Speaking at a City and Financial Intensive Supervision Conference in London today, Pain said the regulator’s staff faced a number of “internal risks and challenges” including a “cultural shift” for its supervisors which will require an increase in its overall resource.
He said: “To continue to deliver and fully embed our intensive approach, we need to continue to increase our overall resource and ensure that the training provided enables supervision to deliver our agenda.
“But we also need to continue to deliver a cultural shift, where supervisors have a much tougher role, which demands supervision have a well-balanced analytic capability, good industry understanding and are prepared to take tough decisions.”
Pain said the FSA was improving its quality of supervision by introducing a new eight week induction programme for all relationship-managed supervisors alongside mandatory assessments of capability.
The FSA is also enhancing its T&C regime that requires all supervisors to demonstrate adequate levels of technical skill, behavioural competence and sector specific knowledge.
Pain told delegates that the FSA had increased its use of Section 166s, highlighted recently by Money Marketing, a regulatory device requiring firms to pay for costly external compliance checks.
Pain said that since the FSA had adopted its more intensive approach, it had completed 400 interviews with senior management figures in firms which had led to 30 individuals being withdrawn by their firms.
Appropriate name for someone who works at the FSA.
Quite how they need more than 3,500 people is beyond me.
Perhaps reallocating some individuals from IFA bashing to other areas might help?
Recession !! What Recession ??
While everyone else is tightening their belts the FSA go on spending (our) money to implement their latest novel way to regulate.
STOP !!! This has got to stop NOW – these leeches are out of control and just like the previous Government go on blindingly spending other peoples’ money without a care in the world – with no cost benefit analysis or value for money considerations and with no personal penalty when they get it wrong (again !)
The FSA can do all their ‘consultations’ which are just like a MORI poll before the general election, and yet the true election result is the FOS results showing minimal complaints against IFAs while the FSA continue to turn a blind eye to the banks. The whole system is corrupt with these ex-bankers !!
Who supervises the supervisors ???
Where does this all stop – if it ever will ??
The way it’s going att some point in the future there will be more supervisors than advisers !!
Carry on FSA in your own LA LA Land !!
Well if they had not wasted the Billions we have paid them since they came into being and did their job properly to start with they would have no problem with their own finances.
Sadly they have helped kill off their pipeline of funds and now the well is running dry.
It will be interesting to see how they can find the never ending flow of money they manage to waste in the name of regulation and justice.
The FSA is now part of the problem and sadly thanks to the Liberal Democrats we are stuck with them.
This guy has been at Lloyds TSB since 1973 – Just the kind of person needed to supervise IFA’s – I don’t think.
Comedic genius is our Pain the the FSA’rse!!
Just trying to read that one para again … ‘But we also need to continue … tougher role, which demands supervision (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!) … have a well-balanced analytic capability (OMG, please stop HAHAHAHAHAHA) … good industry understanding (OMG, think I’m gonna wet myself now … ) and are prepared to take tough decisions (HAHAHAHAHHAA … oh boy, too late …)
Why, oh why would HM Gov want to swell the ranks of the incompetent (rhetorical) … they have too many fails against their names over last few years … so, why do we need more of these chuffin’ idiots??
O Well, more costs, less results, from a re-active rather than a proactive regulator, sorry can’t be a regulator if you ar re-active.
So what next for the banks, nothing it seems, so they will be able to continue, and then when RDR starts they will be exempt – happy days for them
But the poor man/woman in the street O they will just be told that’s Ok you can claim for your losses and the IFA industry( or what is left of it) will pay
Firstly let me say I am a controls person, I believe in regulation and the Law of the Land, but Entrepreneurs and compliance do not make good bed fellows! The day a company is run by its compliance department the end is near as progress comes to a grinding halt if not checked. Worse then this is the armageddon situation of a regulator running the country!
However, the Pain has spoken and real pain will soon commence to everyone’s detriment except the 8 week experts who will soon be telling us how to run our business…..into the ground of course. OMG, help!
While I do not disagree with the need for regulation these people at the FSA need to behave in the same way as every other business and focus their limited resources where they are needed. The financial advice sector is not a bottomless pit that can afford increased fees in order to finance more staff!
