We use cookies to improve site performance and enhance your user experience. If you'd like to disable cookies on this device, please see our cookie management page.
If you close this message or continue to use this site, you consent to our use of cookies on this devise in accordance with our cookie policy, unless you disable them.

In association with

Home > Opinion > Ashley Wassall

FSA objectivity in question over Diamond departure

Resignation of Barclays chief executive just hours after meeting raises questions over regulator tactics.

By Ashley Wassall | Published Jul 12, 2012 | Regulation | comments

But I can’t help feeling slightly uncomfortable at the thought that a relayed message from the regulator over something as ethereal as whether or not it ‘supports’ an individual can topple a senior executive at a private company - against whom there is no evidence of personal wrongdoing - within hours. Mr Diamond was not even chief executive at the time the alleged rate rigging took place.

What exactly did the regulator do that so frightened Mr Agius and his colleagues that they called Mr Diamond in the middle of the night to expedite his departure the following day?

Moreover, should the regulator be able to do whatever it is they might have done to make life difficult for the bank? Surely a regulator should act with absolute objectivity, issuing fines or banning individuals where there is evidence of regulatory breaches but otherwise remaining impartial.

Isn’t it also a little bit too late for the regulator to be adopting such a strong stance, given that it had failed to inspire any change in an organisation we now know from letters published by the select committee it was concerned about over a period of months leading up to the scandal breaking?

It strikes me that the regulator, which has faced regular criticism over its apparent pusillanimous nature that has seen a number of high-profile issues emerge under its nose, has struck out in a bid to show it still has teeth.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want a regulator whose reactive bite is as dangerous as its premptive bark. I’d prefer one that sniffs out potential issues before they become major problems in the first place.

Page 2 of 2


Our Columnists

Hal Austin

Hal is editor of Financial Adviser and has been for more than a decade. He has previously worked on a number of local and national publications.

Emma Ann Hughes

Emma is editor of FTAdviser and has previously worked for Investment Adviser, Financial Adviser and edited Mortgage Adviser.

Dan Jones

Dan is editor of Investment Adviser and has been a financial journalist for the past nine years. Most recently news editor of a retail fund management publication, he is a previous recipient of the Investment Association's Trade Journalist of the Year award.

Jon Cudby

Jon is editor of Money Management and has 12 years' experience covering retail personal finance. In 2005, Jon was launch editor of FTAdviser and most recently he was head of online content for Incisive Media's financial services titles.

Tony Hazell

Tony is a freelance financial journalist, having been editor of Money Mail at the Daily Mail for a number of years. He has been writing a column in Financial Adviser since 2005.

John Lappin

John is a weekly contributor to Investment Adviser with 15 years’ experience in financial journalism and 10 years writing on the IFA sector. He was formerly editor of an IFA trade magazine.

Most Popular
More on FTAdviser