KAREN JOY BACUDO

Finance Editor

The Association of Financial Mutuals has called on the Government and regulators to reform public interest entity audit rules, arguing that smaller mutuals face disproportionate compliance costs under the current regime.

It made the case as part of a broader policy agenda aimed at removing barriers to growth for member-owned financial firms while maintaining governance and consumer protection. The group argues that some smaller mutual organisations are treated the same as much larger financial institutions, despite their very different scales and systemic importance.

Public interest entity (PIE) status imposes stricter audit and reporting requirements on organisations considered significant to the public. According to the Association of Financial Mutuals, the current framework captures mutuals that are not systemically significant, creating costs that could otherwise be spent on member services, product development or expansion.

The organisation represents mutual and not-for-profit insurers, friendly societies and other financial mutuals across the UK. It argues that a more proportionate approach to audit regulation would support a more diverse financial services market and align with the Government’s stated aim of expanding the mutual sector.

Andrew Whyte, Chief Executive Officer of the Association of Financial Mutuals, set out the group’s position.

“The current Public Interest Entity regime captures smaller mutuals that are not systemically significant and places a disproportionate burden on organisations whose primary focus is delivering value to their members. We support strong audit and governance, but the framework must be proportionate and targeted at those firms that truly warrant this level of scrutiny. Reforming the regime would free up mutuals to invest more in innovation, customer service and growth, helping to build a more diverse, resilient and inclusive financial services sector,” said Whyte.

Wider agenda

Audit reform is one part of a wider package of changes the trade body wants. Another priority is changing capital rules so mutuals can raise external funds without jeopardising their mutual tax status.

This has long constrained some member-owned firms, which cannot rely on equity markets in the same way as listed companies. The group argues that access to suitable external capital would enable firms in the sector to invest in new products, technology, and distribution channels while retaining their ownership model.

It also wants the Law Commission’s recommendations on friendly society legislation to be implemented in full, saying a modernised legal framework would remove outdated restrictions and make it easier for such organisations to operate and develop.

The trade body is also seeking a more rigorous method of assessing how regulatory changes affect mutuals. It argues that rules are often designed with larger shareholder-owned institutions in mind, even though mutuals have different structures, incentives and capital models.

It is also calling for greater clarity on product bundling and cross-selling within the mutual sector, saying clearer rules would help firms broaden their offer to members without creating uncertainty over compliance expectations.

Sector role

Mutuals occupy a distinct place in the UK financial system because customers or members, rather than shareholders, own them. That structure means profits are generally retained for the benefit of members through pricing, service levels or reinvestment in the business.

The group argues that this model can support financial resilience and inclusion, particularly if firms can expand without unnecessary regulatory obstacles. Its latest strategy says the sector could play a larger role in the market if policy settings better reflected the nature of mutual organisations.

It linked its proposals to the Government’s commitment to double the size of the mutual and co-operative sector, arguing that this ambition will be difficult to achieve unless regulation, tax treatment and legal structures are adjusted to reflect the differences between mutuals and larger listed financial groups.

For policymakers, the key question is whether any relaxation of PIE rules for smaller mutuals can be designed without weakening audit oversight. The Association of Financial Mutuals argues that strong scrutiny should remain, but that thresholds and applications should better reflect the actual public risk posed by the institutions concerned.

The debate also raises a wider issue in financial regulation: how to apply common standards across institutions with sharply different ownership structures and business models. For mutuals, the concern is that a framework intended for large public-interest firms imposes a heavier burden on smaller member-owned organisations.

Sixes, which used to run 16 cricket-themed entertainment venues across England including one in Oxford’s Westgate Shopping Centre, entered administration in December last year.

The hospitality business immediately closed its site in Southampton and there was a great deal of speculation about its other venues which largely remained open as a rescue-deal was sought.

READ MORE: UK jobs ‘lost’ as John Lewis kitchen firm collapses with £3.8 million debts

However, after months, an administrator’s progress report – published this month – has confirmed that a full rescue could not be achieved and a number of sites were closed with over 100 employees made redundant.

Sixes was founded in 2020 by Calum Mackinnon and Andy Waugh.

In 2023, the business secured funding from 4Cast Investment Group, the brainchild of England internationals Ben Stokes, Jofra Archer and Stuart Broad.

Sixes Social did have a venue at the Westgate Oxford (Image: Newsquest)

It is among chains to have grown in recent years as part of a boom in so-called competitive socialising, competing with brands such as Flight Club and Junkyard Golf.

The group said in December that it has a core of strongly performing sites but has seen others struggle in the face of fierce competition and “reduced consumer spending”.

A statement of affairs revealed debts to unsecured creditors of £3,447,197, including to the tax man.

Unsecured creditors are businesses, authorities or anybody who is owed money by Sixes but are at the back of the queue in getting their full money back.

