Govt says new regulatory structure to cost £50m
Share
The Government has revealed that its regulatory overhaul of the tripartite authorities is likely to cost around £50m.
The costs of creating the new regulatory structure with the Consumer Protection and Markets Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority replacing the FSA and coming under the oversight of the Bank of England will be spread over three years and are largely the result of changes that will need to be made to legislation.
In a paper today outlining the changes, the Treasury confirmed its plans to give the CPMA the FSA’s responsibilities for conduct of business regulation and arms-length responsibility for overseeing Financial Ombudsman Service, Financial Services Compensation Scheme and the Consumer Financial Education Body.
The Prudential Regulation Authority is to take on responsibility for prudential supervision of all deposit-taking firms, insurers and investment banks.
Both the PRA and the CPMA will be overseen by the Financial Policy Committee, which will have responsibility for macro-prudential regulation, under the Bank of England.
The Treasury also revealed that around 1,500 to 2,000 firms which are set to be regulated by both the CPMA and the PRA are likely to face higher ongoing costs as a result of the regulatory restructure.
It says that there may also be higher costs for firms to obtain authorisation as those applying to the PRA will also need to consult the CPMA on their application.
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
Readers' comments (14)
Anonymous | 26 Jul 2010 11:14 am
Seriously I wish this was an April Fool's article.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Freedom Of Speech | 26 Jul 2010 11:17 am
Ok lets get this right !!
£50 million could be spent on all this and the fee costs imposed on IFAs could go up !
Taking into account the recent increase in regulatory fees due to the compensation of other people's greed this is yet another punch in the face to IFA businesses.
Lets hope there is clear transparent disclosure to everyone about who will make money from these changes.
Enough said for now !!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Michael Fallas | 26 Jul 2010 11:48 am
Fools utter fools, this is not going to improve matters at all.
Moving the goal posts in the hope of making it easier to score the right result !!
Keep you wallets open eveyone as they will be taking more and more whilst they all justify their existence at your expense.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Julian Stevens | 26 Jul 2010 11:56 am
Get out, get out to another regulatory jurisdiction and escape this financially crippling bureaucratic madness.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Whipple | 26 Jul 2010 12:14 pm
Oh dear sounds a recipe for confusion and yet further empire building.
And it is going to cost more !
So much for simplification.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Steven Farrall (Adviser Alliance) | 26 Jul 2010 12:36 pm
Oh kerrist! Have they any bloody clue at all?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
vp73 | 26 Jul 2010 1:42 pm
Let's be honest, this is more of a political move than a logical or necessary one. The Tories just want to 'brand' the new regualtor with their own name just like Labour did with the FSA. However, there is a lot less money about now and a lot more advisor's struggling to survive. The fact that we are struggling means absolutely nothing to our regulator or the government, they just keep heaping on the costs and pressures. Other industries have help and assistance through this recession, but as usual we have had more misery piled upon us.
It makes no sense to spend money on effectively what is only a new Tory name for our regualtor when in truth nothing will really change apart from our costs increasing to cover the changes. When is our regualtor and the governemnt going to realise we provide a crucial service to this country and to lose it would have a catastrophic effect on the economic recovery.
The only changes will come from the MMR which we all know are going to see the end of the Independent Mortgage Brokers as we know it and will force customers to pay for their advice. The only winners will be the banks as customers will be forced to go direct to them and be 'sold' not 'advised' any number of products they can to meet their bonus. Then comes the increase in complaints as we know banks do not really give advice or care about their customers.......shall I go on or do you get the picture?!?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26 Jul 2010 2:00 pm
I had a fantasy that any regulator, FIMBRA, PIA, FSA or new one could care less about any consumer at all. It was nice while it lasted, then i woke up.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26 Jul 2010 2:00 pm
Of course they could save all of this money if they just ban IFAs outright.
Otherwise they will spend more millions and end up with the same result.
I thought this Govt was not in favour of more Quangos. Oh well they are all politicians are'nt they?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26 Jul 2010 2:39 pm
A mere bagatelle in these austere times!!! The people who will spend othere peoples money in such a cavalier fashion must be mentally sub normal.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment