View more on these topics

Number of high-earning FSA staff trebles

The number of FSA staff paid over £100,000 has trebled in the past four years.

Figures obtained by the Financial Times through a freedom of information request show the FSA had 241 staff paid more than £100,000 in March 2010, compared to 81 in March 2006.

During the same period total FSA staff numbers increased 20 per cent to 3307, acccording to the FT report.

An FSA spokeswoman told the paper the regulator needs to attract and retain high-quality people “so needs to offer attractive packages, especially when competing with the private sector for specialist talent”.

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. Here we go again. Whilst the IFA market is being screwed by the FSA we see their staff increasing with high salaries and bonuses. If they have taken on high calibre staff what did they do before hand obviously not financial services.

  2. Here we go again. Narrow-minded, ill-informed diatribe which ignores the fact that the FSA’s remit extends beyond IFAs into difficult territory.

  3. Did not do a very good job regulating the banks did they????

  4. Robert Donaldson 31st August 2010 at 9:50 am

    I agree with the second comments, it is about time the anonymous tag was removed. Some people are just using this blog as a chance to constantly knock the FSA. Whilst I would now wish to defend them can we not show that we are grown up!

  5. Re Anonymous @ 9.42.
    By definition you must mean IFAs are not difficult territory? Why then are they more heavily regulated than those who may be considered difficult?
    Perhaps you have been on the receiving end of the big salary/bonus payments at the FSA?
    The regulator continues to interfere with adviser charging, aiming to drive it as low as possible, whilst at the same time forcing advisers to pay more and more in order to line its own pockets.
    Not so much ill informed diatribe as blatently obvious.

  6. ..where, as far as I can see, they have also also failed the consumer, and the general public, but on a grander scale. Let’s chuck more money at the problem.

  7. Anon 0942 again… I’m willing to bet that few other commentators on here have worked in the industry, consulted to it and worked for the FSA. And I’ve got level six quals. And continuous financial services experience dating back to the implementation of the 1986 act.

    I know ignorance and small-mindedness when I see them.

  8. Those who can do. Those who cannot, regulate.
    Why not, when as a regulator, you can earn more than if you did a hard days work.
    There is nothing ignorant or small minded in speaking out about the abuse of power when you see it.

  9. So 8 comments and 6 of them anonymous. Is it any wonder our industry struggles to have its voice heard when no-one is willing to put their names to anything (and please don’t use the tired old line that “they” will come for you!).

  10. “So 8 comments and 6 of them anonymous.” I think that would be SEVEN, Josef K. Love the pseudonym, but it’s probably wasted on a fair proportion of the readership…

  11. Gregor Johnston 31st August 2010 at 3:57 pm

    Josef K? Who wished he could be anymous but instead found himself the impotent (and innocent, incidentally) victim of a futile, unnaccountable and self-serving legalistic bureacracy?

    Whether or not the name and comment are intended to be ironic, I simply don’t trust the FSA enough to have them link me and my firm to any criticism of them.

    As we all know, dealing with the FSA, even when nothing is wrong, is time-consuming and disruptive. If I thought I could have a grown-up critical dialogue with the FSA without fear of negative repercussions (no, not being ‘disappeared’ KGB-style – we are not paranoid fantasists – just being severely inconvenienced until we come round to seeing and doing trivial things their way), rest assured I would not be anonymous.

    However, the balance of power in FSA-IFA dialogue and relationships is grotesquely skewed and, in any limited dealings I have had with them, they have never come across as willing or able to do anything other than coerce.

    He may not have been Kafka, but I am reminded of Brian Clough explaining that, when he had a disagreement with any of his players, the two of them would sit down and talk about it, then agree he was right. Like the FSA, I doubt Cloughie was as pleasant an autocrat in those one-to-ones as his jovial recounting of them might suggest.

    I therefore suspect the number of anonymous comments here reflects a general lack of trust in the regulator’s ability to accept criticism pragmatically and the perception that the risk of additional attention from the regulator is real enough to take evasive measures.

    btw, can we assume ‘Adam Smith’ is not a pseudonym? Just joking…….

  12. Perhaps it is not the FSA the anonymous people are afraid of. Perhaps it is the Committee of affairs they fear.

  13. Anon 11:06.

    “ignorance and small mindedness”

    You have obviously had your snout in the trough.

    In my view anonimity + vitriol = cowardice.

    Discuss.

  14. I am not an FSA number I am an IFA.

Leave a comment