A group of experts has taken a look at the definitions that the UK government uses when it comes to the economic penalties on banks.
The experts believe the UK Government is actually using a monopoly definition of the definition of a monopoly.
The definition of monopoly states that the monopoly has a monopoly on the supply of goods or services.
The government also states that a monopoly is a business which has monopoly power over its business.
“Monopoly is the ability to charge more than the market will bear,” the experts said.
“The more you charge, the more you will lose, so it is a monopoly.”
The group of researchers and economists wrote a study in December 2015 which examined the definition used by the UK to define the “monopoly” on financial services in order to justify sanctions on the banks.
“Monopolies are used to describe companies that are large enough to be considered monopoly in the eyes of the market, but small enough to remain so,” the study stated.
“These firms can charge more or lower prices than their competitors, and thus gain a monopoly in their area of business.
They can also have a monopoly over the supply or the distribution of their products or services.”
The study concluded that the definition applied to banks by the British government was “unbalanced” and it was a monopoly that “does not apply to the UK’s financial services sector”.
“We are concerned that the way the definition is worded in the UK is making it harder for regulators to see that there are indeed significant barriers to competition in financial services, and therefore more opportunities for monopolies,” the report stated.
In a statement, the British Bankers Association (BBA) said the government’s definitions were “unfair and wrong” and were “misleading and wrong.”
“In the past, we have argued that the bank monopoly definition is flawed and that the regulatory framework for the sector should reflect this,” the statement read.
“As a result, we are currently drafting amendments to the legislation to clarify this issue.”
However, the BBA did not give a specific date when the proposed amendments to be published would be published.
However it did say the government has been in touch with the BAA to discuss the issues.
According to the BAE, the definition does not take into account the nature of the financial services business and does not consider the nature and scope of the bank’s financial activities.
While the BAI did not respond to a request for comment, the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said it has “been clear that the current definition is wrong.”
“The FSA is working with the Financial Conduct Agency (FCRA) to consider whether there is a reasonable alternative to the current approach to the definition,” the FCA said in a statement.
It also added that it is “working with the government to develop the new definition for financial services.”
However, there are a number of experts who disagree with the FCO’s definition.
David Johnson, a professor at University of East Anglia, said the definition has been used before by the government.
Johnson said in 2014, the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSA) adopted a definition for the banking sector that excluded non-bank financial services.
“It does not account for non-banks and it does not include the non-financial services that banks do not provide,” Johnson told The Huffington Post UK.
Furthermore, Johnson said it was important for the government not to be using the term monopoly in this context.
“We can be very clear about that: this definition is not a monopoly, it is not the kind of monopoly that we have come to expect,” Johnson said.
He added that the financial sector is “not the monopoly” and therefore there is an opportunity to regulate it more.
“The government should be trying to make the banking system more competitive, to reduce the role of the banks, and it should not be making this distinction,” he said.
“But I don’t think it is right to be defining it in this way.”
While Johnson did not expect to see the new definitions published before December, he believes the government is already moving in the right direction.
“There is a real risk that the new approach to regulation may be published before then, and that would be an unfortunate result,” Johnson added.
“I think the government should wait until we get more clarity from the FCo before it starts to move ahead with its regulatory proposals.”
Follow Jamie on Twitter: @jamielewis_huffpost