Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Trying things in a ‘sandbox’ is not as daft as it sounds

Outlook

James Moore
Wednesday 11 November 2015 02:09 GMT
Comments
The idea was born out of the mandate to promote competition imposed upon the FCA when it was created by George Osborne
The idea was born out of the mandate to promote competition imposed upon the FCA when it was created by George Osborne (Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

“Sandboxing” is a silly name for what could be a sensible idea on the part of Britain’s chief financial watchdog. The aim is to allow firms to “test” new products without getting hammered if things go horribly wrong. They’d do this by putting them in a regulatory (ahem) sandbox. The same could apply to new businesses wanting to try out ideas before getting authorised.

The idea was born out of the mandate to promote competition imposed upon the FCA when it was created by George Osborne. Companies taking part will probably have to accept that they’ll need to compensate people who take a punt on their new offerings if things go wrong, while consumers will have to accept that they’re taking something of a leap of faith.

However, if such ground rules can be established, then why not? Not only could the process make things quicker, it has the potential to expose flaws and highlight issues that need addressing before products and services are released to the wider market.

Communication between the regulator and the firms it oversees hasn’t always been what it might be and this could help improve that by creating a closer relationship. Just as long as it’s not too close.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in