The Mafia is an organisation who believe that they are beyond the law and think that the laws of the land don’t apply to them. They extort more & more money by threats of taking away your livelihood if you don’t pay the protection money that they force you to pay.
They work on the premise of fear telling their victims that they “should be very afraid”.
Eventually their victims give up their businesses as they eventually find they are only working to keep their oppressors in a style of luxury that they could not afford themselves. The Mafia threaten that they will come after their victims for the rest of their lives.
When the Godfather feels that justice is catching him up he will do a runner with his ill gotten gains leaving the new henchman to try and bleed even more money from their victims.
This is just letting us know that our fees are going up. It sound better that way than being honest. They just have not got a clue. This Guy worked for LLoyds TSB one of the worst banks for pushing products and not advising. Mind you this follows because the Lloyds TSB wnet down this route of recruiting without any consideration of costs , then over the years got rid of thousands. Not that this will happen with FSA they will just recruit untill the costs cannot be sustained and the IFA industry disappears. Basically what the FSA set our to do in the first place. ooops we have sussed them out.
I think this chap is in need of a brain transplant.
The FSA are currently in Cardiff for May and June carrying out TCF assessments at Cardiff City Football ground. Where are they staying ? St Davids hotel of course the most expensive in the city. I appreciate they need to be near the venue but whats wrong with the nearby Premier Inn. It’s ok for Lenny Henry.
At least we know where our fees are going.
It is about time IFAs of the land told this FSA bunch to get and take a hike. Everyone else is being asked to tighten their belts but this lot are spending money as if there is no tomorrow. This Jon Pain is a real nasty bit of work just like his best buddy, George Osborne who has never done an honest day’s work in his life yet he is worth £500 million. Why does George not do the honourable thing and give this money to the State to reduce the budget deficit. No wonder, Jon and George want to scrap inheritance tax.
Jon Pain is a real nasty bit of work.
when will you lot realise that NOBODY is listening to us.
We are asked to implement TCF and RDR from our existing resources. If the FSA require changes to their business, why can’t they fund it from exisiting resources and income? They appear to have no commercial understanding unlike most IFAs who have struggled to control costs and still deliver the changes required by the FSA.
This is good. I’m sure they will get rid of duel pricing products now……….won’t they…..of course they will there’s enough of them to do that now…..they will won’t they!!!!!!!!
More risibility from the FSA. Please explain how a regulator that failed (remind me, how many banks went bust? And keydata?) thinks that doing more intensively what it has already been doing is going to be any better than it was before. Doing more of the wrong things is certainly going to work. Not.
Pain looks like just another in a long line of useless narrow minded quangocats with power and no clue. Please will someone remind them that banks failed because of regulation, not despite it.
Furthermore regulation is not Law. It is bureaucracy established by an Act of Parliament. It’s just lots of arbitrary market rules, the results of a bureaucrats wet dream. We, the much maligned ‘market’ participants (us and our clients) know quite well how to deal between us. It does not need any ‘reg-yew-lay-shun’ at all. The banks though do need supervision, well until the time when their freedom to make and issue their own money is returned to them.
Pain’s proposals are utter madness. Quite why they can’t be paid for a by a product levy escapes me. At least then the end user would be able to see the price of all this nonsesne and could properly judge its value. i.e. Nil.
Wow! There is some pent-up anger being expressed here.
But hold on guys. Regulation is here to stay. I would like to be able to say that the financial services industry had, by its behaviour, made it unnecessary, but frankly it hasn’t. In past years too many consumers have been ill-used…
But this is now, and if there is to be a financial services regulator, personally I would like to see one whose staff are highly-trained, more than capable of carrying out what is an extremely difficult job, and who act consistently. A half-trained, semi-competent supervisory workforce is in nobody’s best interests.
What I would say to the FSA, two-fold.
First, an upgraded induction programme is an important part of achieving high levels of competence, but it doesn’t address the existing supervisors. (Even worse, new supervisors are in danger of neglecting newly learned skills and behaviours if their bosses and peers are not acting consistently.)
