I then wonder what effect increased regulation has had on that cost.
Certainly increasing regulatory costs will always ultimately be passed on to the public.
I have to wonder if over-regulation is the reason and what the public actually get for their money, after the consumer darlings in the press have sold their newspapers and magazines on the strength of mis-selling scandals.
Have reported mis-selling scandals abated? No!
Did this high level of regulation stop the credit crunch? er... No!
Robert Sinclair of AMI, with regards to the FSA's costs in regulating mortgage, said the following:
"Any review must consider the value for money of current regulation. It should be remembered that the Mortgage Code Compliance Board (MCCB) looked after around 10,000 firms and 38,000 registered sales staff at a cost of £4.4 million per annum. This cost is less than the increase in actual costs required by FSA to cover the same, but smaller, sector this year. The FSA has a cost budget this year of £15.6 million for the sector. In the MCCB’s five years of operation it issued 9,945 reports following visits to firms. We would welcome the delivery of similar statistics for FSA on its five years of regulation."
Now I like value for money and on the strength of available data maybe we should bring back the MCCB?
It maybe that the audit commission is ready to assess the FSA's costs and maybe Hector Sants got wind of it when he started packing up his desk lat week.
