Contracts for difference firms: good and poor practice

While some good practice emerged, the regulator remains concerned about overnight financing charges, how they are applied, and whether clients receive enough information to understand them. The concerns also extend to matched-off hedged positions. For compliance teams, this is a clear signal that Consumer Duty price and value assessments must be evidence-based and not just documented.

Firms should revisit overnight financing methodologies, test whether charges reflect fair value, and ensure client communications are clear and timely. Boards and Consumer Duty champions should challenge whether current pricing models align with the outcome expected by the FCA. Action is needed even without a formal deadline.

A gap analysis against the FCA's good practice examples can help prioritise remediation. Firms that act now may reduce supervisory risk, avoid costly remediation, and differentiate through transparent pricing. Those that do not may face further FCA engagement, reputational damage, or redress expectations.

Medium-term, firms should embed pricing governance, monitor customer outcomes, and be able to demonstrate how charges deliver fair value. RegCanary recommends that legal, compliance, product, and pricing teams coordinate a review of overnight charges, disclosure, and hedged-position treatment, and report findings to the board. This is a supervisory priority for retail CFD providers.