FSA calls for stronger enforcement powers for new regulator

That's fine as long as there is provision for redress when a mistake is made. I'd suggest a public apology and a fine split between the individual who takes the decision and the head of their section. There is, after all, no point in the FCA paying compensation as that would come out of our own pockets in the long run.

Perhaps they would also like full access to our Company bank account to monitor capital adequacy more closely and to dip in to it whenever new funds are required. Save them having to write. If only I was a bit older I could retire from this over regulated, over priced and over complex industry.

I use to be very positive about the industry but sadly that feeling has left me. I had better stop now before this becomes a sob story and I dont wish to ruin peoples weekend

@Kevin R - But what if they destroy your business reputation in the process how would you ever recover that!

"Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), the macroprudential regulator under the new regime, will be responsible for authorising members of firms under both FCA and PRA regulation"

Thats a recipe for disaster - as the PRA wont be directly monitoring/ regulating Firms and Individuals that are under the FCA. Major duplication id they have to check with the FCA each time !!

@ Scared Stiff....You might not be too far off, on that score !!

This looks like a quantum leap forward in unaccountability from the FSA. Authorisation to publish warning notices without consultation seems a hair'sbreadth away from a licence to libel with impunity.

As the FCA is likely to be staffed with current FSA employees, I'm imagining the scene at hand-over. On Friday night the security guard will tearfully say, "Goodbye, Sir, nice to work with you". On Monday morning, he'll greet them with, "Good Morning, Sir, here's your new hat and bigger stick".

Yikes!

@Bob Donaldson - If they have to risk individual responsibility (as IFA's do) do you really think they would ever publish anything?

Now just hold on guys - we really can't have this both ways.

How many IFAs have been on the FSA's back for not warning us about KeyData when they first had concerns? How much more money went to various 'investment companies' before concerns were made public?

There is the chance that this might effect small IFAs, but only in very limited circumstances, and in the long run we really might be better off if they have these powers. If it helps keep my client's funds away from 'dodgy' investment outfits (Arch Cru?) then it may very well be good.

As always, it is a case of how they would use these powers that matters, and I accept we can't know the answer to that in advance.

Also announced was the proposal to reintroduce capital punishment....

@Stephen Cooper "As always, it is a case of how they would use these powers that matters, and I accept we can't know the answer to that in advance."

Past performance, though it cannot in any way be relied upon, would suggest that we know exactly what the answer to that question is........ but maybe you're right. Maybe the new crowd will be exactly what the world needs.

So the FSA dislikes the idea of any obligation for it to consult on something instead of just having carte blanche to go ahead and do it without reference to anyone? Even if it was made subject to such a requirement, the FSA would doubtless find some obscure clause buried deep within the rules allowing it to overrule any objections.

And the FSA wants even more power than it already has? Hardly news, is it?

Next thing we'll see here is an announcement that the FSA has declared that it wants more staff, more resources and more money. Must be a quiet Friday.

IFAs are right to be seriously concerned at the powers that FSA seeks to have granted to the new FCA.

There is absolutely no doubt at all that the publication of a Warning Notice on the FCA website would have an immediately adverse reputational on the any firm which is the subject of such Notice.

Very rapidly after that would follow the economic impact as clients, providers, your Bank and the firms debtors learn of the supposed offences of the firm and the supposed sanctions.

Consider what view your bank will take if it sees that the FCA is minded to fine a firm £100,000 for supposed breaches of the Rules. Want to bet the overdraft is called up pretty smartish?

IFAs are right to be concerned that if it is later established in the Upper Tribunal several months after the Notice is published that the firm did not, in fact, breach the rules as averred by the FCA could the firm recover damages from the FCA?

I understand that concern but it would probably be an entirely academic point for the very simple and stark fact that it is almost certain that the immediate reputational and economic damage done to the firm would be terminal. There would rapidly be no firm to defend.

Am I being over cynical to think that this is actually one of the reasons that the FSA want this power? They will have an easier run of it getting scalps on the totem pole.

IFAs be warned – if you are on the receiving end of a Supervision Visit from FSA treat that as the thin end of the wedge. In my experience all the damage is done at that stage. Do not trust the FSA/FCA when it comes calling – it is there to catch you out. I have seen it so often.

Where is natural justice, in this recommendation? History has showmen that power and people if they have a mind can be economical with the truth and corrupt with evidence . We need checks and balances in a democracy or system of government.

Surely every firm and individual has the right to defend himself to at tribunal or the High Court if needs be.

If this proposal in the draft bill becomes law we might as well have a Kangaroo courts.

You have to laugh on one hand politicians are defending freedom and the rights to free speech in other parts of the world (Libya been the most recent country ), but on the other hand when it comes to the UK defending the right of the Firms and advisers to have the same right they have completely different set of values.

May be they just don’t care and therefore do not put the same effort into reading the draft legislation that ultimately has a detrimental of the savings of every UK citizen

Alasdair Sampson's comments (based on hard experience) confirms my view that receipt of notification that the FSA intends to pay you a visit is tantamount to letting you know that an exocet missile has been launched in your direction and that there's damn-all you can do about it.