Long-stop appeal is rejected | News | Money Marketing#commentsubmitted
Mike Fenwick | 5 Aug 2010 11:49 am
I often read comments about what are considered to be the failings of the FSA, but for me perhaps the issues surrounding the lack of a long stop must rank near the top of that league of regulatory failings.
The FSA have been given extensive legal powers, have recruited large numbers of highly paid staff, it has in many ways an unlimited budget ... and yet, and yet.
And yet, despite all of that - and more - when it comes to their ability to recognise failings in the markets which they regulate, it is not 3 years that they need, nor is it 6 years, nor is it 15 years.
Do the abilities of the FSA run so low that they must determinedly stick to their assertion that they need - forever?
Does it reveal an important lesson?
I would suggest it does - and I wonder if that apparent failure, the need to take forever to perform a regulatory function, to take forever to ascertain failings in the market, could in any way be described as being in the public interest.
Then perhaps ask yourself if ... whilst denying the regulated a legitimate claim to the legal rights granted to others - why the FSA were given a unique exemption from the rule of law for their own failings?
You sure that is truly in the public's interest?