View more on these topics

FCA appoints heads of regulatory panels

Griffith-Jones-John-FCA-2013-landscape
FCA chairman designate John Griffith-Jones

The Financial Conduct Authority has made five appointments to the regulatory panels which will hold the FCA to account which include senior management from Lloyds Banking Group, Nationwide and Schroders.

Nationwide Building Society chief executive Graham Beale has been appointed as chairman of the FCA Practitioner Panel, while Weatherbys Bank finance director and chief operating officer Andrew Turberville Smith has been appointed as chairman to the FCA Smaller Business Practitioner Panel.

Weatherbys is a family-owned private bank and Turberville Smith has been on its board since 2006.

European clearing house ICE Clear Europe president and managing director Paul Swann has been appointed as FCA Markets Practitioner Panel chairman.

Lloyds group director of retail Alison Brittain and Schroders chief executive Michael Dobson have also been appointed to the Practitioner Panel to replace former members.

The Practitioner Panels are there to challenge FCA policy developments at an early stage.

FCA chairman designate John Griffith-Jones says: “I am delighted we have been able to make such strong appointments to these valuable roles. 

“The panels provide an injection of senior industry expertise and opinions directly into the FCA board’s deliberations.  We are grateful to the previous panel chairmen Joe Garner and Guy Matthews who had both agreed to stay on until the end of the FSA and are handing over panels with a respected track record to the new FCA.” 

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 10 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Not a surprise to see the appointments from the “Old Boy networks” joining the new gravey train where they will have ” oversight” of their old friends and colleagues.
    It has failure written all over it.

  2. Ivan McCullough 19th March 2013 at 11:10 am

    No one representing the IFA community? I see just the banks again who will look after themselves as always. Will no one ever learn from the mistakes of Hector.

    How he got a knight hood I will never understand. I also feel sorry for all the other knoghts as it has cheepened there achivements.

  3. How very nice this is all very tea and crumpets on the terrace !!
    Whats the point and what a waste of money, just jobs for the boys

    The FSA never listened to any panels why should the FCA be any different

  4. He seems a happy chappy. No doubt someone has just told him in advance of his impending bonus and then snapped the camera shutter.

    ‘regulatory panels that hod the FCA to account’?????

    ‘valuable roles’?…. you cannot be serious.

    Larffed? I nearly fell off my chair with the irony of it all.

  5. THis sounds like trhe whining of a few bitter and twisted IFAs still crying over RDR and their recently arrived inability to cream a few percentage points off of their victim’s ( sorry client’s) savings.
    Q. What’s the differnece between an IFA and the Central Bank of Cyprus?

    A. well pre-RDR there wasn’t any !

  6. Gill Carry from IFAcentre was on the small practitioners panel as was Paul Etheridge (Truth & Prestwood) both did a good jib trying to influence FSA decision making. I would be interested in reading their views of these appointments.

  7. So we have a representative from Lloyds bank (fined £1.3 million for precipice bonds, £4.3 million for PPI redress inaction, £231 million to US regulators for sanction busting, with LIBOR fines due) and Schroders (insider dealing and market running) as practicioner panel members.
    Two things strike me about these firms, firstly they have deep knowledge about rule disobedience, and in the case of Lloyds, maybe they have paid for their seat in advance.
    So is this wealth of experience not a good thing?

  8. Anonymous said “Q. What’s the difference between an IFA and the Central Bank of Cyprus?

    A. well pre-RDR there wasn’t any !”

    Since the early 90’s when full commission disclosure came in and had to be detailed in the body of Key features documents, there has been little or no misunderstanding of the amounts of money advising firms were being paid from providers for investment business, so why use such a totally inappropriate analogy as comparing IFAs with the Cypriot government.

    I have yet to see any example whereby the clients who purchased investments were not fully informed in writing by their adviser, both in the body of the KFD illustrations and usually in the body of the suitability letters as to how much the advising firm was receiving from providers and how it formed part of the plan charges.

    The new regime of course does not spread the cost of advice over a long period, but is more akin to the outlawed “front loading” that used to accompany investment and pension business.

    The demise of the IFA sector is now assured, it is an inexorable decline in registered adviser numbers which will continue for some time. Those who are left, will have to shoulder a greater burden of cost for the prolific spending of the regulator and associated bodies such as MAS and FSCS and FOS without remission.

    I doubt if “Anonymous” is prepared to divulge his/her name as it would seem that slagging off decent hard working and ethical advisers who worked within the rules of the regulator assures him/her of not being accountable for their libellous comments.

    Those who continued to slag off the IFA sector, whose uphleld complaint levels are the lowest in the industry, do no one any credit and don’t do themselves any favours either.

    I didn’t need to pass RO1 to demonstrate I was an ethical adviser, that was part of the job remit when I became an iFA in 1990. Building a business based on commission earnings instead of fees (usually a percentage of the funds invested) meant that ordinary middle income families with modest investment capital could still invest over the medium to long term, with confidence that the costs of investing would not be taken out initially from their capital.

    Now of course, due to the increased burden of regulatory fees and costs being every more imposed on a shrinking sector, ordinary middle income families will no longer be able to pay for advice and will be seduced into internet sites for their investments and pensions, which will offer no protection if THEY themselves make the wrong choices.

    Welcome to the brave new world anonymous!

  9. RegulatorSaurusRex 19th March 2013 at 6:08 pm

    Air Hair Lair

    Very posh lot indeed, a very posh daisy chain.

  10. No IFAs, Insurance Brokers or Mortgage Brokers then? What a wunch of bankers!

Leave a comment