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

New Uk Financial Regulators Face Surge In Staff Turnover

Recommended Posts

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/11/12/uk-britain-financial-regulators-exclusiv-idUKBRE9AB05V20131112

Staff have been quitting Britain's financial watchdogs at nearly twice the rate since they were split into two bodies this year, data seen by Reuters shows, at a time when experts warn of a regulatory brain drain in Europe's biggest financial hub.

Britain broke its financial regulator up into two separate agencies in April to ensure stricter scrutiny of banks and markets in the wake of the 2007-09 financial crisis and a series of costly scandals involving bankers' misdeeds.

But the rate of resignations has nearly doubled at both the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), the two bodies that replaced the Financial Services Authority on April 1.

That raises concerns about the new bodies' ability to retain staff capable of carrying out tougher, more interventionist regulation.

"It's a concern for regulators and they will continue to see a tremendous amount of pressure on keeping their employees," said Etay Katz, regulatory partner at law firm Allen & Overy.

According to data provided by the two bodies under Freedom of Information Act requests by Reuters, staff have been leaving the FCA since its formation at an annualised rate of 12 percent and the PRA at a rate of 11 percent.

..

Staff typically earn far more in the private sector than at the regulators, and experience at a regulator can improve long-term career prospects, recruitment sources said.

Of course it can improve career prospects you have insider information about how to get around the regulatory hurdles enabling you to take greater risks whilst appearing not to.

Working for a regulatory is like a busman's holiday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The turnover stats at FSA were pretty high, seem to remember reading something where a crazy percentage of staff (90% springs to mind, but nothing to back that up) work there less than 3 years.

It does seem to be a bit of a stepping stone job. Work at a regulator for a few years then go and work in a compliance department of a bank and start getting paid for your efforts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The turnover stats at FSA were pretty high, seem to remember reading something where a crazy percentage of staff (90% springs to mind, but nothing to back that up) work there less than 3 years.

It does seem to be a bit of a stepping stone job. Work at a regulator for a few years then go and work in a compliance department of a bank and start getting paid for your efforts.

Having known quite a few that did this, it was not just the money but the bad management and low morale at the regulator that lead to staff leaving. Often because in the civil service a department/unit has a couple of completely usless numpties with 25 years in, on a massive pay scale, so the bright young things think &&& this I'm not sitting next to this idiot and doing his work when I can get more elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having known quite a few that did this, it was not just the money but the bad management and low morale at the regulator that lead to staff leaving. Often because in the civil service a department/unit has a couple of completely usless numpties with 25 years in, on a massive pay scale, so the bright young things think &&& this I'm not sitting next to this idiot and doing his work when I can get more elsewhere.

Someone moving to a bank for reasons other than money? Surely not.

Interesting thought though. They probably got a bit of a bureaucracy shock at the bank too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pay large bonus's to those who identify provable fraud or rule infractions- it's what the banksters use to motivate their in house criminals- why not adopt the weapons of the enemy?

In truth effective regulation is simply not desirable- they want just enough teeth to discourage wholesale looting (too late!) but not enough teeth to actually enforce the rules entirely.

And to be fair financial fraud in it's multiple guises is a major industry in the UK- so it makes little sense to regulate it away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The turnover stats at FSA were pretty high, seem to remember reading something where a crazy percentage of staff (90% springs to mind, but nothing to back that up) work there less than 3 years.

It does seem to be a bit of a stepping stone job. Work at a regulator for a few years then go and work in a compliance department of a bank and start getting paid for your efforts.

a

The turnover at the FSA was nothing like that - it had turnover of less than 10% a year, which is pretty good in finance. A lot of the graduates jumped ship before making to the end of their programme, usually because they were wannabe bankers anyway, which inflates total turnover.

The FSA had a massive recruitment drive after the financial crisis and filled itself with more experienced and skilled people, so even when it split up it was a very different place than before the crisis.

While those who know next to nothing about the industry (other than what has been gleaned off youtube videos) can make pseudo sage comments about the regulators being powerless, a fig leaf etc, it is clearly not the case. Banks have to hold far more capital than they ever did previously and this has effectively cut a huge amount off their return on capital. JPMorgan was fined $13bn last month, on top of all the other fines and legal expenses it has paid in recent years. Barclays also took a massive hammering last year and now is threatened with the new FX rate fixing scandal. Like the other UK banks it will have to face up to the ring fencing legislation.

Because regulation is the main obstacle that the banks face, they are going to the source to get people who understand regulation better and clearly the money tempts them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such is our mistrust of the financial sector, we assume that someone with regulatory experience going to a bank means that they have turned poacher, rather than going in order to bring a culture of compliance and integrity to their new bank employers.

And there is a reason for this mistrust.

Banks are criminal organisations, dens of fraudsters, parasites and thieves, and the public knows it.

If only an asteroid had landed on top of the Lord Mayor's banquet, the world would be a better place today.

Edited by happy_renting

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:   211 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.