Sants stresses RDR will go ahead under new structure
Share
FSA chief executive Hector Sants has stressed that the FSA will carry on the RDR and its enhanced supervisory regime under the new regulatory structure announce by Chancellor George Osborne.
The Government announced last week that the FSA is being transformed into a new prudential authority, which will be a subsidiary of the Bank of England. A new body, the Consumer Protection and Markets Authority, will regulate all authorised firms.
Speaking at today’s Annual Public Meeting in London, Sants said: “As I have said in the past, the key issue is ensuring we have the right quality of people, the right culture and the right regulatory philosophy. Achieving these goals will be a challenge, particularly since we are likely to be making these changes against the backdrop of a continued fragile marketplace. However, I am confident we will succeed.
“May I also take the opportunity to stress that we will take forward all our major policy initiatives within the new structure. We will not be deflected from delivering much needed policy reforms such as the retail distribution review. Furthermore, firms should recognise that our intensive supervisory approach will continue into the new organisational framework.”
Sants warned that in respect of supervision, the national entities will increasingly become “an arm of European policy” and that effective engagement with the European agencies is “absolutely critical”.
Also addressing the Annual Public Meeting, Financial Services Consumer Panel chairman Adam Phillips called for “intelligent regulation”.
He says the panel wants to ensure that the new system of regulation learns from the successes and failures of the FSA.
Phillips said: “We hope that the decision to reform the regulatory structure will not lead to the deferment of changes which will bring significant benefits to consumers. The retail distribution review and mortgage market review need to be fully implemented and payment protection insurance mis-selling needs to be resolved.
“Intelligent regulation means clear, joined-up and enforceable rules. Consumers need one-stop regulation from a proactive regulator so that poorly performing firms are made to play by the rules. Effective redress and timely and appropriate compensation are also vital if consumers are to have confidence in the system.”
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 (30)
Richard Smith | 24 Jun 2010 10:35 am
Despite most IFA's hope that any incoming government would drop the changes that are coming this is a gentle reminder that hope is not a plan.
Yes of course there are issues with the regulator, this has been the same since regulation.
Of course any Financial Regulation is going to be tested by any New Broom sweeping Westminster. Question is of course what action are you going to take.
In the next 2 years you will need to make room for some more exams and getting your business ready for the changes that are coming.
I have and are looking forward to the challenges and of course the income ahead.
And that's exactly what you should be doing.
Get your business proposition right, get your marketing and business processes right and your future is secure.
Richard Smith IFA and Tech Consultant.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tony Silver | 24 Jun 2010 10:41 am
Please could somebody explain to me how continuing to crush the IFA sector is going to help the general public?
The madness just seems to continue.
THE PROBLEM IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN the poor limited advice people get from their banks, by low paid, poorly trained and ill informed banking staff. The average Joe doesn't understand the difference between the various models of advice, so either takes no advice at all, or goes to the bank and hopes for the best.
Continually smashing us won't remove the savings gap.
Have any of you noticed how most of the best mortgage rates and products are only available direct to the customer via the banks?
We are better equiped, knowledable and more over independent than the banks, however the best rates and products are only available outside our scope? More madness - my mortgage case load is still down 65% though my completion rate is 100%. I like many other good advisers filter out what can and can't be done - and charge a fee for what can be done. Most independents are the same.
Some days I just feel like giving in - don"t you?
Hey ho - lets just spend our time taking yet more exams to justify our existance. I would like to see the bank employees having to get to level 4 or 5 - I'm sure the banks will find some loophole in that.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Toddy | 24 Jun 2010 10:51 am
How can Mr Sants say that? Is he going to be in charge of the new Consumer Protection body too?
I have been reading about how much this regulatory change is going to cost. If there is not going to be anybody in the Consumer Protection body who is going to advocate affordable advice to average man in the street, why bother changing? Just let FSA get on with it and ruin choice and right to advice at affordable prices :(
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Derek Vivian | 24 Jun 2010 10:52 am
So, IFAs are dead - long live IFAs!! I for one shall stop being an IFA because the FSA has bullied me into retiring before I wanted to. This is most unjust, but no one seems to care or want to stop the FSA or whatever they are going to be called from taking the action to force us to take a degree level qualifiction at whatever age or experience you are. This is the unjust portion of the RDR. The rest is going to dis-enfranchise ordinary folk who will not be able to accept fees rather than a commssion payment for advice. Commission could easily be capped by the Regulator at x% for each type of product so no bias in advising. Miond youi, I know of no IFA who does bias advice according to commission earnings, but I couldn't say that for other types of advisers!!
So, by the end of 2012 I will have lost my livelihood. So much for ageism. So much for human rights. So much for a Government who wants to care!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 24 Jun 2010 10:55 am
What’s all this going to cost?
Does any one know?
Who’s picking up the tab?
Seems clear to me now that nothing is going to change same people different name and BIG pay cheques!!!!
When you think about it Saints is the leader of the failed regulator (according to Cameron and his crew) but gets the top job at the new one. Wish it was as easy in the real world!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 24 Jun 2010 11:03 am
Translation of Mr Sants comments:-
Quality people = to compete with industry we must keep paying ridiculous salaries,bonuses and expenses.
Right culture= keep on being very afraid of us.
Regulatory philosophy= let the Banks get away with murder because the IFA is easier to bully and I don't want a place on an IFA Board of Directors when I retire.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 24 Jun 2010 11:06 am
Here we go again same old rubbish spouted by the head of the same old rubbish regulator with a new name. With his final salary pension probably free advise why should he worry about the average man being ripped off by the banks and building societies. He probably has never met an IFA so he doesnt care that they will be obsolete in a few years and we will get more bank mis-selling
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Richard Brydon | 24 Jun 2010 11:09 am
I've just been told that my fees and levies for the year commencing July 2010 will a little short of £4,000. On top of this will be the usual interim levy, and who knows how much that will be?
I have reached the stage that tells me that it won't matter what I do,I am being squeezed out of the industry. Even if I could pass the exams, and at 65 it's a toughie I assure you, the costs involved and time wasted on pointless data gathering will finish me off anyway.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
TERRY | 24 Jun 2010 11:12 am
So the new government was going to kill the FSA. Well they have done but resurrected it under a multi system, so nothing changes except perhaps the salary bill which no doubt we will have to pay for. He states they need the right people, the right culture and the right philosophy. If they have not got these already why oh why are we continuing to be financially screwed for something which in the words of the FSA "not fit for purpose" We are still going to suffer from the "Thoughts of Chairman Sants" even though he was in charge of the FSA at the time of the biggest financial crisis in recent years and gets promoted. God help the Bank of England and the rest of us when he takes the reigns there.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Julian Stevens | 24 Jun 2010 11:13 am
So what about the monumentally flawed Cost:Benefit Analysis on which the FSA's decision to launch the RDR was based? Any hope at all of a review? None at all, as usual. It was just another of the FSA's token exercises.
Just how vast will the expected costs of implementing the RDR have to be to make the FSA think again? A rhetorical question, because the FSA is plainly, utterly and bloody-mindedly determined to impose the RDR on the industry no matter HOW MUCH it'll cost, so just shut up and get on with it.
This is yet another example ~ as if one were needed ~ of how the FSA has its own unaccountable agenda and anyone or any body who dares to stand in its way can go jump off a clifff or be trampled underfoot like some tiresome and inconsequential insect.
But the ever escalating levies, the salaries, the bonuses, the waste, the racist culture and mismanagement at Canary Wharf continue unabated.
This has to change.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment