Our use of cookies
We use necessary cookies to make our site work (for example, to manage your session). We’d also like to use some non-essential cookies (including third-party cookies) to help us improve the site. By clicking ‘Accept recommended settings’ on this banner, you accept our use of optional cookies.
| Necessary cookies | Analytics cookies | |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | Yes | |
| Yes | No |
Necessary cookies
Necessary cookies enable core functionality on our website such as security, network management, and accessibility. You may disable these by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.
Analytics cookies
We use analytics cookies so we can keep track of the number of visitors to various parts of the site and understand how our website is used. For more information on how these cookies work please see our Cookie policy.
Skip to main content
This report reviews the extent of proprietary trading engaged in by PRA-authorised deposit takers and investment firms incorporated in the UK.
Related links
- Structural Reform – Ring-fencing
Published on 21 September 2020
This report discusses proprietary trading carried out by relevant authorised persons. It discusses the extent of this activity, the risks it poses to the safety and soundness of firms, the tools the PRA has to mitigate these risks, and the experience of other countries in restricting proprietary trading within the banking sector. It also addresses whether the ring-fencing regime, together with the other tools available to the PRA, are sufficient to mitigate the risks proprietary trading poses to financial stability and the safety and soundness of firms.
The report has been prepared pursuant to Section 9 of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013. During the debates which preceded the 2013 Act, the question arose as to whether the UK should impose some form of ban on proprietary trading by all banks, as for instance the United States had with the Volcker Rule. Parliament took the view that there should be strong restrictions on proprietary risk taking within ring-fenced banks, but that a complete ban for all banks was not justified by the evidence available at the time. Instead, the PRA was required to review the case for further restrictions on proprietary trading within a year of the commencement of ring-fencing. The review could then be informed by the experience of other countries that had taken different approaches to the issue.
The report concludes that the PRA already has substantial supervisory powers which can be and are used to mitigate the risks created by proprietary trading in its various forms where appropriate, and hence that it does not need new powers to address the risks.
As mandated in the legislation, this report has been submitted to HM Treasury and laid before Parliament.
Proprietary Trading Report
Other prudential regulation releases
View more Other prudential regulation releases
Back to top
