
Difference between year 2 and baseline value is statistically significant. Note that for metrics based on the FCA and Practitioner Panel survey (AMA1-M01, AMA1-M02) investment management firms were included in the sample for 2023/24. Please see here for detail on the implications of this and any impacts on the results[1].
| Little or no change | ||
| N/A |
Difference between year 2 and baseline value is not statistically significant. | ||||||
| N/A |
Difference between year 2 and baseline value is not statistically significant. | ||||||
| AMA1-M02 | Increase in cleanliness of UK markets (compared to other markets) as perceived by market participants | FCA and Practitioner Panel survey | 48% of firms believe that market abuse is a big or fairly big issue in the UK
| N/A | 51% of firms believe that market abuse is a big or fairly big issue in the UK. Difference between year 2 and baseline value is not statistically significant. | Little or no change | ||
37% of firms believe market abuse is not a very big issue or an issue at all in the UK. (2022/23) | 36% of firms believe market abuse is not a very big issue or not an issue at all in the UK. (2023/24) Difference between year 2 and baseline value is not statistically significant. | |||||||
42% of firms believe that we have been better in combatting market abuse in the UK compared to regulators in other global markets and 2% believe we have been worse. 23% believe about the same. (2022/23) | 44% of firms believe that we have been better in combatting market abuse in the UK compared to regulators in other global markets and 2% believe we have been worse. 25% believe about the same and 30% don’t know. (2023/24) Difference between year 2 and baseline value is not statistically significant. Note- slight sum error due to rounding methodology used | |||||||
Confidence and fair value
Outcome 2: Timely and accurate disclosure of corporate information
| Metric code | Metric description | Source | Baseline value(s) | Year 1 values | Year 2 values | Latest Status (year 2 value compared to baseline) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AMA2-M01
This metric uses the same data as topline metric WFV1-M02[2] | Reduction in the number of FCA market oversight actions for potential failure of listed companies to disclose properly | FCA data | 330 actions (2021) | 391 actions (2022) | 437 actions (2023) | Declined | |
Outcome 3: Financial firms and issuers are more resilient to market abuse, having robust systems and controls, high-quality reporting practices and a strong anti-market abuse culture
| Metric code | Metric description | Source | Baseline Value(s) | Year 1 values | Year 2 values | Latest status (year 2 value compared to baseline) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMA3-M01 | Decrease in values of FCA market cleanliness (MC) statistics. The MC statistic is one indicator of possible insider dealing, but it has several limitations as a measure of broader market cleanliness, especially given the fall in sample size over the past decade | FCA data market cleanliness statistics[3], calculated from FCA transaction data and prices from data vendors
| Market cleanliness:
| Market cleanliness: 25% (2022) | We are currently reviewing our methodology, latest figure will be published later in 2024 | Not assessed |
Abnormal Trading Volume Ratio:
| Abnormal Trading Volume Ratio: 8% (2022) | Abnormal Trading Volume ratio: 6% (2023) | Improved | |||
Potentially Anomalous Trading Ratio:
| Potentially Anomalous Trading Ratio: 5% (2022) | Potentially Anomalous Trading Ratio: 3%(2023) | Improved |
Outcome 4: Criminal, civil and supervisory sanctions are brought to bear on wrongdoers to provide effective deterrents
| Metric code | Metric description | Source | Baseline Value(s) | Year 1 values | Year 2 values | Latest status (year 2 value compared to baseline) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMA4-M01 | Increase in enforcement actions | FCA data | Enforcement outcomes against regulated firms for failures in market abuse systems and controls – 0 (2021/22) | Enforcement outcomes against regulated firms for failures in market abuse systems and controls – 3 (2022/23) | Enforcement outcomes against regulated firms for failures in market abuse systems and controls – 0 (2023/24) | Little or no change |
| Enforcement outcomes against listed issuers - 1 | Enforcement outcomes against listed issuers - 0 | Enforcement outcomes against listed issuers – 1
| Little or no change | |||
| Enforcement action against individuals for insider dealing -0 | Enforcement action against individuals for insider dealing -5 (charging stage) | Enforcement action against individuals for insider dealing - 2 | Improved | |||
| Disruption events - Accounts closed where these were being used to commit market abuse – 221 | Disruption events - Accounts closed where these were being used to commit market abuse – 156 | Disruption events - Accounts closed by regulated firms where these were suspected of being used to commit market abuse – 255 | Improved |
What the latest metric values tell us
As with all crimes that are not self-reporting, it is inherently challenging to measure levels of market abuse accurately. Measurement using centralised detection techniques will clearly depend on how effective those techniques are. For example, as detection methods improve, there will be a rise in instances of detected market abuse.
On market cleanliness, we saw a decrease in abnormal price movements and anomalous trading volumes in 2023 compared with 2022 (metric AMA3-M01). However, year to year changes may not reflect significant trends. These values can be substantially affected by other factors such as sample size, high volatility or other market dynamics. Our latest published statistics: Market cleanliness statistics 2022/23[4] gives more information. For this reason, we are currently reviewing our methodology and will publish the latest figure later in 2024.
We increased the number of market oversight enquiries we opened for potential failure of listed companies to disclose properly (metric AMA2-M01). This increase may reflect greater reporting of potential disclosure failures to us, our reaction to significant market events or our more proactive and thematic work.
For metric AMA4-M01, in 2023/24 we secured 2 criminal convictions against individuals for insider dealing and achieved 1 other enforcement outcome against a listed issuer. This came in the form of a public censure, following announcements by the company containing materially inaccurate information about the company’s debt position.
Also in 2023/24, as part of our work to combat market abuse, we worked with regulated firms to ensure that they have market abuse risk frameworks sufficient to identify suspicious accounts and terminate where appropriate. This led to regulated firms closing 255 accounts suspected of being used to commit market abuse.
For metrics AMA1-M01 our FCA and Practitioner Panel survey 2023/24 showed that 65% of firms thought we had been very or fairly effective at protecting UK markets from delayed or misleading disclosures. Further, 69% of all firms believe that we have been very or fairly effective at protecting the UK markets from both insider dealing and market manipulation. 93% of fixed firms believed that we have been very or fairly effective at protecting the UK markets from both insider dealing and market manipulation.
For metric AMA1-M02, 51% of firms believe that market abuse is a big or fairly big issue in the UK, representing no change from 2022/23. 36% of firms believe market abuse is not a very big issue, or an issue at all, in the UK, also unchanged from 2022/23. That said, 44% of firms believe that we have been better in combatting market abuse in the UK compared to other regulators in other global markets, with 2% thinking we have been worse and 25% believing about the same.