Rules, they apply to at least some of us…

Something that is sadly missing from the Patrick Neary involvement with Anglo is how the rules set up by a Regulator often apply to everybody bar them.

For instance, authorised firms are required to keep records for six years after the date of the transaction, the Central Bank not only didn’t keep records of the Anglo deal, they never made them to begin with it seems.

Here is a page of the various ‘codes’, you’ll note that none pertain the Central Bank, they don’t have any prescribed time frames to make responses, no service level agreement, no charter upon which to be externally judged. They have many pages on what everybody else must do, just none about themselves.

Chapter 11 of the Consumer Protection Code is solely dedicated to ‘keeping records’. It is safe to say that to an extent the financial services industry is the client of the Central Bank so why do they not keep records in the same manner as they firms they regulate must?

Failure results in sanctions (that means …

Read More

Insolvency Service Ireland putting regulation first?

The Insolvency Service of Ireland are already starting in on audits of regulated providers to ensure they have the proper procedures in place to deal with people correctly and that they are in adherence to the code.

From our perspective we see it as a very proactive move and a positive one for the regulated debt advisor sector. People complain all the time about ‘light touch regulation’ and it exists in part because the regulators in question are not out there looking into the affairs of the market participants, or the market participants are finding ways to duck the rules the normal firms have to abide by.

Regulatory arbitrage is thankfully not present in the PIP space the way it is in the debt mediation industry. You can’t call yourself a ‘Personal Insolvency Practitioner’ unless you actually are one whereas it is still the case that unregulated entities can call themselves debt mediators and charge for the service.

How long should they wait before the start a process like this given so few PIA’s have been done? No time at …

Read More

New ‘Consumer Protection Code’, the proposed CPC47 going forward.

The original Consumer Protection Code was brought out in 2006 and it was a welcome augmentation to the Regulatory environment, since the financial crisis began we are increasingly hearing calls for ‘more regulation’.

Naturally, good regulation is of benefit to both industry and consumers alike, perhaps industry is actually the greater beneficiary because faith in the financial system allows funds to flow freely and in turn financial firms can make profits with greater ease albeit at lower margins (increased competition tends to go hand in hand with that environment).

However, Regulation that is there to hog-tie or ‘get back’ at either beneficiary of regulation is flawed, so something that hammers banks or consumers is ultimately not an achievement but a regression, and for that reason I can’t help but feel sceptical about the new Consumer Protection Code which will come about from the briefings laid out in consultation paper 47 (recently closed).

Where are the key areas that the failure arose?

Bank …

Read More