Resilient futures: strengthening financial capability and inclusion for all

The strategy does, though, set a new direction for the FCA.

We are firmly committed to outcomes-focused regulation. This is deliberate - the UK will be better placed to support innovation and developments in markets with an outcomes-focused rule set.

Our existing outcomes-focused rule set is the reason that we are not regulating separately for AI. We do not believe that this is necessary or sensible - given how quickly prescriptive rules could be out of date.

This shift to outcomes-focused and less prescriptive rules may feel uncomfortable for some of you in this room. It requires a culture change - both in the industry and, yes, for us a regulator. And it requires more active risk management within firms.

But an outcomes-focused approach is essential if we are to be forward looking and supportive of innovation.

Some of you may have heard me say that we are in a problem solving, myth busting and risk adjusting mindset.

By problem solving I mean that we want to work with others where there are broader issues that need to be solved. Take our previous work with the Information Commissioner's office on how firms can communicate with customers to inform them of savings rates, and work that explains how firms can give guidance on retail investments as examples.

By myth busting I mean that we want to hear from you where you believe there are regulatory barriers getting in the way of you delivering the outcomes that we are seeking.

To do that, we do need your help. You have a unique view of where there may be regulatory barriers - or dare I say - where your firms may be overcomplicating matters. Or where industry, as a whole, have established norms through custom and practice that are getting in the way.

I sometimes say that if everyone in a firm plays it 10% safe - at the front line, risk, compliance and legal - and then a regulator is added to the mix - you can easily find yourself 50% away from a rule set.

Let me give you 2 examples of what I mean. Where myths about what our rules say have arisen and have led to practices which are causing frustration.

As you have hopefully heard, we have recently launched once-in-a-generation changes to our advice rules.

If you have not heard about this, please let me know, and I will come speak to you at length about it after this.

Called targeted support, these rules will help more people navigate their financial lives and give them confidence to invest.

Because this is so new, and we need it to work, we have worked differently when it comes to writing rules. We hosted a policy 'sprint' and collaborated with firms to test consumer journeys and get a real, practical sense of where rules are needed and where they're not. Even before we had written a single rule.

During the sprint, firms had an important question: 'Why do we need to disclose risks before benefits, and why do we need to use clunky wording to disclose these risks?'

Me, being curious and having seen how some of our more prescriptive rules are drafted, asked my teams the same.

It turns out that these warnings are not set by our rules - they're simply custom and practice within industry. Given this, we could have just left it. Instead, we're working with the Investment Association on mainstream investments to drive industry-wide consistency. And to bust those myths.

And if you take one, simple, clearly worded message away from tonight, let it be this: you can stop using clunky risk warnings.

We have also heard that listed companies are being forced into paying non-executive directors in cash rather than stock. We've heard concerns that this can stop listed firms attracting the best talent and that this leads to less alignment of interests between firms and their NEDs.

Again, this is not a practice driven by our rules. Yes, there is Financial Reporting Council (FRC) guidance, but it does not prevent this happening. Rather, it seems to be custom and practice, with the rallying cry of 'it's always been done this way'.

Again, we have sought to bust this myth. This can be done.

As CROs, you may have other examples of regulatory barriers (real or not) which seemingly get in the way of the strategic objectives we are aiming for. If so, tell us. We can then get to the bottom of those myths, and work to bust them.