Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Deckard

Conservatives Would Abolish Fsa

Recommended Posts

Apologies if already posted.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=anlPi89bQgfs

July 20 (Bloomberg) -- Conservative leader David Cameron will abolish the Financial Services Authority and give its powers to the Bank of England if his party wins the next general election.

The beefed up central bank would monitor the health of the financial system, setting capital requirements and leverage limits, and police individual lenders. A Financial Policy Committee would be established with the same stature as the bank’s existing interest rate-setting Monetary Policy Committee.

“We must never repeat the mistakes of the last decade, in which we built an illusion of growth on the biggest mountain of debt ever seen in an advanced economy,†George Osborne, finance spokesman for the main opposition party, wrote in a report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Conservative leader David Cameron will abolish the Financial Services Authority and give its powers to the Bank of England if his party wins the next general election.

Will that help?

'Bank of England failed to see credit crunch coming'

By James Lyons Political Correspondent 23/12/2008

The Bank of England failed to see the credit crunch coming, its deputy governor admitted yesterday.

Sir John Gieve confessed that those who regulate the economy did not grasp the danger of spiralling house prices and "crazy borrowing".

Sir John, who has specific responsibility for stability, added that the Bank also failed to realise just how badly British businesses could be hit by what happens abroad.

He told the BBC's Panorama programme: "We didn't think it was going to be anything like as severe as it's turned out to be. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may help, in that part of why they didn't see it coming is because they weren't closely supervising the banks during the boom years (the FSA was :lol::lol: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it might well help as the FSA gets diverted by all sorts of things and doesn't concentrate on the big stuff enough, plus having a number of different bodies looking at things realy does not help. It just diverts attention and leads to infighting etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it might well help as the FSA gets diverted by all sorts of things and doesn't concentrate on the big stuff enough, plus having a number of different bodies looking at things realy does not help. It just diverts attention and leads to infighting etc.

Was it not underfunded, understaffed and basically told 'light touch regulation' was the order of the day?

Which equates to 'keep your nose out'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will that help?

The Bank of England failed to see the credit crunch coming, its deputy governor admitted yesterday.

Sir John Gieve confessed that those who regulate the economy did not grasp the danger of spiralling house prices and "crazy borrowing".

While I appreciate where you're coming from, you need to look beyond his title, which, in the article, is misleading anyhow.

Sir John Gieve, as far as I'm aware has the title "Deputy Governor for Financial Stability" - but, to be honest, he comes across as so inept that I find it difficult to believe that he acquired the position by virtue of his ability. Sir John, however, is no stranger to ineptitude (or corruption, an uncharitable observer might say) - his previous role was "Permanent Secretary to the Home Office" (2001-2005) - where he presided over various embarrassing calamities. He left in 2006 (destined for his current role) shortly before the National Audit Office investigated irregularities with the Home Office accounts for which he'd previously had responsibility... the report (allegedly) said:

“Sir John Bourn, head of the National Audit Office, reported to Parliament today that the Home Office had not maintained proper financial books and records for the financial year ending 31 March 2005. Sir John Bourn therefore concluded that, because the Home Office failed to deliver its accounts for audit by the statutory timetable, and because of the fundamental nature of the problems encountered, he could not reach an opinion on the truth and fairness of the Home Office’s accounts.â€

A cynic like me wonders why someone so obviously either corrupt or incompetent is given the opportunity to go on to another responsible position of high-office. I think the answer here lies with the Treasury and Brown... and illumination can come by considering why the Tripartite agreement and FSA were instigated in the first place. It strikes me that the most reasonable explanation for Gieve to be at the BoE is that Brown put him there. It comes as no surprise that Gieve is making statements to undermine the political opposition... irrespective of the truth or otherwise of his claims. Judging by his public performance at Treasury Select Committee meetings, I'd be amazed if he had the first clue what the BoE had anticipated... I've seen more clued-up piles of manure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will that help?

Well, it certainly makes sense to have one lot of people responsible for regulating banks and, when needed, bailing them out. When the crap hit the fan last year, a big problem was the arrangement whereby 3 different organizations were jointly responsible for fixing things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merv was warning about house prices, debt levels and lax lending well before the crunch, but there was nothing he could do about it because it was not his remit.