Second, while formal training is part of achieving high levels of competence, more important is getting the managers out into the Field with the supervisors to enable the sort of feedback and coaching that you would expect of a well-run regulated firm. And the precursor to that is having managers who are skilled at feedback and coaching… so that’s where your development should start.
john.hunter@intouchconsulting.co.uk
How many supervisors could you hire for the vast cost of Jon Pain?
We are in the middle of the worst recession ever. Our fees have gone up dramatically this year and so have the FSCS costs. We IFAs dont have any more money. You will have to live within your means like we do. You must work harder or smarter but there is no more money.
Good idea lets pay more,we can have all our commissions & fees paid direct to the FSA, time to retire from the industry I think. If the FSA stays many decent IFAs will end up packing it in.
Come on you IFA,s & mortgage advisers, this situation is absolutely ridiculous.
STAND UP AND BE COUNTED.
Tell your new MP what is needed is common sence not more of the wrong regulation.
Tell these servants of the public what the man in the street actually needs !
Re John Hunters post. We would not really expect you to say anything different. People like you rub their hands in glee everytime the fsa opens its gaping jaws. without regulation your existence would be in jeopardy.
did you leave your contact details in the hope that Pain would ask for your help?
This is another fine example of a civil service department totally out of control & spending like there is no tomorrow! There is no new money to fund this – reallocate your current resources & stop recruiting ‘cos the industry cannot continue to fund this quango.
Good to see that our industry can still provide quality comment and a laugh for us all.
Keep it up.
Do the geniuses at the FSA really believe that there is no limit to the size and cost of the organisation.
Sooner or later a decision will have to be made as to what is good regulation and needed and that which is just empire building.
The general public etc and the industry must take responsibility, with the regulator passing judgement on complaints. As with the history of Common Law.
The FSA in its current form cannot survive.
Never Mind the Quality, feel The Width! When will the FSA wake up to the fatc that they don’t need more people they need better people. They simply need to attend any board meeting of one of our MAJOR financial services companies and they will soon see who causes the problems and what they are.
I wonder how many of the 28 commentators on this site (29 if you include me) were at this seminar to hear Mr Pain??
I was not – but I remember that the FSA sent me an invite to come at the thoroughly reasonable price of £300 plus pounds. Huzzah I said and then declined the warm and generous invitation.
Thank you for reporting these words Money Marketing thereby confirming that by saving £300 plus that I have conducted my business in a prudent, fit and proper way.
The FSA will continue to get more inefficient and will cost the industry more and more, the FSA cannot grow otherwise. A load of money was chucked at the FSA and they failed to do the job, their excuse, there is a lot wrong with the industry so we need more money, that’s why we have not sorted it out. More money is given and guess what? There are still problems so more money is needed! If you think about it logically if the FSA were efficient it would mean that they could actually reduce its size and the cost to the industry, and ultimately consumers would win. However if you are in charge of an organisation do you want to grow or reduce it in size? The FSA will just continue to grow, far from regulating the industry it will just continue to create bureaucracy and increase costs. We all know they can’t actually regulate. How do you regulate and punish organisations that are ‘too big to fail’, but that is another story. The FSA is a money pit and will continue to be so. I am ashamed of their weakness with larger organisations and the exact opposite with smaller organisations.
Same old codswallop. More resources, hard decisions.
If they weren’t so stupid they could make intelligent decisions – a process so far undetected in the Regulatory world. If they made intelligent decisions they may need less staff, and cause less damage.
Can anyone genuinely demonstrate that 25 years of regulation has made any appreciable improvement to the financial industry once one has discounted its initial impact between 1986 and 1990. The industry is narrower (less choice), is less dynamic (fewer good solutions), and is still over priced (massive institutional bonuses).
I suppose that the main gain for advisers is that we don’t need to bother about the poorer sections of the market – they can’t afford to pay us. Interesting that a “socialist” government managed to create that effect. Interesting also to see the new regime stop the one saving process that appears to be working, the Child Trust Fund. Its obviously not a good idea to lead by good example.
The FSA is a company limited by guarantee. As we are in a cost cutting environment, why don’t the Government remove the guarantee aspect and ensure the FSA is cost effective on its own merits.
