“Reactive rather than proactive”, “didn’t do their job properly” and “failed to prevent the financial crisis” are just three of the headline themes identified in the responses from 1,470 firms which took part in the survey.
Conducted over a four-week period from 19 February to 18 March, the survey was unique because it took a more forward-looking approach than previous efforts.
Not only did the regulator want to know how it had fared under the moniker FSA but also how respondents felt it would do under the two-pillar framework as the FCA.
You know what they say about not asking a question unless you want to know the answer… So here it is, in all its multi-dimensional glory:
“There was a feeling, which had been observed in previous surveys, the FSA was bureaucratic and focused too much on the detail and ‘red tape’,” said the summary of the survey.
“There was also a perception the FSA adopted a one-size-fits-all approach in the way they regulated firms."
This is particularly interesting because in its communication with advisers on selecting model portfolios and centralised investment processes back in April 2012 the FSA urged them not to shoe-horn investors into a one-size-fits-all solution.
“Firms also felt – quite strongly – the implementation of initiatives was poor. This theme was particularly strong among firms that have been impacted by the RDR.
“Respondents believed RDR was pushed through with no real thinking about how it would work in practice; the timescales and costs of implementation were unclear, and this resulted in the industry being hit with higher charges,” it continued.
Find out the shocking figures behind the headline claims by clicking through to the next page…
Firms’ satisfaction with the regulator (the FSA at the time of interview) is said to have recovered from its dip in 2010 and returned to the 2008 level:
- 16% of respondents were dissatisfied (between one and three out of ten)
- 38% were somewhat dissatisfied (scoring between four and six out of ten)
- 45% recorded a score which equates to being satisfied (between seven and ten out of ten)
This compared with 2010 scores of:
- 19% dissatisfied
- 48% somewhat dissatisfied
- 31% satisfied
Effectiveness of the regulator:
- 37% consider the FSA to have been ineffective
- 39% consider the FSA to have been somewhat ineffective
- 24% consider the FSA to have been effective
What can make FCA more effective?
- 80% said clearer regulation was important
- 65% said more staff with industry experience was important
- 63% said FCA staff being more willing to give opinions is very important
How would you class your satisfaction level with the FSA? Did you think it was effective, and do you think the FCA could be more effective? Let us know in the comments box below…
