FSA admits 'flawed' supervision of RBS

Unbelievable Incompetence

What a bunch of incompetent wasters. Hundereds of billions in cash and underlyings at the expence of ordinary people. Sack them all.

Posted by: Diligent Investor

And....

These people want MORE power! Honestly, if they admitted they were at fault not only for RBS but for the whole banking crisis and that they do not have the quality of staff to do their job properly and they consistently get carried away with what amounts to gimmicky themes and can they please get some help I would think them a reasonable bunch. As it is, look at the power they are getting over the IFA market and what a catastrophic cock-up that is turning out to be. They are currently a menace and we need good regulation, not power-hungry pen-pushing from deep behind the ground where transactions are happening every minute.

Posted by: Hear Hear

FSA " Flawed ?"

The FSA excuse is they had " flawed suervision of RBS ", - that is not " flawed " that is inept and totally incompetent. given the volume of fines against the tax payer owned RBS - where does the " fine" money come from ? Where does it go ? and it appears to me that the incompetent Directors, conducted their strategies in full knowledge they had insufficient funds or funding. Is that not illegal ? Some might call that trading whilst insolvent - why did the RMAR not pick this up ? I reported RBS to the FSA - who refused to investigate - that is not flawed that is truly incompetent.

Posted by: IAn Lees

And where is Howards Davies today ?

Has anybody noticed how Howard Davies, the man normally featured on almost every radio 4 interview possible, is nowhere to be seen today !! The main individual responsible for all these failings walked off with a knighthood and a big pay off, and probably a huge pension. Now at the LSE I believe ..... look out LSE I say!

Posted by: Anon

What about the rest?

Why don't the FSA also launch an enquiry into their mishandling of Keydata and the life settlements market in general instead of backing the FSCS to sue IFAs for alleged mis-selling of these products? FSA get your house in order and be fair on all fronts not just what suits best.

Posted by: Mars

The buck stops ?????

As per usual with this sorry bunch of 'trough feeders', no-one is to blame. We are told the high salaries are for expert, high performers that can only be employed if they are paid obscene amounts of money, otherwise they will go elsewhere. Hah! The usual excuse for public sector & high office failure is rolled out "lessons have been learned", "systems have been put in place". In other words "we have got away Scott free!!! How come small businesses, IFAs are not afforded the use of these stock excuses?

Posted by: Mike

Flawed report

This is just another reason why THE FSA has lost all right to judge others. If we are required to pay compensation by anyone who makes a mistake in our industry by guess who, The FSA, then should they not abide by their own rules (out of their own pockets)?

Posted by: Michael Fallas

Endless incompetence

It is difficult not to be angry, but who is more worthy of the main part of the anger? RBS because of greed and mismanagement? One has to say that whilst the greed and arrogance are almost beyond belief the whole process did not happen in a vacuum. RBS were "merely" doing what so many other were doing. Where were the investment managers whilst all this was going on? They have more detailed technical knowledge and understanding than the FSA ever will, and they were happy to gamble away. And there are others in the firing line, but let's not get too boring. To me the biggest target for anger is the FSA. Not because the supervision was poor, because I am not convinced that any Regulator would or could have made much of a difference without becoming so involved in the process of company management that they would have been inseparable from the real management, and I am not convinced that having Civil Servants managing companies is beneficial. No the main anger is directed against the absolute hypocrisy of the FSA's stance. I suspect that most of us could have written parts of this before the report came out - we hold up our hands, we didn't perform well enough, but if you give us more money and more staff we will do better. And also please give us more power. Actually we would not have had to have written it, merely lifted in verbatim from previous reports. But the anger doesn't stop there. There will be no external analysis of the FSA's competence; there will be no calling to account; there will be no review of their overall brief; and finally no-one will lose their job. It's a farce. The FSA is out of control because it is totally unaccountable. The FSA have as much idea of regulating the financial industry as Parliament has of controlling the FSA. None. But every one else, consumers included, pay for this incompetence.

Posted by: Glen McKeown

Sants

Should Hector Sants now be invited to be involved in the the new regulatory system? I can't think of a reason why he should. Hector?

Posted by: MarkG

Oh dear

Perhaps we should be a little more measured in our reactions. Of course it is understandable that small IFAs arte in high dudgeon over this. Let us pose some questions – always difficult not to be smart with hindsight. 1. Was it (is it) not obvious that large institutions such as banks are at higher risk of systemic damage than even a large collection of small IFAs? In which case what are the resources in manpower and money allocated to small IFAs vis a vis the large players? If as many suspect this is unbalanced (in proportion to risk posed) then perhaps there needs to be a re-think. 2. Treating Customers fairly, whilst a laudable aim, was always fraught with difficulty as it demanded much more input and effort than merely following finite rules. We now see that the Regulator admits as much; but is it acceptable for Regulators to venture down blind alleys, particularly when there were warning voices at outset? 3. How on earth can the FSA have the temerity to mention that they were under Government pressure to impose lighter touch regulation? This to me is the real ‘elephant in the room’. They purport to be independent – they say they are and the Government say they are – in which case this is a non sequitur. 4. Much as many would wish to deny it – even regulators are human and thus prone to error. But how many errors in what period of time are acceptable? Should there be some proportionality between what seems to be chasm between what is expected of the regulated compared to the actions and performance of the regulator? Or to put it more bluntly is ‘Do as I say, not as I do’ acceptable? 5. Although I do appreciate the dichotomy, this and other matters continue to highlight (in my opinion) the unsatisfactory situation in so far as the FSA is effectively unaccountable and immune from any sanction. This is now a case of ‘the stable door’, but will things be different under the FCA? As far as Hector is concerned I’m certainly no apologist, but to be fair his backside had hardly sat on the throne before the storm broke. As someone else has said it is probably more in Howard Davis’s province than anywhere else.

Posted by: Harry Katz

Sovereign Debt

Perhaps the FSA should sort out the sovereign debt problems. After all they seem to be a pretty capable bunch!

Posted by: Jefroc