Thanks for the legacy

I am not sure that Mr Sants' sucessors will thank him for making promises that might not be possible to keep, particularly as the FSA seem blind to consumer detriment even when reported to them publicly. I asked a straight question at the FSA Annual Public Meeting as to why the FSA were allowing lenders to use the non-advised/execution-only route for naive potential borrowers and the only answer given was that this would be addressed in the Mortgage Market Review proposals, which was not the case. If the FSA are standing by while vulnerable borrowers are being taken to the cleaners by banks and other lenders, despite clearly being aware of it, how can the public believe any commitment made by the regulator?

Posted by: Stuart Duncan

Old vs New

As it is Friday afternoon, I have been searching for some amusement, and finally this article arrived in my inbox; thank you Hector for raising a wry smile. So if we look at the paragraph "[The old-style] was a retrospective form of regulation," he says. "Intervention needed to be based on observable historical facts." We now know this will be replaced by the NEW STYLE of regulation: "Intervention will now be based on future facts". I'd like to know where the FSA purchased their crystal ball from which they will derive these "future facts".

Posted by: You must be joking

Hectors revenge

Hey! Do I detect a glimmer of responsibility arising in our heroes of Canary Wharf? The product providers must be quivering in their boots.

Posted by: Andrew Moore

Different World they live in - The air in Canary Wharf must be good !!

"he says the structure of UK regulation was "not a major contributory factor" in the financial crisis." So what is the point or regulation then if it fails to stop or even forsee some of the biggest financial failures in our history? Bank failures and product failures are obviously of no interest to the FSA then. Nor was over lending and borrowing or securitised debt? Nothing to do with any regulator is it? What were they doing while our financial world slowly melted under the heat then?

Posted by: Michael Fallas

to far

We have now got beyond the stage of consumer benefits, it is now just about control from the FSA. It is easier to just fine and dump people rather than educate them which the FSA cannot do, because they havent the foggiest what to do themselves

Posted by: terry

More like the FSA choked.

Its hard to believe that someone in such a senior position with so much influence over the financial markets still doesn't get it. For all the fine words spoken, our regulator still has unattainably high benchmarks for the industry it regulates and yet accepts such pitifully low standards from itself, prefering instead to suggest that we should'nt be unreasonable in our expectations of what a regulator can do! Morally the FSA is discredited and proved itself unfit to fulfil its role as the financial markets policeman with the 2007 financial meltdown. They ban a few brokers pretending that these practioners are the pariahs who prey on the vunerable and pose the greatest risk to the UK's financial markets stability - this looks so much like the jailing of a few drug pushers (because drug barons are harder to pin down) to show the public they are tough on financial crime and tough on the causes of financial crime. But still the FSA chose to ignore the fact that the Head Honcho senior banking officals who promoted unsustanable business models, sent bdm's out with a 'get business at any cost' mantra which brought the UK to its knees. These people go unpunished because they are beyond the reach of the FSA as they are too powerful. It is here that the problem eminates and all the window dressing now will not cover the FSA's embarrassment. The regulator needs a Regulator because they FSA creates impossibly complicated rules to solve essentially simple problems. Stick to the plot Hector and get back to basics and don't take yourself too seriously.

Posted by: Chris

Big Brother aka FSA

So the FSA is going to decide what`s good for us now ( or not,as the case may be!)What`s happened to the "free market"? Are they finally trying to kill off the entire market?

Posted by: David Yorke