I wish to submit the following questions:
Do you now agree with an overwhelming majority of people in the financial services industry that the "tripartite agreement" is fundamentally flawed due to conflicts of interest?
Do you now agree that banking supervision is something one state body should have full responsibility for and that it should be the role of the Bank of England and its former staff who are now at the FSA?
Given the risks that banks pose to the financial system was there ever a time when you felt the need to 'supervise' them very closely rather than regulate certain activities and allow other, more dangerous, unregulated activities to be carried out in London, the largest financial centre on Earth?
Did any of you understand the business model of Northern Rock?
Did anyone not think that lending 125% of the value of a home was irresponsible?
Did you really learn some lessons from Northern Rock and if so why weren't they applied immediately?
Did John Tiner foresee any of this and why isn't he being questioned along with Howard Davies in the same manner as Alan Greenspan was in the US?
Why are the bank auditors not being questioned about the accounts supplied to the FSA?
Why were Bradford and Bingley shareholders misled, or coerced, into subscribing to the rights issue when there was a high probability it would be nationalised?
Why was the RBS rights issue allowed to go ahead and cause unnecessary losses for shareholders?
What hope is there for shareholders to subscribe to rights issues in future given that the facts are not available and neither are dividends?
Why were golden parachutes and pensions handed to FSA staff who left, and are leaving, as this was unfolding while they criticised banks for similar practices?
Does the FSA think it has achieved the Statutory Objective of "maintaining confidence in the financial system"?
Has the FSA been so busy with intangibles such as the Retail Distribution Review and Treating Customers Fairly initiatives that it missed the bigger picture?
Does the FSA now recognise that small advisers are not a threat to the financial system and that it should foster a new, open and transparent, relationship with the distribution model which generates the lowest proportion of complaints yet pays the highest proportion of FSA fees and is burdened by an unwarranted level of regulatory burdens by ratio of size?
Why does Barclays have six months to comply with the Financial Services Authority’s (FSA) new capital ratio target, but not Lloyds TSB ?
How did the FSA arrive at its new capital ratio targets for the banks?
Were the new capital requirements calculated according to transparent principles and can we know what they are?
Why do Ministers believe that a bank is able to sustainably borrow at 12% yet lend at much lower rates?
Is it right that small savers both directly through shareholdings and indirectly through pensions and savings should lose out on dividend income because of the onerous lending terms?
Who has been 'leaking' so much detail to Robert Peston of the BBC?
We are expecting a public inquiry into the involvement of the Bank of England, the FSA and HM Treasury in all of this, will Ministers demand one?
No comments:
Post a Comment