View more on these topics

Dan Waters to leave the FSA

FSA director of conduct risk and asset management sector leader Dan Waters has decided to leave the regulator.

In an internal message to staff, FSA chief executive Hector Sants said: “It is with regret that I have to inform you that Dan Waters has decided to leave the FSA.

“Dan has determined that making the necessary long-term commitment to the complex set-up and operation of the new regulatory regime would not be the appropriate choice at this stage of his career.

“He is considering other opportunities that will allow flexibility to pursue his interests here in the UK while allowing him time to meet family obligations in the US.”

Sants added: “I wish Dan every success in the future and thank him for all he has done for the FSA.”

Waters will leave the FSA in December. He will be replaced by Christina Sinclair as director of conduct risk on an interim basis.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 18 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Back to North America 23rd November 2010 at 4:04 pm

    One down 3500 plus to go and not a tear to be shed by the IFA community that may still face distruction in part due to the pro banking views of such a man!

    Question is we lose 10,000 IFA can we have a pro rata reduction is FSA staff after all they will have less work to do …won’t they?

  2. John Shmerrill- Glompton 23rd November 2010 at 4:17 pm

    so sorry your leaving

  3. bottle has crashed methinks

  4. One less then. How many FSA staff are employed to regulate IFA’s and at what cost. Any idea anyone?

  5. Mr Waters obviously knows what a disaster RDR will be and is jumping ship now to avoid the backlash later.

  6. Good riddance to another overpaid parasite.No doubt the leaving bash will cost us.

  7. “Dan has determined that making the necessary long-term commitment to the complex set-up and operation of the new regulatory regime would not be the appropriate choice at this stage of his career.

    Very much like a good number of the IFA community, only difference being, they will not receive a big fat golden handshake to buffet them over the waves.

  8. Being, I suspect, the only poster who knows Dan I will wish him all the best for the future. I would trust him more than all the previous posters here put together.

  9. I’d noticed that for quite some time we’ve not heard much either from or of Disparate Dan, though it’s odd that one of the reasons he’s jumping ship is a reluctance to make “the necessary long-term commitment to the complex set-up and operation of the new regulatory regime.”

    That aside, one cannot help but shudder at the prospect of a new regulatory regime that’s going to be even more complex than what we already have. Surely to God, we need a SIMPLER regulatory regime, just like we need a simpler pensions regime, a simpler tax regime, a simpler State benefits regime, a simpler system for ejecting illegal immigrants and so on. Why ever does regulation need to be more complex than it already is? More jobs for the boys, I guess, and easier to justify their overpaid existences ~ all, of course, at everyone else’s expense, mainly that of us out here. Whatever happened to the Conservatives proposed Bonfire of the Quangos? Ah, that was just a manifesto “aspiration”. And so it goes ~ mostly to the dogs.

  10. I am sure I write with support from the greater majority of IFAs in wishing good old Dan a future in a business that makes him as miserable as he has made so many of us.
    My only regret is that he isn’t taking another 20% of his colleagues with him.

  11. we have just arranged a leaving do for Dan the cost of course will be payable by you the IFA community (banks exempt) well we would not want to change the status quo, all invoices are in the post

  12. You would think that IFAs already had more than their share of regulation and complexity without there being a long term commitment to even more!
    Perhaps there should be a Regulatory Regime Review (RRR) where the regulatory authority could look at treating its stakeholders fairly (TSF), a review that would take into account its Salaries and Benefits to ensure amounts are appropriate and are charged correctly. To ensure that it’s thrust and direction is properly researched and agreed with its stakeholders, since they are covering the payment of the fees to support it. Lastly but not least, the new regime should be tasked with promoting the Financial Services industry in its best possible light to regain consumer confidence.
    It is not impossible just highly improbable!

  13. Some entirely predictable (and understandable) comments on here, but this announcement doesn’t come as much of a surprise. Mr Waters appears to have been responsible for at least two regulatory debacles in recent years.

    His equivocation over the use of DIFs has been unhelpful, and caused confusion over the FSA’s stance. DIFs can provide demonstrable benefits to customers in a post RDR world, but Mr Waters conduct has been absolutely woeful.

    However his piece de resistance has to be the implementation of the requirement for the use of cash projection rates. This was undertaken in an aggressive, confrontational manner, that totally failed to recognise or understand good business practice and the primary purpose of standard projection rates – to allow IFAs to compare the impact of costs for different providers.

    It’s hard to describe adequately his contribution to the regulation of financial services.

  14. Re Adan Smiths (alias FSA snoop) post

    The first theme in The Wealth of Nations is that regulations on commerce are ill-founded and counter-productive. The prevailing view was that gold and silver was wealth, and that countries should boost exports and resist imports in order to maximize this metal wealth. Smith’s radical insight was that a nation’s wealth is really the stream of goods and services that it creates. Today, we would call it gross national product. And the way to maximise it, he argued, was not to restrict the nation’s productive capacity, but to set it free.

    You may be named after a great thinker but the comparison ends there.

  15. From the tone of what Hector Sants is saying it seems the new regulator will be a more expensive and complex version of the current. When will the FSA take account of past regulatory mistakes, acknowledge them and give some assurances as to an improved regulator. If the same staff occupy effectively the same positions, this re-hash will be another huge expense which acheives nothing. The regulator are salaried and have wasted untold amounts of money in the past. I am sure Dan is a good and trustworthy person but the current stand-off and blame culture does nothing to promote or enhance this industry.

  16. Says Hector: “I wish Dan every success in the future and thank him for all he has done for the FSA.”

    No mention, though, of what he’s supposedly done for the (good of) the industry which, I think, tells us a thing or two.

  17. HMS Belfast for Dan the man? 24th November 2010 at 6:05 pm

    Well Adam Smith old boy the feeling is mutual! Having read some of your posts I’m never sure if you’re batting or bowling.

    If Dan the man follows Tiner and has his bash on HMS Belfast (£17K plus cost to advisers) maybe the IFA community could hire out a going away bash on a UBoat loaded with an alternative golden goodriddens (fully armed).

    PS: Maybe Dan was part of a North American Plot to bugger up the UK Financial Services Industy? If so hasn’t he done well!

  18. Just an afterthought – given Mr Water’s title was it his department that authorised the Arch cru fund range as NURS rather QIS?

    If so his recent record is beginning to look very questionable…….

Leave a comment