Sants says he leaves FSA an "improved" regulator

Improvement??

Im slightly baffled that "lots of fines" is the proof that things are better?? Arent the regulators main objectives to STOP things going wrong, not just find them and fine them AFTER its happened???

Posted by: Paul Harding

better regulator

He would say that of course, but he does not comment on the chaos he has caused both in the past and left for the future in the financial services industry. No doubt he will get a well paid position elsewhere

Posted by: terry

Total misunderstanding

We all know Hector has a bit of a lisp - what he actually said was impoverished (too many bonuses and payoffs)

Posted by: You must be joking

LISPING AND LIMPING AWAY

Good riddanth to Hector Sansth. Thilly totther.

Posted by: Keith Jayne

The record

There are a large number of people who truly agree that Hector has done an excellent job, the problem is the number is equivalent to the staff level at the FSA. The glory of the fines,is scotch mist,for each penalty reflects the failure of the FSA to do the job properly in the first place,equally in other areas of mass failure or bigoted regulation has, if not achieve during the period has been supported by Hector. So please save the hollow boosts for your publisher,a good title might be was Hector 'Robin' 'Superman' or 'Hood' for the system which he controlled certainly had the eliment of robbing to fund the regulator. Unfortunately qualification is a primary objective of the FSA, while infact qualification only produces a more intelligent thief and success should not be claimed on the numbers apprehended,but the numbers that did not. Finally the objective was to encourage and reward savers,not crucify them.by imposing heavy cost on the industry, including gold plated regulation.

Posted by: M J Winfield

bye bye --bye bye

Sants: the biggest ever bank failure fell on your watch - good ridence to you and the rest of your staff

Posted by: bye

Let's stop extremism

Interesting to see Sants said "I believe the FSA is now a different and improved regulator". So it's not a fact, merely a belief. I suspect there are a lot of people who believe that England will win the World Cup; whilst others may believe we'll have at least one week of good weather this Summer. Belief is a wonderful thing - but it is not fact, until after the event. We are after the event with Sants, and its still only belief. So can we accept that it's not fact? I have just skimmed through the 2009/10 business plan to find these 35 milestones he mentions. If they are in there they are darned difficult to find, which suggests they are the airy fairy type, so no one can argue one way or the other - which is pretty much the way the FSA operate; let's make in up as we go along. So if they have hit 31 milestones, let the FSA state them in clear, transparent language. And state the 4 they missed and why. The only milestone I see the FSA achieving is one of continual dysfunction - say one thing and achieve the opposite. Paul Harding is right when he says that lots of fines prove nothing, but the rest of his sentiment demonstrates the lack of connection of a large part of the industry, the media, and the political strata with reality. The courts give out lots of fines, as do the accountancy and solicitors regulator bodies, and loads others too numerous to mention. All that fines mean is that the world is not a perfect place - but it doesn't mean its rotten either. There will always be room for improvement - and we will always see that after the event (sole exception being God, if he's reading this), so don't expect the FSA to stop things. We should stop the hysteria and start to define what we believe is achievable in Regulation. Perfection is not achievable, and may not even be a sensible target in a very amorphous industry. There is far too much woolly language and thinking - what is "fair", what is "ethical" - put two philosophers in a room and they'll come up with a dozen different answers. I would suggest that the current Regulator is poor because it is unaccountable and therefore does not need to listen to the market - and by the market I include the consumer who appears to be a diminishing population, partly due to the dysfunctional aspects of regulation. So why don't we start by demanding a body to which the FSA must answer - in public, for its behaviour. And let's set clearly stated targets that make sense. For example, I would suggest that the conviction of only 3 individuals demonstrates a high level of integrity in an industry that deals with so much money. Let's look at both sides of the information given. The overriding legislation is extensive, and in many ways, rather more in touch with reality than the Regulator, but it does not define what a satisfactory outcome would be. Which leaves the Regulator with great freedom to define their own outcomes that do not have to have any relevance at all. I believe I have improved the industry, therefore it is improved (Sants). AIFA and the rest of the industry should be broadcasting the positives that the industry actually achieves, to counter the negatives produced by a body that believes it needs to show how bad we are to justify its own existence. Total balderdash. We do need regulation ( to keep honest people honest) - we don't need hard line extremists.

Posted by: Glen McKeown