|
Post by brightspark on Feb 5, 2021 14:15:30 GMT
Although there was disquiet over his performance whilst head of the FCA he was appointed to the Bank of England. By inference, those who agreed his new appointment had been satisfied with his stint at the FCA. From It begs the conclusion that those who make these appointments are not unduly troubled or for other reasons want to alter what is going on in some sections of the financial industry. Current conducts are not regarded as unduly troubling in such places as the p to p platforms, mini bond markets etc etc. In particular the FSCS in a cartel-like way allows the big players to offer low rates of return to investors whilst non-FSCS businesses all are lumped in together with some pretty disreputable coves amongst them. From another perspective perhaps cronyism as opposed to merit is playing a part in the appointment process or maybe the other possible candidates had weaker credentials. Possibly others didn't fancy the job as being pretty thankless. Perhaps I should make AB the scapegoat - simpler!
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 4,830
|
Post by ozboy on Feb 5, 2021 16:50:43 GMT
Three words are obviously missing :- "into the ground."Fortunately the Bank of England has a long-standing, competent permanent staff, so Bailey will probably not fail to the same degree he did at the FCA, which appears to be shot through with incompetence. Apropos of which, I remember reading somewhere some months ago that inductees to the FCA, often with no financial background, receive almost no job training, nor instruction in how to identify irregularities or fraud. If that is true then without a wholesale reform of the system I see no prospect for change. The grossly incompetent FCA needs to be shut down, just like all its utterly useless predecessors, and a new Body setup. This time, one with real accountability, and NO RING FENCING, staffed by experienced private sector Financial Services people.Sure, it will cost more, but it should be more effective by quite a margin, and with expected far fewer Complaints, cost effective in the long run?
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Feb 5, 2021 21:16:25 GMT
be reasonable Ozboy - are you expecting people to be promoted on merit and ability - have long have you been in the UK? Just what will the establishment do with failed flunkies who need a free seat in the gravy train. Having an historian running the FCA strikes as like having a welder to do cake decoration. that said I know some welders who would have done a better job at the FCA...
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 325
Likes: 363
|
Post by mah on Feb 7, 2021 20:56:34 GMT
4 years is quite long to spot, highlight and at least try to rectify the big loopholes of the FCA. If the Top Executive fails to do that, he has simply failed to perform his duties and Not Fit for Purpose (if not a party to the Failures). No Systemic Change can succeed unless these Failing Execs are Permanently Banned from the Industry and ALL their past Bonuses clawed back (and put to a Compensation Fund for suffering Investors). One, Just One such example, will AutoMagically perform the Long Awaited Systemic Reforms.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 4,830
|
Post by ozboy on Feb 7, 2021 23:12:26 GMT
Oh mah, I DO like your style!!!!!!
|
|
pfffill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 175
Likes: 206
|
Post by pfffill on Feb 11, 2021 3:38:13 GMT
A good deal of coverage of 'Bailey's Ballsups' in the Times recently, including this excellent commentary today:
"Bank of England governors need myriad skills. But, strangely, nowhere on the list is the ability to pick a pointless fight with a retired Appeal Court judge.
Who knew Andrew Bailey had that in him? Isn’t he supposed to be a dull, safe pair of hands: a contrast to his predecessor Mark Carney, globetrotting around with his big thoughts and endless self-promotion? Well, not on this week’s evidence. Bailey gave the Treasury select committee his Mr Angry routine. It backfired spectacularly.
The subject was the London Capital & Finance farrago: just one ticking timebomb from his previous job as boss of the Financial Conduct Authority. The regulator had already been given a deserved pasting in Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report. That LCF collapsed on Bailey’s watch owing £237 million to 11,500 investors was proof enough that the FCA had loused up. Bailey had been in charge for two-and-a-half years before LCF went bust in January 2019. So he had plenty of time to ensure, say, that tip-offs from the FCA’s call centres over the dodgy firm got passed on to its supervision and enforcement wings. Sadly, he hadn’t got round to fixing those systems.
Bailey clearly got things wrong. Yet, he had his excuses. The FCA was in a mess when he took charge. It regulates 58,000 firms. And no one expects the boss to be on top of them all, even if it was a surprise that he had no involvement with LCF until it keeled over. But he can’t duck responsibility. In her report, Gloster criticised him for pre-publication “Maxwellisation”: an attempt, she said, to excise his name from the document. Bailey told MPs he was “angry” about this and that there’d been a “fundamental misunderstanding” over the issue of responsibility, which he accepted, and of personal culpability.
Gloster’s response to that? So furious she publicly “rejected” Bailey’s interpretation of events and then released four pages of representations from his lawyer proving her point. They included several requests to “delete” references to Bailey’s “responsibility”. One said: “This is a freestanding reason for the removal of the references to Mr Bailey’s responsibility.”
In short, Bailey picked a fight and lost. So, over LCF, he’s ended up not only looking incompetent but sour, with a buckpassing tendency to try to rewrite history. Not a great look for a governor presiding over £895 billion of quantitative easing during a pandemic. It’s not only Lord Myners, a former member of the Bank’s court — in effect its board — who finds the row “undignified”. It’s put a dent in Bailey’s credibility.
And it’s a worry because there are more scrapes to come. The scandal over Neil Woodford’s failing funds also happened on Bailey’s watch at the FCA. And the report into that could be equally embarrassing. Bailey has already admitted to the Treasury committee that the FCA had been “in contact” with the equity income fund’s authorised director, Link Fund Solutions, over breaches to the 10 per cent limit on unlisted securities as far back as February 2018 — 16 months before the fund was shuttered. But the regulator failed to follow up, admitting it heard about Woodford’s iffy Guernsey listings only from “press articles”. Could the collapse of peer-to-peer lender Lendy in May 2019 also return to haunt Bailey?
There are enough skeletons. Bailey’s competence will again come under scrutiny. But confidence in the governor is partly determined by how he reacts. Someone on the Bank’s court, or from the Treasury, needs to tell him that the row with Gloster was unacceptable. A re-run of that and Bailey will look like a guv’nor no one can really bank on."
|
|