Information on asset manager authorisations


Reference Case Number: FOI8491

Freedom of Information: Right to know request:

1. How many asset managers have applied to have their authorizations removed every year for the past 10 years?

2. If possible please provide the size of the firm and whether they are an active or passive fund provider.

FCA response:

Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding to your request. We have processed your email) in line with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and our response is below.

We can confirm that we do not hold the information you have requested.  This is because Cancellation applications were previously received on paper. When making determinations for these applications, only the decision and status effective date were recorded on our databases. We did not record date of receipt of the application. Consequently, we do not have a record of the date the applications were submitted and cannot answer your first question.
 
However, we are able to provide the number of asset manager firms who cancelled their Part 4a permission by the year in which the Cancellation became effective. For example, an application received in 2014 and determined in 2014 will be recorded as a 2014 cancellation but an application received in 2014 and determined in 2015 will recorded as a 2015 cancellation.

Please see below:

Year No. of Asset Management firms cancelled
2011 181
2012 172
2013 210
2014 150
2015 161
2016 162
2017 137
2018 163
2019 159
2020 154
2021 84

We also do not hold the information for the second part of your request. This is because the FCA does not record whether a firm is a passive or active fund manager nor do we restrict firms to being one or the other (though some firms may be subject to ad-hoc requirements restricting their business).

Further, we do not have a filter on which we could rely on to locate the size of the asset managers involved. Additionally, at the point of cancellation, the vast majority of firms would be inherently small as they would have wound down all business, have no assets under management, no funds under management, minimal staff etc.