Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

FSA targets big banks for budget increase

James Moore
Friday 28 May 2010 19:00 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

The city watchdog said yesterday that big banks would bear the brunt of its plans to "get tougher" following a rise of more than £40m in its budget.

The Financial Services Authority, which is funded entirely from levies on regulated companies and fines for wrongdoing, said its annual spending would jump by 10 per cent to £454.7m in 2010-11. "The increased cost of intensive supervision will be levied on those firms whose size and impact require the most regulation from the FSA," the regulator added.

The credit crisis saw the FSA abandon its much-criticised "light touch" approach to regulation in favour of a far more intrusive regime, which has been felt beyond the banking industry.

One casualty was Prudential, which attempted to railroad the FSA into approving its planned £14.5bn rights issue to help fund its takeover of the Asian insurer AIA. The watchdog refused, forcing the Pru to restructure its $35.5bn bid because the FSA was concerned that it would not be able to repatriate enough capital if another economic storm blew up.

The FSA has also been waging an aggressive campaign against alleged market abuse in London which has led to a string of arrests. The Conservative Party abandoned plans to abolish the watchdog when it formed a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats. However, the FSA could still lose some of its powers, which are likely to be transferred to a new agency dedicated to tackling white-collar crime.

The British Bankers' Association accepted that good regulation would cost more but added: "What we have never been keen on is that you spend the money on increasing bureaucracy and not better regulation."

Some of the extra money in the FSA's larger budget will be spent enforcing new rules intended to keep banks and insurers solvent.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in