View more on these topics

FSA prepared to revisit the long-stop

FSA chief executive Hector Sants says the regulator will look again at introducing a 15 year long-stop if the Treasury select committee recommends it should.

Giving evidence to the Treasury select committee on the RDR this afternoon, FSA chief executive Hector Sants said the last review of the long stop was in 2007 and it could be time to revisit it.

He said: “I have to say I have some sympathy with the argument that says if people are still concerned and if this committee recommends us to look at it again that is something we could do. Other industries have a long-stop so why not this one?”

“Small firms do feel concerned and aggrieved about it in some cases. It was looked at in 2007 and there was not compelling evidence presented for bringing in a long-stop.”

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 14 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Incompetent Regulators Awards Team 9th March 2011 at 5:09 pm

    Another lie!

  2. It would be good to see this all as one thread and let the discussion begin instead of the bity way of headlines (as below) and comments.

    FSA prepared to revisit the long-stop
    MP attacks Sants for not knowing grandfather stats
    Sants: No “formal plan” to raise RDR qualification to level 6
    Sants apologises for saying 20% adviser loss acceptable

  3. What came across was the fact that the FSA is an unelected quasi judicial member of the executive and as Andrew Tyrie (chairman of TSC) said immune from actions in negligence and immune from acts of gross negligence i.e. being recklessly stupid over the outcomes of it reckless stupidity! It was for the FSA to be accountable to the TSC and not for Sants to ask for the TSC to be accountable to the FSA. Throughout the hearing Ms Sheila Nichols held an inane grin on her face and was reprimanded for this. One MP said: Ms Nichols do you find this amusing because my constituents don’t! Sants was dismissive over the destruction of individuals and careers and hinted that level 6 was next!

  4. Derek Campbell 9th March 2011 at 5:32 pm

    Just watched the treasury select comittee drill Mr sants and Mrs Nicoll. This meeting has exposed just how out of touch Mr Sants and his Cronies are. Out of touch, out of Synch and out of his mind. This meeting has been long overdue. Please watch it in the archive section of parliament live TV. It is what advisers have been waiting to hear.

  5. I shall enjoy watching this! 🙂

  6. It is of course a sheer arrogance for a bureaucrat to discuss basic legal rights to a long stop enjoyed by every other citizen of this country. It’s like discussing with a thief the repatriation of my stolen goods.

  7. I have no doubt it will be as the FSCS issue is getting out of control.

    So the long stop will be introduced, PI will reduce but FSCS payments and FSA payments will take up the slack.

  8. I think that the FSA will now accept the longstop because from Jan 1 2013 they believe that they will have ‘crossed the Rubicon’ and achieved their objective. The RDR is now unstoppable and irreversible.

  9. Michael Fallas 9th March 2011 at 6:13 pm

    I watched the whole TSC meeting and it was a complete waste of time. Virtually no “forensic” questions asked and those that were were not really followed through.

    No wonder Mr Sants and Ms Nicholls managed a lot of smiles. Many TSC members left throughout the meeting so clearly had little interest.

    It was as I thought.

    Seems like only a Revolution will make any difference now and that seems unlikely as we have failed to form a group and act as one.

    Increased regulation, costs and RDR will clearly gain momentum now so good luck everyone just keep your wallets open.

  10. Seems to me after watching these two cheshire cats at the TSC session the only course is to take direct action.Perhaps if somebody was to emulate the chap on the album cover of ‘Rage Against The Machine’ debut album,at the bottom of the steps to the FSA gin palace at Canary Wharf,then people might sit up and take notice.Not me though would seem a bit hot!!

  11. Well done to Alan and all at the Alliance for all their tireless work on this

  12. Yes, perhaps it is time for direct action.
    Obviously we don’t want to hurt our client’s interests but we do need to show our disgust with this idiotic destruction by Sants and the FSA bullies of our important industry.
    What do fellow IFAs think about a series of selective boycotts of the various insurance companies, say for a fortnight at at time?
    That way they can feel our frustration and will then have an incentive to make sure those thugs at the FSA realise that we are no longer going to put up with bad, expensive intrusive regulations. We want proper, well thought out, coherent regulation which is proportionate to the benefit it confers on consumers while allowing experienced professionals to make a reasonable living and punish the crooks.
    If anyone has a better, practical, idea, please don’t keep it to yourself!

  13. As for the comments about this being the only industry where it happens, is it due to our industry being about long term financial planning where poor advice may not surface for many years.

    This could be for 20 years plus, therefore a 15 year longstop would not help protect these clients.

    If you are doing a good job, do not be afraid. The longstop will not bother you.

  14. re a nony mouse@4.03
    You are more or less saying”if you do no wrong you have nothing to fear”
    That is just a stupid, ridiculous statement.
    The most cursory glance through history will inform you otherwise.
    the other point you make about problems not surfacing for years can be equally applied to solicitors, architects, doctors and more importantly, REGULATORS, none of whom are subject to indefinite liability. Indeed, as the tsc pointed out, the regulator can apply reckless stupidity to his remit and not be held accountable.
    I hope this helps you see why some people might feel aggrieved at being forced to carry liability to the grave by a regulator who is immune from the same.

Leave a comment