There were some interesting headlines this week and web comments in relation to the news that 200 FSA staff earned over £100,000 last year.
The two very emotive subjects of money and FSA were always going to produce this however I think that there are some important issues that need to be debated as to why this is.
We are in a regulated environment and as such we need to have a strong but fair regulator.
Does this come cheap - of course not.
We have already seen recently the statement from the FSA that they will require additional funding for the next year and head count will have to rise. The two initial questions must surely be why and what for?
This blog is not meant to be either FSA bashing or a lets get behind them rallying call but the start of a debate that Mortgage Introducer may want to pick up within its monthly journal in conjunction with our trade bodies?
I would list the start of the debate as a series of questions including but not exhaustively:
Why would we not pay decent wages to qualified, experienced staff?
Who would we qualify as the key people to warrant the salaries?
Is it the senior management, the policy makers, the divisional heads or the foot soldiers who deliver the majority of the service?
Is the quality staff being correctly rewarded?
How do we arrive at consistency across all sectors of the market?
Should the money be spent more on technology to cut down on the number of staff?
What effect or any will the Government cuts have on FSA budgets?
It may be an old cliché but it is true if you do not pay appropriately for the skill set it will be tempted away.
We see this on a regular basis within the Health Service, doctors and consultants become fully trained and then defect either partially or fully to the private sector where pay and conditions appear better.
This will be true in our world also where the City institutions can pay top dollar for experienced compliance personnel especially with FSA knowledge surely this must be invaluable.
Is there not a way that a formal exchange scheme or job share as with some NHS staff could be introduced where no conflicts of interest arise?
Is there a solution to this or am I just being naive?
A very popular request seems to be to close it down and pass over control to the Bank of England.
What will that achieve as surely the majority of staff will remain the same and it will just be a name change over the office in Canary Wharf?
Maybe it will allow a change of direction, time would tell.
It is clear that change of some description is required and maybe the debate should start here.
It is time to start a sensible debate about the future of our regulator.