House prices are a matter of opinion, wheras debt is real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir John Bourn

Heh,the Real CGNAO.

(Comptroller General, National Audit Office)

Disclaimer: Sir John's full title was Comptroller and Auditor General, and he never, as far as I am aware, posted here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merv was warning about house prices, debt levels and lax lending well before the crunch, but there was nothing he could do about it because it was not his remit.

Exactly. It even made it onto the BBC news.... which, of course, should make one ask what sort of stunt Sir John Gieve was trying to pull this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow the Tories plans for the City and banking are not convincing. When they are less reliant on donations from hedge funds and the City I might listen more. Given Obama's reliance on Goldman Sachs and others, it might be impossible for any political group to get elected without substantial support from the financial sector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merv was warning about house prices, debt levels and lax lending well before the crunch, but there was nothing he could do about it because it was not his remit.

So he couldn't have given a nice speech somewhere saying the economy was going to hit the buffers because debt levels had become unsustainable?

Clearly he couldn't do anything and didn't he do anything because that was the right thing to do.

It's a bit like seeing a drink get into a car and watching them kill someone, it wasn't your remit to stop them but you knew it was a bad idea letting them drive but just what authority did you have to stop them, you weren't a policeman so you carried on and did nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clearly he couldn't do anything and didn't he do anything because that was the right thing to do.

It's a bit like seeing a drink get into a car and watching them kill someone, it wasn't your remit to stop them but you knew it was a bad idea letting them drive but just what authority did you have to stop them, you weren't a policeman so you carried on and did nothing.

It is my opinion that King could do no more than he did. He highlighted the problem publicly - and, I'm confident, discussed the problem with anyone official who would listen. The problem is that King had no remit to involve himself in fiscal policy issues (the exclusive remit of the Treasury and government) or regulation of operational matters (the exclusive remit of the FSA.)

It is a bit like seeing a drunk - commenting loudly to everyone (including the drunk, the pedestrians, and a whole team of policemen) that it is a really bad idea to drive having drunk so much... and being resolutely ignored by everyone. That is, if you insist on making a banal connection with a drink-driving hyperbole... an obvious attempt to 'poison the well' if ever I've seen one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will that help?

Probably better than having 3 organisations all pointing the finger at each other, and not being able to arrange the proverbial drinking session in a brewery.

At least this way the finger will be clearly pointed in one direction, hopefully forcing a little bit of control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is my opinion that King could do no more than he did. He highlighted the problem publicly - and, I'm confident, discussed the problem with anyone official who would listen. The problem is that King had no remit to involve himself in fiscal policy issues (the exclusive remit of the Treasury and government) or regulation of operational matters (the exclusive remit of the FSA.)

It is a bit like seeing a drunk - commenting loudly to everyone (including the drunk, the pedestrians, and a whole team of policemen) that it is a really bad idea to drive having drunk so much... and being resolutely ignored by everyone. That is, if you insist on making a banal connection with a drink-driving hyperbole... an obvious attempt to 'poison the well' if ever I've seen one.

King and the Bank could raise rates, they're still far too low historically and they were cutting them at the height of the boom which actively fueled it, so Mr King and the BOE have played a massive part in this crisis and now they're going to get more powers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think you've got a choice - an inept government who split the functions of regulation and handed them to a fragmented public body, or an as yet untested government who is handing them to the biggest private owner of property and banking in the effing world. Its a bit like asking a wolf to watch over a sheep (except the british people are the sheep that it is watching).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
King and the Bank could raise rates, they're still far too low historically and they were cutting them at the height of the boom which actively fueled it, so Mr King and the BOE have played a massive part in this crisis and now they're going to get more powers...

The rest of the MPC was quite capable of outvoting King. Brown could have set up the structure differently, more along the lines of the previous arrangements where there was more individual power and responsibility for rate-setting -- he didn't have to create a committee.

He also didn't need to give that committee a target that excluded house prices -- the very thing driving the boom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   291 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.