Davids
The report is so long that I doubt all of it can be implemented, although parts will be (or already have). My comments on the main findings are:
Approved person regime. The existing regime can cope with the recommendations - they already assume that the CEO is accountable by default, unless they can demonstrate effective delegation. There are already sufficient powers against individuals under FSMA; the problem is that the FSA did not action them sufficiently.
Bonuses: 10 year deferral forgets that bonuses are also meant to be an incentive. 10 years is too far removed from the action to be effective - 3 to 5 years is more practical.
Regulators - much of this has been addressed already by the PRA/ FCA split. It remains to be seen whether the apparent underlying cultural belief in the FSA that banking is 'good' and insurance 'bad' has shifted. The regulators seemed to be fixated on the wrong things - at the time of the crunch, the FSA was much more concerned about treating customers fairly than financial stability.
Steve
On 13 Aug 2013, at 23:07, Optimum <
davei...@optonline.net> wrote:
David,
I do not have any idea.
Does anyone from the UK have an opinion?
Dave I.
Sent from my iPod
On Aug 12, 2013, at 12:37 PM, David Schraub <dsch...@soa.org> wrote:
Dave,
Catching up on my reading, I just read the summary which provides a very good picture. Any thoughts on the likelihood of this getting actually implemented in any jurisdiction/sector?
David
David Schraub - SOA staff fellow - 847-706-3560
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Ingram [mailto:davei...@optonline.net]
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2013 11:36 AM
To: inarm inarm