That stock News

Secondly, it would be illegal to publish the report in any case, need the consent of all parties concerned. Which raises the question, why the law operates perverse manner on an issue of national importance? And in this case, should not the FSA have applied to undertake another type of survey or requested a change in the law to the countless parliamentary process that took place in effect the bailout?

And, thirdly, that should not be another report because we fundamentally understand the causes of the financial crisis and the publication of a another slice of evidence will not allow questions. Which raises many questions to which I will return later.

"It would be possible to add a report when looking at the RBS story," Lord Turner wrote last week. "But it would add little if anything to our understanding of what went wrong." No story here, ladies and gentlemen, move along please.

For Lord Turner, is not only a bad argument built but it if turn out to be bad policy as well. It is not the best idea when you're the President appointed the Government regulator to seem not to take seriously the concerns of those in Government.

Lord Turner gave great advice before his last Wednesday comments. As the Sunday Telegraph revealed last weekend, George Osborne demanded that officials are watching the legal aspects of the CSR report and see if they can find a solution to the issue of the publication bans.

It is the boost in the number one offshore. A few hours before words of Lord Turner have been published to move the number two ribs. Lord Turner received a letter from Vince Cable, the Secretary of the company, demanding a meeting on the issue. Mr. Cable makes it evident, as this column indicates the last week that the Government should more in detail about the findings of RBS.

"You will recall that I wrote to you on 20 March 2009, seeking an investigation into RBS and serious failures in corporate governance," Mr Cable carefully written Recalling Lord Turner the FSA has received much notice to provide the correct type of investigation.

"I have sent proof of misconduct potential business, non-executive directors, the audit and compensation committees and the Board of Auditors appeared to have failed to deal with."

"I have overall responsibility for corporate governance and it is important that I understand the lessons to be learned the RBS experience and, in fact, the parallel investigation of HBOS."

Lord Turner - after initially seem to be ignoring the Government wants - and then is gone from bad to worse, when he then announced that, far from being that there is nothing to fear, he suddenly understood public frustration.

In an interview with The Telegraph, published Thursday, Lord Turner explained: "I feel uncomfortable with the current position and I recognize and respect the public desire to know that history was the story of why taxpayers ended up having to save RBS.". Which, for most observers is what is called a u-turn in political circles.

Lord Turner can explain his position when he meets Mr. Cable - a meeting that I learned happen before Christmas. Hector Sants, Chief Executive of the FSA, could also have a knife to her when he appears, tomorrow, on its first public platform since the storm broke.

If Lord Turner believes that we already know all the answers to the failure of RBS here are a few prompts for him and Mr. Cable chewing.

United States, the financial crisis Inquiry Commission had full access documentary for banks failed and decision-making around to them. Anton Valukas, counsel for the top of the country, has unravelled made up already a compound complex failures at Lehman Brothers. Why something like come here?

By Iceland, a parliamentary inquiry, report the truth, probed deeply into the crisis. By Switzerland, UBS has tested 10 separate applications.

In United Kingdom, we had a report on the collapse of Northern Rock. Why is there was no judicial accounts of RBS disaster?

Lord Turner review regulatory failure was a widespread investigation and is not enough. In addition, the request for a report is not, as Lord Turner said airily, because "some people will find someone to blame.

We have always not enough details about why the ABN Amro disastrous agreement was continued by RBS as the credit crunch was already engulfing the financial sector. What is the role of hedge funds in the agreement and what is the opinion of the banks and advisers?

Why does RBS withdraw from the agreement, invoking a clause in unfavourable, change once it was clear that financial markets have fundamentally changed? Why Sir Fred Goodwin to continue with the agreement after LaSalle, one of asset prices, has been sold?

Why the jury gave the agreement to proceed when he pushed the RBS capital base dangerously close to the regulatory minimum of 4pc, a level that would have laughed the Tribunal now?

The regulatory bodies, including the FSA approved submission and why? Regulatory to reduce the price pressure and, if so, that was ignored advice? How the risk function work in CSR? Who is responsible for the it and what is the detail of how it is reported to RBS?

And, once that we have addressed RBS, HBOS, another toxic debt is it unloads that nearly brought down the system?

Until such information is made available for Government, shareholders and the general public, the FSA will not silence critics well marshalled.

View the original article here