KPMG's Griffith-Jones appointed FCA chairman

Another job for the boys!!

Oh no, another one wanting to rebuild consumer trust. Let's hang a few financial advisers, that should do it.

With the impending 50 % of advisers leaving the industry - 50% of nothing will still be . . . Nil, Zero, Nothing ! . . . and who is going to pay for the Financial Captive Authority ?

The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) gives the FSA four statutory objectives:

• maintaining market confidence in the UK financial system;

• promoting public understanding of the financial system;

• securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers; and

• helping reduce financial crime.

If the FSA had been doing the job it is supposed to do, then Mr Griffith-Jones's comments wouldn't be needed.

Another FAIL by the FSA?

It is indeed a small world. Whatever else Mr Griffith-Jones may do, he will enthusastically support the continuation of the FSA campaign to let Capita off the hook for Arch cru. His firm, KPMG, are auditors to Capita. And Capita and KPMG have a common PR adviser - Man Bites Dog (www.manbitesdog.com).

There was a time when it was unthinkable that a person, however distinguished, would be appointed to a position where he was sitting in judgment on a client. No moree it seems. O tempora! O mores!

"Having worked in the financial world throughout my professional career, I know how important it is that consumers, investors and businesses have trust in the integrity of the UK's financial services industry and markets,'"

What does he think all are Cowboys!

I have worked my entire professional career(1975) for just as long.I have run my own practice for the last 20 years If I did not show integrity, trust for and to my clients I would lose everything down to the last button on my shirt.

Unlike other practices in the financial world I would not risk my company recommending tax shelters

“In the largest criminal tax case ever, accounting titan KPMG admitted to running fraudulent tax shelters”

See link below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KPMG_tax_shelter_fraud

Not to mention the "Gold Bullion tax shelter sold to one or two of my clients the big four accountancy practice. In which the client did not have any come back because they stupidly signed away liability.

This kind of b*****t really get on my nerves.

No mention in the PR led statement that he will work and listen to the industry to ensure that his aims of trust integrity UK’s financial services industry and markets will be achieved.

@ James Clancy - if you want real credibility I would ditch Wikipedia as your research tool. If KPMG really had been involved in fraudulent activity they would not be trading at this moment in time.

I'm not sure what sort of person people think should be non-executive directors but clearly they need to be able to challenge the other members of the board on issues and decisions. To do that in an environment such as the FSA requires not only intelligence (of which this chap clearly has in abundance) but also some serious boardroom experience just to manage ego's!

Perhaps now he is at the FSA, he will confirm for everyone and perhaps also for Margaret Cole (ex FSA now at PWC, the former Luxembourg auditors for Lifemark I believe who were then appointed to handle Keydata's administration whilst good olf KPMG was appointed by the court in Luxembourg to handle Lifemark....) whether the model Keydata were using WAS based on one designed by KPMG and it was simply they didn't want to have their name used?

How on earth do they expect anyone to have any confidence when Keydata and Arch are all being dumped on advisers as being the problem and not one big name seems to be getting held to account to the same extent.

@ Ric Green

I just happen to use the link to Wikipedia,AS IT WAS THE 1ST LINK

I could have used USA Today, but that might have been too technical for most NMA readers!

For you Please find below a link to business week

www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2005/nf2005091_2144_db016.htmic Green I just used

If you read my comment I did not question his ability far from it

I am sure he is very able experienced in large corporate arena I. have worked for one large corporate company some 20 years ago I decided it was an environment that did not suit me.

That (like many NMA readers) was the reason to take the plunge and start own business

What I did question was his comments on trust and integrity in reference to the UK financial service industry.

An area I and many others readers of NMA do have experience in that he may heed to listen to our point. After all without confidence and trust we would have no clients.

The point I was trying to make that no company how big can claim the moral highground.

@ James Clancy - surely the area of most concern for the public and the one that requires salvaging is banking and insurance. These are two areas where every person in the country is exposed - only a fraction of whom are fortunate enough to have advisers - and it is these areas that require the urgent attention. I would hope that his comments around rebuilding trust and integrity were aimed at these two sectors rather than the IFA sector. As you quite rightly say, if your clients didn't trust you they wouldn't be clients. Unfortunately it is not as simple for banking and insurance clients who have little choice and even less education to understand good from bad.

It is interesting that BArclays seem to claim they are open honest in their dealings - but continued trading fraudulently - by fiddling the LIBOR interest rates which has an effect on other rates and " services " of the bank. Put simply trading as other banks did in an insolvent way - yet neither regulators not the BBA or the Bank of England - were aware. All this for two or three years. It follows the examples set by another insolvent company Equitable Life etc.,

With the clearance of IFA's by the FSA , only the few will be able to aford to purchase a life assurance policy. With the buulying of companies to force employees into pesnion schemes with minimal amounts of contributions - those who do invest are likely to find the nest pensions are the most unnatractive investment - when they eventaully come to take an annuity - given the miserly annuity rates and the costs associated. Nest pensions is an additional tax - and forced savings by the current Gov't into a long term onvestment contract designed to be detrimental to the pensions industry. Wrong advice by the Gov't and its regulator to the poor and the vulnerable - with poor returns and poor annuities with small amounts of money. Poor quality pensions - with designer charges.

With the FSA forcing advisers out of the market - they are reducing competition, reducing the availability for advice - to force people to purchase product s through supermarkets - Jamie Olivers Pension schemes along with his tomatoes, and 30 minute 3 course meals. I wonder if M& S will introduce Pensions for two ? Pick up a pension with your milk and televison suppers.