COMPLIANCE BRIEFING
| Date | 01 January 1992 |
| Published date | 01 January 1992 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb024760 |
| Pages | 120-121 |
| Author | MATTHEW WEAITT |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
COMPLIANCE BRIEFING
Received: 14th July, 1992.
MATTHEW WEAITT
ABSTRACT
The aim of the
compliance section
of The
International Journal of Regulatory
Law & Practice is that it be informa-
tive,
analytical
and
relevant.
This is
based
on the belief that
corporate
compliance
should not
merely be
a
matter
of
interest
to
compliance
officers,
but of
interest
to all
those working in the financial services
industry,
in
whatever
capacity.
Because the
Journal intends to
be responsive
to
issues
of
contemporary
concern and to reflect
matters
of
interest
to all its
subscribers,
it
welcomes suggestions for contributions.
Enquiries should be made to the Com-
pliance Editor, The International
Journal of Regulatory Law &: Prac-
tice,
Henry Stewart Publications, 2/3
Cornwall Terrace, London, UK,
NW1 4QP.
It is arguable that one of the more
profound changes in the financial
services industry over the last five
years has been the introduction of a
compliance function within firms
carrying on investment business.
While it is true that many such firms
had analogous functions in place
before the Financial Services Act
1986,
the advent of this legislation
and of the subsequent Conduct of
Business Rules of the Securities &
Investments Board (SIB) and
self-
regulatory organisations (SROs) have
had a profound impact on the
nature and extent of the in-house
regulatory environment. No longer
may the processes of monitoring and
investigation be conducted on an ad
hoc and unsystematic basis and no
longer may they be undertaken by
'amateurs'. The compliance function
is now firmly established within the
corporate infrastructure and staffed
by an increasingly expert personnel.
Many people in the City were scep-
tical about the advantages to be
gained from the new compliance
departments, considering them to be
unproductive cost-centres and con-
stituting an unwelcome additional
layer of bureaucracy. Others were
more open-minded and some were
even enthusiastic. They recognised
that the new market order, created
by financial deregulation in 1986,
had resulted in the loss of many of
the existing mechanisms of investor
protection. Minimum commissions
had gone, and brokers were now
free to deal on their own and others'
120
To continue reading
Request your trial