FSA staff turnover doubles in a year
Share
Annual staff turnover at the FSA has more than doubled over the past year, from 4.9 per cent in 2009/10 to 10.4 per cent in 2010/11.
The regulator has published its staff turnover figures as part of its annual report for 2010/11, which measures the progress made against its business plan published last March, and covers the year from April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011.
The FSA says it has increased staff levels in line with its more intrusive approach to supervision, and as a result staff turnover has varied.
The FSA says: “Our turnover levels are manageable; while our turnover went down considerably during the financial crisis it is now starting to return to the level we would expect as recruitment picks up across the sector.”
The regulator paid out £24.8m in annual staff incentive rewards in 2010/11, the equivalent of 13.8 per cent of the FSA’s total salary bill. In 2009/10 the FSA paid out £21.9m in annual incentive rewards, reflecting a lower number of staff.
FSA chief executive Hector Sants was the highest paid director over the last year, earning £806,810 compared to £773,067 last year.
Sants’ remuneration includes a £500,000 basic salary, £115,000 in performance-related bonuses, £131,810 for car expenses and other flexible benefits, and £60,000 payment in lieu of a pension contribution.
FSA chairman Lord Adair Turner accepted a £10,000 increase in his salary to £426,000, after foregoing an increase to £435,000 in April 2009.
The report also reveals that the amount raised in fines during the year has gone up by almost a third, from £33.5m in 2009/10 to £91.2m during 2010/11. The FSA says this will be used to reduce the amounts payable by relevant fee blocks in future.
Enforcement costs are down from £68.4m to £57.9m, including the costs of external accountants and lawyers, which have gone up from £7.3m to £8.8m.
Overall the FSA spent £450.8m during the year, compared to its budgeted spend of £458m. It raised £464.2m in fees from levy payers, compared to £435.5m raised for the previous year.
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (25)
Garry Heath | 13 Jun 2011 1:57 pm
So Mr Sants believes he can regulate every minutiae of the industry with a workforce that's running away at speed.
We need to reform this monster down to a size and scope that allows the industry to develop along commercial lines rather than as some bizarre corner of East Germany
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 13 Jun 2011 1:58 pm
Why are these imbeciles paid such an obscene amount ?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
loweman | 13 Jun 2011 2:04 pm
hector is proving that he couldnt run a p*** in a brewery, what a shambles and our industry is funding these buffoons.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 13 Jun 2011 2:05 pm
These salaries/bonuses are shocking. For an industry that is already over-regulated and losing good advisers who are disillusioned with the dictatorship of the FSA, it is time that some sense prevailed. Why should bonuses be paid ??
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
CONFFA | 13 Jun 2011 2:12 pm
Good God, words fail me .......
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter Herd | 13 Jun 2011 2:13 pm
Gary, I can understand your point of view but having a regulator that is small and with limited scope will only lead to further fiascoes and harm the industry. I personally believe that we need a regulator that does ask questions and has real teeth, and is more intrusive. I cannot believe that Northern Rock for example only had one inspection 18 months before it collapsed, this is not regulation, this is rubberstamping.
For those working in the industry, if you don't like it you can always find another trade, I for one will be supporting the world of regulation and we need to stop moaning about it and understand that it is there to protect us ALL.
The only thing I really disagree with the regulator over is the lack of Grandpa rights under RDR regulations but that is unique to IFA's and the FSA regulates the whole of financial services.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
ironman chris | 13 Jun 2011 2:24 pm
How the hell can you accumulate £131,000 in car expenses?
What car is he driving or should it be driven around in and how many miles covered
Bloody joke just taking the p--s
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rod | 13 Jun 2011 2:30 pm
Garry you are absolutely right, I for one did not sign up to a Communist state, where over paid unqualified people are unaccountable for their actions and destroy all that is good about trusted advisors. RDR should be dead and buried along with the FOS and FSCS. The Ministry of Justice should take half of the money it costs to keep the F pack gravy train rolling and set up a simple fast track court, manned by qualified experts where disputes over (miss-selling) would be heard under the laws of the Land, with an appeals process gave IFA's their human rights back.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dave Hedge | 13 Jun 2011 2:32 pm
In response to Peter Herd I would suggest that no-one is really against regulation. It is just that the cretins running the regualtor are incompetent and don't know how to regulate successfully.
Instead of trying to understand and work with the industry they are content to destroy it.
If they were successful, we wouldn't have had the fiascos and harm we've suffered under the imbeciles at the FSA. In time they will have regulated the industry away.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rod | 13 Jun 2011 2:35 pm
@Peter Heard, I hear what you say however, the problem is the only people the FSA are Protecting are the banks and themselves! How many bankers have been charged with anything for the collapse of the sytem and how many FSA staff have been sacked because it happend on their watch!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment