PwC Keydata fees total £6.6m
Share
PricewaterhouseCoopers has racked up more than £6.6m in Keydata fees since the firm went into administration last summer.
In its final progress report, published this week, PwC says it is owed £1.94m for the six months ending June 7, 2010.
This time cost comprises 6,002 hours at an average charge out rate of £325. But the firm says it has not yet drawn any of this remuneration.
PwC has drawn fees of £1.74m plus VAT for work spent on the Keydata administration between June and December last year.
The firm accrued fees totalling £4.68m for this period but it says it did not draw the full amount to ensure sufficient funds were available to continue to trade the Keydata Reading office. This time cost comprises of 13,283 hours at an average charge out rate of £352.31.
PwC says it anticipates its remuneration to date will be paid in part from third party funding provided by Credit Suisse and other banks. It says any commission payments due from Lifemark may also be used to settle a portion of the debt.
Trading supervision was by far the main cost in the six months to June 7. This took up 3,617 hours and totalled £1.07m in fees. PwC also clocked up significant hours on strategy and planning, forensic investigations and accounting and treasury.
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
Readers' comments (4)
Michael Fallas | 8 Jul 2010 1:17 pm
How on earth can you justify spending 13,283 hours and at a massive rate of £352.31 per hour staggers me.
It is a disgrace and just goes further to show how out of control financial regulation is as well as the costs.
Costs are just totally out of control to reality.
The FSA, FSCS and FOS cost us all some £3 Billion since 2005/5 yet the amount paid out by the FOS during the same time was £2 Billion and a high proportion of that was due to the banking crisis.
The cost of regulation now far exceed the benefit and each year and day the costs increase even more.
How much longer this madness can go on one can only wonder. I suppose as long as those who stay in this industry can afford to pay.
The system will break eventually if nothing changes.
When
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 8 Jul 2010 2:40 pm
Do they have to write a suitability style report detailing every charge and cost? If not why not? this is what the fsa expects from us.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mister Maker | 8 Jul 2010 3:01 pm
I'm not sure PwC's role has been fully understood in this - it has nothing to do with regulation and FSA. They are administrators appointed under Insolvency Law to oversee the winding-up of the business.
The fees associated with that work are what they are - it is a specialist, high-risk area which few firms are capable of doing. That's why the fees are so high.
Anger at the FSA should be for allowing the business to trade in the first place and clients to invest, and lose, their monies.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 8 Jul 2010 5:53 pm
Yes, Mister Maker, PwC were appointed as administrators after they had been asked by the FSA to review Keydata's solvency. When PwC concluded that Keydata was insolvent they did so on the basis that there would be no more commisisons from third parties such as Lifemark. But once Keydata was put into administration and PwC took on the role of administrator, they demanded those same commisisons from Lifemark.
Go figure.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment