Tuesday, December 7, 2010

FSCS urged to preserve Lifemark value to reimburse IFA levies | News | Money Marketing

FSCS urged to preserve Lifemark value to reimburse IFA levies | News | Money Marketing

Ah, yes IFA levies.

Dear Mr Ford, the FSA said this last week:

"A firm which had been given permission by the FSA to advise on, act as agent for, arrange deals in and manage investments would be allocated to the ‘Class D Investment’ fee block which contains both fund management (sub-class D1) and investment intermediation (sub-class D2). Such a firm’s FSCS levy would be based on the amount of tariff data they reported for each relevant sub-class and not a proportional split between these sub-classes.

You should be aware that specific information the FSA receives from, or about, regulated firms or individuals, where this is not in the public domain, is likely to be prohibited from disclosure under section 348 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. This is because it would be confidential information received for the purposes of carrying out our regulatory functions and supervision of those firms and individuals. Such information is therefore likely to be exempt by virtue of section 44 (Prohibitions on disclosure) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000."
************************

Can you tell us Mr Ford? Or can you give the FSA permission to disclose?

Monday, December 6, 2010

Former head of RBS investment bank Johnny Cameron says FSA must publish report - Telegraph

Former head of RBS investment bank Johnny Cameron says FSA must publish report - Telegraph

As with most of the New Labour legislation the "Act" contains a Henry VIII clause whereby one of Her Majesy's Ministers can change it with the stroke of a pen.

Do it Mr Osborne, if it does the regulatory system no harm.

Thursday, December 2, 2010

FSA report into RBS must be made public, says Lord Oakeshott - Telegraph

FSA report into RBS must be made public, says Lord Oakeshott - Telegraph

The idea that one man can run a bank of that size is insane, as is the amount of money handed to him despite the failures of which there were, and still are, many. I don't think we can blame the regulators for the failure of Parliament to ensure that the legislation which empowered them was robust enough. We can also consider how much political influence was aimed at the FSA to allow the banks to 'regulate themselves', when you consider that last year there were only SIX regulators assigned to supervise one of the biggest banks we can only assume that the "collective intellectual failure" was inevitable. Then we examine the list of FSA staff, a large proportion of them are former BofE who in turn have employed even more bankers, does that create bias?

FT.com / Columnists / Lombard - FSA ensures lessons of RBS boardroom stay unlearnt

FT.com / Columnists / Lombard - FSA ensures lessons of RBS boardroom stay unlearnt


We have to ask whether the Act which empowers the regulators is sound, if it is then why do the executives of these failed banks get away with the proverbial blue murder while small firms are being hounded out of existence for doing no wrong.

Society is in dire need of regulatory balance, I see less of this each day.