FSA fines treble to £97m
The FSA has trebled the value of fines it has collected from financial services businesses in just one year from £33.1m to £96.7m, says City law firm Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP.

RPC says there were 15 £1m+ fines last year worth £86.9m, up 216% from £27.5m the year before when there were eight.
Jonathan Davies, partner in RPC’s financial services team, says: “The FSA has now begun the internal reorganisation that will result in its replacement and these fines show that it is making every effort to go out with a bang.
“This is quite an extraordinary cranking up of the FSA’s enforcement activity. We are now beginning to see fines for conduct that occurred at the start of the credit crunch. There has been a steady increase in the number and value of fines imposed since September 2008, but this is by far the biggest jump.”
The FSA is being split into two bodies, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority. All but one of this year’s fine cases would, under the new split, have come under the jurisdiction of the FCA.
Davies adds: “A significant concern we hear from clients is that the two new regulators will compete with each other to set the highest fines, putting substantial upward pressure on the amount of fines the City gets hit with each year.”
According to RPC the average fine handed down by the FSA last year was up 49% on the year before, from £739,284 to £1,099,159.
RPC says that fines paid by firms are just one small element of the total costs to the financial services sector of enforcement activity.
Davies estimates that although roughly only half of the enforcement cases brought by the FSA result in a fine all investigations result in firms incurring substantial professional costs.
RPC explains that fines paid by financial services businesses are recycled to pay for the cost of regulation and the fines are becoming so big that the FSA is moving towards funding itself through its enforcement activity.
The FSA has amassed such high fines in the last year that in total firms will pay 2% less to fund regulation than they did last year, despite a 10% increase in the funding requirement from £454.7m last year to £500.4m for 2011/12.
Davies adds: “Reduced fees are only superficially attractive for financial services firms but as these result from higher fines that are sparking massive growth in compliance costs across the City they are a pyrrhic victory.
“The reality for most regulated firms is that they are spending much more on ramping up their compliance culture than they are saving in lower fees to pay for the City watchdog.”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Mortgage Strategy and Follow @mortgagestrat










Readers' comments (5)
Mr Old Fashioned | 11 Apr 2011 10:33 am
It is a virtuous circle, isn't it!
The more you raise in cash the more profitable your organisation is, and the more important you can claim to be to the organisation.
The more important you can claim to be the higher the salary or bonus you can claim to be entitled to.
And of course the higher the take in fines, the more money the organisation has to pay your righteously high salary & bonuses, not to mention your fat juicy pension.
If it were to continue in its current form, I would immediately apply to join the FSA.
Thankfully it isn't going to continue. But a thought has alarmed me. What will the natures of the beasts that are going to replce it going to be?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
dave | 11 Apr 2011 10:46 am
That should buy some nice new artwork in the chief executive's office!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11 Apr 2011 12:23 pm
Whilst I am not a fan of FSA, I believe the comments so far are missing the main point is that we have awful advisers giving terrible advice which is why the fines were levied in the first place. The culprits should have all been removed from Approved Persons list and barred from the financial services arena for good.
Yes there is a self - serving interest in raising money for unnecessary artwork and esoteric gadgets but that is down to the misguided vanity of the short sighted strategic vision at Canary Wharf
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Evan Owen | 11 Apr 2011 8:21 pm
And it still isn't enough to fill the black hole!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
john | 12 Apr 2011 8:50 pm
Mr Old Fashioned is quite right. Furthermore,how can there be such an unethical organisation that can improve "productivity" and hence bonus levels, simply by doubling charges, sorry fines (fine levels that is). Surely there should be a regulatory body to oversee such sharp practice.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment