The FCA plans to give firms subject to enforcement investigations a 48 hour window to view the contents of any announcements before they are made public.

This is in addition to 10 days' notice that their firm is being investigated before the FCA decides what, if any, announcements will be made.

Originally the regulator proposed that firms were only given one day’s notice of any publication of investigations.

The regulator laid out its revised ‘name and shame’ proposals today, making clear that its proposals on increased transparency only involve its enforcement work and not its supervision work.

In its second consultation paper for the proposed new rules, the FCA reassured firms that only a “tiny fraction” of cases would lead to enforcement action as there would be, “an intensive period of supervisory engagement with many opportunities to resolve our concerns.”

It also confirmed that it will would not make any “proactive announcements” of investigations that are already ongoing when the rules come into effect.

The FCA is set to make a final decision on the controversial ‘name and shame’ proposals early next year.

Currently, the regulator only announces it has opened investigations in ‘exceptional circumstances’, which means it rarely says anything about its investigations until they are concluded and it has imposed sanctions for serious misconduct.

The regulator is consulting on a shift in approach as it believes greater transparency will boost public confidence, as well as improving its own accountability.

Under the new proposals, the FCA expects to announce up to 10 investigations publicly each year.

The proposed changes only apply to firms, not to named individuals.

In its latest proposals, the regulator also admitted that its approach to the ‘name and shame’ proposals was not ideal.

The regulator said: “Our proposals came as a surprise and we should have introduced them in a better way, including signalling them in the Regulatory Initiatives Grid. That meant initial conversations about these proposals were not as constructive as we had hoped. It also meant that the essence of what we were proposing – of seeking to serve the public interest more effectively in a relatively small number of cases – became obscured.”

Earlier this week MPs and members of the House of Lords published a critical report on the FCA, branding the regulator ‘incompetent’.

The report called for the FCA to be overhauled and said the City watchdog is "too often failing" to perform its functions.

It said the FCA had failed to properly investigate and act on information provided by whistleblowers and it said a transformation programme undertaken by the regulator had "not worked."

In the last Parliament, the FCA provided oral evidence 38 times - more than any other regulator. It also provided 41 written updates to the Treasury Committee, Home Affairs Committee, Science and Technology and House of Lords.

It said its research showed that more than three-quarters of regulated firms reported a high level of satisfaction with the FCA. Some 85% of FCA stakeholders (including consumer groups and politicians) agreed the FCA achieved its objective of protecting consumers, the FCA said.

Financial Planning Today Analysis: The FCA has come as close as it has ever done to admitting its initial plans to 'name and shame' firms under investigation were wrong. After some robust feedback from the industry it has revised its plans to provide a 48 hour 'cooling off' period before investigations are publicly revealed. Many consumer experts support the 'name and shame' proposals but they come with risk. What if the FCA announces a major provider or adviser firm is under investigation and the firm is later exonerated? An innocent firm could be damaged unnecessarily. It's a tricky tightrope to navigate. The FCA believes 'naming and shaming' firms will help it shine the light on poor practice and incentivise firms to do the right thing. This has some merit long term but the FCA will want to avoid using a sledgehammer to crack a regulatory nut.