Talk:Financial Services Authority/Archives/2013

Vandalism

Please don't delete paragraphs without explanation; this is Wikipedia:Vandalism. If there is something you disagree with, or feel is in conflict with Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines then please edit it and provide an explanation here. Otherwise don't be surprised if you find your edits speedily reversed.

simonthebold 17:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

An NPOV dispute has been raised on the criticism section due to the line "The FSA and the FOS have staff placed within their co-organisation in order to advise on wider implication issues. It is surprising, therefore, that so little action has taken place." being without a reference and appearing as a biased opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshubbalubba (talk • contribs) 15:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

founding members

founding members? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.73.152 (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2006

Controversy

The last item under the controversy section, "It was announced in November 2008, that despite self-acknowledged failures by the FSA in effectively regulating the financial services industry, taxpayers money would be handed out to FSA staff in bonuses. [18]" appears incorrect. The FSA is not funded by taxpayer money (as correctly stated earlier in the article) and the linked reference makes no reference to taxpayer money. Suggest this item be removed/edited accordingly. 193.132.237.3 (talk) 08:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Have edited this. It appears to be a commonly held misconception that the FSA is funded directly by taxpayers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.31.86 (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

FSA fines?

The article says the FSA derives it income from fines and fees of regulated firms. Does the level of fines annually get taken into account when setting subsequent fee levels? If not does 'surplus' money go to the Treasury? Bottom line, the FSA could have a temptation to make money out fines - but I assume that it isn't 'allowed' to under it own rules?

The next year's fee levels for all firms are adjusted depending on how much they made from fines. 163.1.143.155 (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

UKLA

The words "of shares on a stock exchange" should be deleted from the part of the sentence describing the statutory functions of the FSA when acting as the UKLA. Firstly the function includes a far broader range of securities than just shares (it includes for instance debt and derivative products). Secondly the reference to a stock exchange is technically incorrect. When securities are admitted to listing by the UKLA they are admitted to the Official List. They are also at the same time admitted to a market for listed securities on an RIE (stock exchange) but this is a separate if parallel process, that is not overseen directly by the FSA.Casbar (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-governmental?

The opening sentence states that the FSA is an independent non-governmental body. As the board is appointed by the Treasury, this seems at least disingenuous, and probably just plain incorrect. I believe this is taken directly from the FSA's website, but that does not make it true. Can anyone justify this statement? Art Markham (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the FSA is technically not part of the UK government, and FSA employees are not technically government employees. (They are certainly paid a lot more.) While the UK government appoints the FSA board, the FSA is more "quasi-governmental". In the financial regulatory world, there are lots of these strange animals -- for example, the US Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regulates the US audit industry and its members are appointed by a US government agency, but it is not technically part of the government. The FSA just takes this concept a few notches further. Epstein's Mother (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

DominicConnor (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC) The FSA is a Quango, albeit with a particualr set of rules that try to make it independent. As I recall it also is not liable under law for any of its failures, it cannot be sued.

Break up

The break up of the FSA has now been announced. Details are not all confirmed as yet, when they are a section needs writing.Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

internal inconsistency

The paragraph on Statutory objectives states that:

in 2000, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 imposed four statutory objectives upon the FSA, one of which is "financial stability: contributing to the protection and enhancement of stability of the UK financial system;"

the same paragraph goes on to say that:

the Financial Services Act 2010, which was passed by Parliament on 8 April 2010, gave the FSA the additional statutory objective of "Contributing to the protection and enhancement of the stability of the UK financial system"

? FeatherPluma (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)