And it may adversely affect the course of the investigation itself.
Matthew Nunan, partner in the disputes resolution group at law firm Gibson Dunn, says: "Quite a lot of the early part of the investigation is to understand the business model of the company. The investigators may not have come across this type of business."
The possibility, he says, is that the FCA may have got the wrong end of the stick, and has given the firm involved one day to get its ducks in a row.
"You're trying to educate the FCA, and the announcement goes out the next day – it's just wrong. They are giving themselves little time to get it right."
Some firms may just settle early, to make it all go away rather than turn it into public battle with the regulator.
The regulator's motivation
The FCA, for its part, has been robust in its defence. Chambers in the Simmons & Simmons webinar last month stood her ground under similar questions saying: "What we've sought to do is set out the public interest framework within which we will make these decisions, and we've based that framework on our statutory objectives, because we think it is those objectives that define the public interest for us.
"We will look at all the facts and circumstances of the particular investigation which necessarily means there is some consideration of detriment and impact. The process will be done on a case-by-case basis.
"What we are not saying is that we will automatically announce every single investigation that we open or that we will automatically name every firm that is subject to investigation. This is not a blanket approach.
"But there will be cases where it is in the public interest and in the service of our aim to achieve impactful deterrence to name a firm."
A key element to this she added was to "enhance public confidence" in the regulator.
The consultation has raised questions with many as to why the FCA has undertaken such a policy – "enhancing public confidence" in the regulator does seem to be a strong contender.
Many have suggested that the FCA enforcement division is overburdened with cases, and is trying to find a way to repair its reputation, not least for acting too slowly.
Fox Williams' Ganatra says: "This is all about the regulator having a bad reputation in terms of the action that they take. [They want to show] these are all the different things we are doing and moving quickly. It's reputational damage limitation rather than something that's positive for the markets."
