With New Liquidity Rules, FSA Finally Grows Some Balls
The UK’s banking watchdog, the FSA, has looked a little toothless on occasion recently, and of course has had the spectre of Osborne looming over it with an axe, but yesterday marked one of the most bold and original moves it’s made since the start of the crisis. It’s published standards on the liquidity of banks, demanding they shore up a fat wodge of cash to protect themselves against massive strains on their liquid wealth, as happened with the collapse this time last year.
The standards could demand an increase in cash and/or assets in the form of government bonds, to the tune of £110bn across the sector in the first year alone. That figure could rise to £900bn, according to the Guardian, Times and others; the new measures could cost banks £2.2bn a year in lost investment income. The banks, who previously had a smorgasbord of different liquid (or at least fairly viscous) assets, are now going to have to have a pool of deeply unsexy, low-yielding government bonds to play with, and they’re not happy.
When the banks last said they weren’t happy with the FSA, it was when they’d been asked to accept some rules on pay – in that instance, the FSA rolled over and made the pay code voluntary. But now, they’re resisting many of the banks’ qualms with the liquidity rules, and running roughshod over them. Worries about the requirements potentially fragmenting the global financial services industry? The FSA says that they don’t affect cross-border trading too much, and to stop your whining. Annoyed that you have to hold highly liquid government bonds rather than a range of other assets? Shut your cakehole, slag! The FSA has said that only truly liquid assets (i.e. those that can be exchanged instantly for cold hard cash) will be an effective buffer against banking crises!
It’s easy to scoff at the banks’ collective tantrum at not being able to cleverly over-extend themselves any more, and the FSA has done well to maintain a hard line on this issue. But in the end, we’re all going to feel the effects of a safer, less adventurous banking sector, which has after all contributed ever more greatly to the UK’s GDP over the last decade or two. The banks will inevitably make up for their lost income from jazzy, reckless innovations by passing it onto us in the form of lower savings rates and the like; their costs will also rise thanks to the new, stringent reporting of liquidity. At least we won’t get spanked with a bailout that cripples public spending for a half-decade though. Hooray?
Angela Knight, chief exec of the British Banking Association has been lobbying all morning, calling for international agreement on these issues (in the FT) and to not even begin implementing them until we’re well out of the recession (on the Today programme). And she’s got a point, in that this can be timed so that it doesn’t actively drive away companies from the City. Nevertheless, we can’t let the inevitable backlash and howling from banks as these rules come into force derail the measures – it’s bitter medicine, but we’ve got to take it.
Posted by Ben Beaumont-Thomas in Hot Money | October 6, 2009 11:17AM |
October 11th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
F.S.A. (Cover up crimes.) ( Case – Peter Humphries & Jack Loach ).
Pictet & Cie Bank . ( Pictet Asset Management ).
The bank and its officials deliberately withheld crucial documents requested under a High Court order. The bank and its officials deliberately withheld evidence from the Police, and one of its account managers gave a false witness statement to the police.
Another one of its managers concocted a letter pretending to be a client and closed his account. The senior partner (Ivan Pictet.) sought to have numerous documents destroyed, along with those copies in their London office of PA.M. Initially stating they were forgeries then their lawyers later had to admit that they were genuine.
(1) It is a criminal offence for a bank to knowingly act for an undischarged criminal bankrupt in so far as it seeks to assist that criminal bankrupt in the fraudulent movement of monies .( Money laundering .)
(2) It is a criminal offence for a bank to lie to the police and the bankrupts trustee in bankruptcy in so far as any knowledge of, or dealings with the bankrupt was refuted.
(3) A bank can be guilty of contempt of court if it fails to comply fully with the Courts order for discovery.
(4) The banks contempt is further compounded if it fails to address its error after it is specifically drawn to its solicitor’s attention. (Monty Raphael.)
(5) It is a criminal offence under the financial services act to seek to destroy evidence that might be relevant to an investigation.
(6) It is a criminal offence not to relinquish control of funds to the trustee immediately the fact of the bankruptcy is drawn to the banks attention.
(7) It is a criminal offence to lie or otherwise obfuscate the lawful and proper enquiries of the F.S.A.
The Financial Services Authority . (FSA. )
The F.S.A. investigated our complaints for eighteen months, then when pressed by our M.P. They closed the file and told him it was not within their remit.
(1) They had evidence to prove that crimes had been committed by one of the firms under their supervision. This same firm had already had a previous breach.
(2) They state actual findings, – lack of supervision, lack of due diligence and money laundering.
(3) The case was sent to Enforcement numerous times but no action was ever implemented. Even after they concluded that Pictet had a “rogue element” in their London office.
(4) The F.S.A. are also guilty of perverting the course of justice for they knew full well that Pictet were lying and were guilty of numerous offences.
In 2006 John Tiner. Chief Executive. F.S.A. suggested it should have been within their remit, when pressed by our M.P.Then the Treasury in Jan 2008 confirmed it was within the F.S.A. remit. Yet this firm still operates.
Hansard . 29th March 2007 .
“ Constituents of mine have lost £2 millon through fraud . the fraudster used Pictet & Cie –a French Bank – and Pictet Asset Management to back the fraud being perpetrated .”
The M.P. had first sought the permission of Gordon Brown ( then Chancellor ) to proceed with his actions to bring this matter to light . At that time the Chancellor was Ecofins most aggressive finance minister against Swiss Banks .
The M.P. raised the matter twice in the House of Commons ( verbally ) once to Ed Balls ( Economic Secretary to the Treasury ) and secondly to Jack Straw the then (Leader of the House .) He also tabled two written Parliamentry Questions . (PQ’s.) .
The answer to the first question ( it was a matter for the courts or the police .)
The answer to the second question was it was within the F.S.A. remit .
The F.S.A. have again recently looked at our file again to conclude that this would be a matter best dealt with by the Courts . Due to them hiding it for six years we are now time barred on any Civil Action .
We have therefore instructed both the F.S.A. Complaints Secretariat and the Complaints Commissioner to send the complete file to the Serious Fraud Office so that it can be dealt with by the courts . ( Criminal Courts .)
Update;— July 4th 2008. – ( sent to all previous recipients) — letter from the F.S.A. Complaints Secretariat “ because you didn’t give us a “named individual “ at the S.F.O. we have not passed the file to them .
Update ;- July 24th 2008 .—( sent to all previous recipients .) – letter from the Complaints Commissioner Sir Anthony Holland . He states “ although it is not recorded when the F.S.A. provided information to you under the Freedom of Information Act .”
It is this 147 page report “ that he obviously hasn’t been given access to ( or no longer exists in the F.S.A. files .) that shows incompetence , negligence and lack of any regulatory direction from all levels of the F.S.A.
Sir Anthony did not comment on our request that the file should be passed to the Serious Fraud Office .
Update ; – Aug 6th .2008. ( Sent to all previous recipients.) – another letter from Sir Anthony Holland . “ Quote from letter.”— ( “If, as you say, the firms knowingly withheld evidence from the Police and the U.K. Courts during a criminal investigation , then this is a matter for the police rather than the F.S.A.to pursue”. It took them five years to eventually admit they had covered up serious crimes.
We were raising concerns about the F.S.A. being “ fit for purpose” in 2003 well before the whisleblower at HBOS. made a complaint to the F.S.A.
Jack Loach. – - – - – loachjack@talktalk.net
Full Story.
Go to search box on “Google” and insert ( Ivan Pictet / Monty Raphael) or
insert ( Pictet & Cie / Monty Raphael.) – - then try it on “Yahoo”.
Or try (Jack Loach/ Ivan Pictet