After the Southampton site was shut, the decision was taken to close the Birmingham, Guilford, Fulham and Westfield venues in December as well.

In the administrator’s report by FRP Advisory, it was revealed that despite negotiations with several businesses a deal to secure the future of its Fitzrovia, Manchester and Oxford sites could not be completed and all three closed permanently on April 22.

Sixes Social Cricket (Image: Sixes Social Cricket)

Vantage Capital Partners Limited initially agreed to take over all four sites in a deal worth over £4 million but negotiations over a cash consideration requirement – an obligation to make a cash payment not using stock or debt – stalled the process.

As such the business made a new offer, by which it would only buy the London Bridge venue and certain of the business’ assets in a deal worth £3.5 million, citing the “sizable investment required” if it were to take over all four.

A separate agreement was initially negotiated for the Fitzrovia, Manchester and Oxford sites for £500,000 but the party behind the offer pulled out.

READ MORE: Cotswolds car company announces liquidation amid £111,000 debts

In total, 102 employees were made redundant in the period.

The administrators said: “Achieving a sale of the business and assets of the group within a sector in which acquisitions have stalled, as well as within a wider economy with poor acquisition rates, is seen as positive.

“The sale preserved 21 jobs.”

On its website, Sixes currently advertises eight venues although a number of these are ‘franchise locations’ – meaning it has an independent owner – and only the London Bridge site was included in the deal with Vantage.

KAREN JOY BACUDO

Finance Editor

The Bank of England has outlined how tokenisation could change the way financial assets are recorded and transferred, saying it could make some transactions faster and easier.

In an explainer, the Bank described tokenisation as the creation of a digital version of an existing financial asset, such as a share, bond or pound. That digital record sits on a secure shared ledger, creating a token that can be tracked and traded online.

The Bank drew a clear distinction between tokenisation and cryptocurrencies. Cryptoassets such as Bitcoin, it said, are privately created tokens that are not backed by assets and can show sharp price swings. Tokenisation, by contrast, is a different way of recording and transferring assets that already exist.

That distinction matters because the Bank presented tokenisation as financial market infrastructure rather than a new speculative asset class. The aim is to modernise payments and asset transfers while maintaining financial stability and protecting money.

How it works

According to the Bank, tokenisation does not create a new underlying asset. Instead, it changes how ownership is recorded, allowing holders to spend, transfer or trade assets through software-based processes that can be automated or linked to conditions.

One example involved online shopping. A payment made with a tokenised asset could be transferred to a retailer only after a buyer confirms that a parcel has been delivered.

The Bank also suggested that tokenised systems could improve cross-border payments. Fewer steps and intermediaries in the payment chain could reduce the cost of international money transfers and shorten settlement times for consumers and businesses.

Policy focus

The central bank said its role is to support innovation while ensuring money remains safe and the financial system stays stable. Its priorities include setting rules for new forms of digital money, improving how money and assets move so digital and existing forms can work alongside each other, and testing ideas on a small scale before broader use.

That approach reflects a cautious stance among central banks as they examine how distributed ledger-based systems could fit within existing payment and settlement frameworks. Rather than endorsing a single model, the Bank pointed to a landscape in which traditional bank deposits, tokenised deposits, regulated stablecoins and potentially a central bank digital currency could coexist.

Retail and wholesale use

The Bank said tokenisation could affect both retail payments and wholesale financial markets. For consumers, the potential change is more choice at checkout, whether online or in-store, along with smoother links between UK retail payments and overseas systems.

For financial institutions and large companies, the Bank pointed to faster wholesale payments, simpler transfer processes and lower operating costs. Tokenisation could also support automated payments, allowing transfers to be triggered when invoices fall due or when other pre-set conditions are met.

Another area highlighted was investment access. Tokenised assets can be split into smaller pieces, the Bank said, which could allow people to invest smaller sums in financial products such as shares or bonds rather than buying a whole unit.

In practice, that could widen access to some investments and lower the cost of holding or transferring them. The Bank also linked this to pension savings, saying that cheaper, simpler market processes could reduce costs for individuals investing in products tied to corporate shares and bonds.

Business implications

For companies, the Bank set out several use cases related to treasury and trade flows. A UK supplier sending goods overseas could be paid upon delivery confirmation, helping address late payments, especially for smaller businesses.

It also described situations in which a business could invest spare cash overnight and retrieve it quickly the following morning. In more extreme cases, large multinational companies could move money immediately between internal accounts in different currencies during an emergency.

These examples underline why central banks and market participants are examining tokenisation beyond consumer payments. The technology is being assessed as a possible way to reduce friction in settlement, cash management and the movement of assets across borders.

The Bank said its vision is for an economy that promotes competition and offers more choice in how people pay, with traditional and tokenised money exchanged seamlessly.