Number of high-earning FSA staff trebles
Share
The number of FSA staff paid over £100,000 has trebled in the past four years.
Figures obtained by the Financial Times through a freedom of information request show the FSA had 241 staff paid more than £100,000 in March 2010, compared to 81 in March 2006.
During the same period total FSA staff numbers increased 20 per cent to 3307, acccording to the FT report.
An FSA spokeswoman told the paper the regulator needs to attract and retain high-quality people “so needs to offer attractive packages, especially when competing with the private sector for specialist talent”.
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 | 31 Aug 2010 9:31 am
Here we go again. Whilst the IFA market is being screwed by the FSA we see their staff increasing with high salaries and bonuses. If they have taken on high calibre staff what did they do before hand obviously not financial services.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 31 Aug 2010 9:42 am
Here we go again. Narrow-minded, ill-informed diatribe which ignores the fact that the FSA's remit extends beyond IFAs into difficult territory.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 31 Aug 2010 9:50 am
Did not do a very good job regulating the banks did they????
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Robert Donaldson | 31 Aug 2010 9:50 am
I agree with the second comments, it is about time the anonymous tag was removed. Some people are just using this blog as a chance to constantly knock the FSA. Whilst I would now wish to defend them can we not show that we are grown up!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 31 Aug 2010 9:53 am
Re Anonymous @ 9.42.
By definition you must mean IFAs are not difficult territory? Why then are they more heavily regulated than those who may be considered difficult?
Perhaps you have been on the receiving end of the big salary/bonus payments at the FSA?
The regulator continues to interfere with adviser charging, aiming to drive it as low as possible, whilst at the same time forcing advisers to pay more and more in order to line its own pockets.
Not so much ill informed diatribe as blatently obvious.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 31 Aug 2010 10:17 am
..where, as far as I can see, they have also also failed the consumer, and the general public, but on a grander scale. Let's chuck more money at the problem.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 31 Aug 2010 11:06 am
Anon 0942 again... I'm willing to bet that few other commentators on here have worked in the industry, consulted to it and worked for the FSA. And I've got level six quals. And continuous financial services experience dating back to the implementation of the 1986 act.
I know ignorance and small-mindedness when I see them.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 31 Aug 2010 12:57 pm
Those who can do. Those who cannot, regulate.
Why not, when as a regulator, you can earn more than if you did a hard days work.
There is nothing ignorant or small minded in speaking out about the abuse of power when you see it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Josef K | 31 Aug 2010 12:59 pm
So 8 comments and 6 of them anonymous. Is it any wonder our industry struggles to have its voice heard when no-one is willing to put their names to anything (and please don't use the tired old line that "they" will come for you!).
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Adam Smith | 31 Aug 2010 1:40 pm
"So 8 comments and 6 of them anonymous." I think that would be SEVEN, Josef K. Love the pseudonym, but it's probably wasted on a fair proportion of the readership...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment