Only now, after the City of London has fcukt us good and proper, does the FSA, the watchdog the City finances to regulate the activities of the City, ask for more money from the City in order to employ more personnel and to pay them salaries equivalent to those found in the City.
In case you still have not understood how the City is 'regulated', here's how it works. This watchdog called the FSA, the brain child of Gordon Brown, is supposed to regulate the City of London, but the FSA is financed by the very City of London it is supposed to regulate! Hence the City of London controls the quality and quantity of personnel at the watchdog that is supposed to regulate its activities. Yes, I know! It is ludicrous, bizarre, mental, etc. But hey! Who would believe we allow a bunch of selfish warmongering megalomaniacs the power to create all our money?!
And this FSA, according to the FSMA 200, is supposed to tell you how the financial system works. Has it? Absolutley not! It is conspiring with the City to keep you uneducated so that the City can fcuk us all good and proper, just like it has done to the tune of approaching £1 trillion. This request for more money from the City is evidence that the FSA and the City have been in bed together since before the FSA was created, other wise why would the City have allowed the FSA to be created in the first place?
Note that ex-banker Hector Sants, now Chief Executive at the FSA, says that more money is required to fund the new approach to "intrusive and directive" supervision of the City.
Why now, when it's way too late?
Why not before, years ago?
Why not from day 1 of operation of the FSA?
Did the City ever say to the FSA, "look ,we think you need more personnel and of a higher quality to investigate us, so here, take this, it's another couple of mil, and you'll get that extra every year from now on. And if you stop us from fcuking the British taxpayer we'll throw in a holiday in the Bahamas or Maldives or wherever you want to go. OK?"
And how many times did the FSA request more money from the City for that purpose, and what was the response?
================================
From http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/feb/12/fsa-pay-crosby-moore
City watchdog sets aside £10m for staff pay rises
Comments (5)
* Jill Treanor
* guardian.co.uk, Thursday 12 February 2009 14.56 GMT
* Article history
Regulators at the Financial Services Authority are in line for pay rises totalling up to £10m as part of a concerted effort by the City watchdog to attract and retain the highest calibre of staff.
Hector Sants, chief executive of the FSA, said its board had agreed to the extra funds to make the salaries comparable to those on offer in the City. Firms the FSA regulates face steep rises in the amount they will pay to be supervised.
The regulator, which is funded by the 25,000 companies it oversees, wants to raise £437.7m in the year to 31 March 2010, a 36.5% rise. Most of the increase will be borne by the biggest financial companies. The big high street banks could see the fees they pay double from £10m or so, while London-based investment banks would face rises of between 60% and 70%.
Sants defended the move to extract more money from the cash-strapped financial sector: "We have been sharing these numbers quite widely with industry prior to publication, and we believe we have the strong support of the larger groups," he said.
The extra funds were needed to enforce the FSA's new approach to "intrusive and directive" supervision, he added.
Sants was speaking today after the FSA had tried to defend its second most senior regulator, Sir James Crosby, who was forced to resign yesterday in the face of allegations made by a whistleblower.
In an attempt to demonstrate that Paul Moore had only sounded alarm bells when he knew his own job was under threat, the FSA last night revealed that it had been concerned about the risks being taken by HBOS since 2002.
Moore's allegation that he had been sacked by the former HBOS chief executive because he had warned the bank was "going too fast" was enough to force Crosby's resignation, despite his protestations that the claim was unfounded.
Moore had been head of regulatory risk at HBOS between 2002 and 2005, and eventually received "substantial" damages after his departure.
The FSA tried to stake the sting out of his allegations by giving an insight in to the workings of the regulatory system. It published an unusually high level of detail about its risk assessments – known in the City as ARROW reports – dating back as far as 2002.
It also revealed that on 29 June 2006 – a month before Crosby left the bank – it had written to HBOS to warn "the growth strategy of the group posed risks to the whole group and that these risks must be managed and mitigated".
Sants insisted today that such remarks were not usual and only a "snapshot" into what was going at any single firm.
The details also showed that Moore had only raised the alarm in 2004 – two years after the FSA had begun demanding changes at HBOS – when he may have believed his job was at risk.
The regulator had been talking to the lender about its "risk management environment" and believed the bank was making good progress after commissioning a detailed investigation by PricewaterhouseCoopers. The "skilled persons report" by PwC in 2003 showed changes were needed.
One of the measures HBOS was putting in place was a root-and-branch revamp of its risk control team, which included a review of Moore's role. The bank eventually turned the job into a more senior position, appointing insider Jo Dawson as group risk director.
Moore believed the appointment of Dawson would weaken the control function rather than strengthen it, pointing out that she had little experience.
The FSA commissioned KPMG to look into his allegations. The accountants concluded he lost his job because of personality clashes, saying that one of the reasons for his departure was his "relationship with key stakeholders".
No comments:
Post a Comment