More institutions may then be prepared to stand up to the Stasis like approach and question whether the FSA is operating within term os the FSMA2000.
S.2.3(g) requires that there should be competition in the market. There are 60m people in the UK; assume 4 people per household, giving 15m households; assume 35,000 advisers (which seems to be top end of estimates). This means 428 households per advisers. On these figures the market can stand a significant increase in the number of advisers. A lower level of competition could mean that advisers are under less pressure to provide quality advice because if they lose one client they can easily find another; greater competition could, of itself, mean a improvement in standards.
Yet the FSA are driving the market in totally the opposite direction without having to prove that it is beneficial to consumers, or anyone else, other than their own numbers.
One may also like to consider S5.2.(d) which states that consumers should stake responsibility for their own decisions. This is certainly not a section that the FSA, or the FOS, have built into any of their processes.
Sch. 1 s16(2) is interesting in that penalties paid should benefit authorised persons. Does anyone feel benefited?
If they followed the legislation that created them, and used even a small element of intelligence, they may well find that they are overstaffed. They may even have a beneficial impact on the market – sorry, that idea may be a little too revolutionary.
But have you ever known of an organisation that wanted to grow smaller when it is allowed to keep dipping its hand into a never ending honey pot?
The fsa should be funded by and accountable to the taxpayer.That way they would have to provide value for money and stick to a budget.
Don’t suppose they would last long.
More intensive of WHAT? Where the risk are i.e. systemic risk of banks and large institutions or of small firms who are already doing two RMARs a year, 2 FSA TCF meetings a year with the FSA and all the other things the large firms pay lips service too?
Good Morning FSA events,
Thank you for your email some 2 weeks ago. I had received, flagged and read the first email, but as I have recently spent two days doing our bi-annual RMAR, am likely to be moving both home and office shortly as well as studying for Diploma exams, I did not want to over commit myself (laughs hysterically) to things that do not pay the bills by booking the workshop and then cancel because of more pressing commitments (i.e. packing and seeing clients who want or need advice or simply need help trying to get answers as to what is going to happen to the investments they made in Keydata Products).
The booking sheet does say “Bookings received after 11 June 2010 will be subject to availability and allocated on a first come, first served basis”, so I thought it acceptable to wait until nearer the time. If it is not, then the answer is no I will not be attending this one, but with a little more notice from you next time I may do so, subject to a more detailed agenda than four bullet points as we have to consider what training and workshops will be of most benefit to us and our clients. We spent 2 days last year with the FSA at workshops and our physical TCF assessment and there are only so many no productive days you can afford to allocate without going out of business or having no home/family life or holidays.
Please details your agenda a little more so I can assess it’s value to us or whether it will simply repeat much of last years workshops as if so, I will not be attending.
look at examples of good and poor practice that we have found when assessing firms
understand how TCF is good for your business
discuss and help you develop your action plans
look at SWOT analysis and how you can use this to help your business
Are you likely to have any other dates, preferably within a more acceptable driving distance (such as Canterbury 30 mins drive or Maidstone, 1 hours drive) as Tunbridge Wells is nearly 2 hours from here, so that means 4 hours driving time. Even for clients, I only travel about a max of 25 miles if I am likely to secure very significant business, while for training I’ll usually try and tie two client dates together and have been known to travel as far as Manchester to see clients if meetings can be planned with overnight accommodation. Alternatively, do you intend running the same workshops using webcams so that those of us who have an aversion to needless travel or the disabled can be catered for?
Following the FSA’s failure to regulate banks and it’s bizarre interpretation of Keydata as an intermediary when all the brochures you saw (we know you did because KPMG asked you to remove reference to KPMG in 2005) told the world they were a product provider and you failed to disabuse those who pay your wages of this misstatement knowing it to be false, I have still paid my interim FSCS levy under protest and will continue to pay F-pack fees under protest, but I assume my no attendance for a justifiable reason or my sarcasm will not result in a vindictive Arrow visit, just because like many IFAs I am starting to view the FSA with contempt……
Phil Castle
Director