continued ...
Those following this series of posts will be aware that I am entering into a considerable amount of detail, and perhaps wish I would just get to the point - the point being to prove that millions of consumers suffered serious financial detriment over the issue of the fairness or otherwise of Bank charges - and suffered that detriment due to significant regulatory failure.
I would not have started this series of posts unless I believed that point could be proven, but perhaps more importantly that by proving it, it would also establish that serious regulatory failings also led to significant consumer detriment in other areas, not just those of Bank charges. Before proceeding further let me use this one post to explain - as briefly as I can - why going into such detail is necessary.
We have witnessed the disintegration of major Banks, saved from total collapse due solely to a massive public bailout. Today we will begin to hear of the costs in terms of job losses and cut backs that the recent financial crisis, and the levels of Government indebtedness have inevitably brought in their wake.
Now ask yourself were the Banks not regulated? Ask yourself - was financial stability not under the control of regulators? Ask yourself - did the regulators, and our system of regulation succeed or fail? What does your own evidence, not mine, tell you?
Do we now accept - because the evidence surrounds us and is growing daily - that regulation as it was practised failed? It seems so, and that is why the current Coalition Government has proposed that it will radically alter our system of regulation. We learn, all too sadly, from our mistakes, and we pay the price, a very heavy price and one which, from all we are told from those at the top, is not just the cost for today, but the cost we will bear for many years into the future.
Governments, HM Treasury, MPs, the Governor of the Bank of England, economists, financial commentators, and yes, also Lord Turner from the FSA, all have their views, their reflections on what went wrong. All now offer their differing recipes of how to (perhaps) restructure financial regulation, and how (perhaps) to prevent the re-occurrence of events for which we all now bear the heaviest of prices - the price of failure.
But - what of those at the bottom, those paying the price for regulatory failures - for instance those for whom this series of posts has been established, those that were affected by this issue of Bank charges?
Do they have any part at all to play in forming an effective regulatory regime, one which protects their interests?
Do they have opinions to offer on whether for instance Banks should be broken up, or do those at the top alone make such decisions?
Do those at the bottom have questions to ask, questions which those at the top have still not answered, one (let me stress one of many) being this simple question about the fairness or not of Bank charges:
Let's ask Lord Turner and the FSA this very simple question:
Do you believe that the charges levied by Banks on their customers were and are fair or unfair?
Do you personally see that as a hard question to answer? One beyond the capacity of the FSA or the Chairman of the Financial Services Authority? Should that prove to be the case - may I suggest it has much to tell us.
Might it be the case that neither the FSA nor Lord Turner feel obliged to answer, or perhaps even consider such questions, despite their statutory obligations - including their duty to offer protection to consumers in financial matters?
If like me, you have visited the Financial Services Authoritity's web site and read the many speeches given by Lord Turner, you will find examples of some very big questions to which Lord Turner seeks to provide answers, so why should this simple question seemingly defy him?
Might it be that he may insist on evidence to establish that he and the FSA failed? Evidence that would allow him and the FSA to answer finally - what is a very a simple question. One which has affected, and to this day still affects millions of people?
Ask yourself - is not answering that simple question - perhaps the clearest evidence of all - of significant regulatory failure?
I will let you answer those questions for yourselves. But when I decided to start this blog, and starting with this first series of posts - on the question of Bank charges, I knew I needed evidence to justify my opinions. Evidence that would allow those who were affected by the issue to find their own answer, and evidence that Lord Turner, the FSA and those at the top could not refute.
My next post will continue with that evidence. I make no apology for the amount of detail it entails, it is necessary. Because it is the evidence that will demonstrate that significant consumer detriment was caused by serious regulatory failures - and let me stress, not just over this one issue of Bank charges.
.
No comments :
Post a Comment