'Regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland'

M

mercman

Guest
When we all listen to the Radio, watch TV or read the Newspapers the advertisements concerning Finance or Financial Products always refer and state 'Regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland.

What does this mean in an Irish context especially ?

I know of corporates and persons that have had their financial licences withdrawn or companies that have been reprimanded but the same entities continue in business as if nothing has happened.

Is this regulation a fad were in reality it means nothing ?

Comments please.
 
The Central Bank of Ireland require that all firms regulated by it must carry that line on letterhead, advertising, websites etc.

The same Central Bank / Financial Regulator has not exactly covered itself in glory of recent times - between Patrick Neary's apparent lack of recollection of lots of important matters in relation to the banking crisis, then later the Central Bank's awareness that Custom House Capital's affairs were not in order but they allowed them to continue trading. There's a body of opinion among some decent brokers that being forced to include the line "regulated by the Central bank of Ireland" could actually damage their brand or leave them open to ridicule.
 
I happen to be chairman of a regulated company, regulated as a Payments Institution. I can assure you that the regulation regime which now applies is intensive at every level, compliance is difficult and expensive, and significant sanctions are applied for breaches. I find it difficult to accept your comments as above
 
Would agree with Gulliver. The amount of information and regulation compliancy now erquired by CB is intensive to the point of extremeism. There is no level of slackness and any queries left either unanswered or incomplete are swiftly followed up.
 
It is a requirement under the Consumer Protection Code.

What does it mean to consumers? Very little really.

What does it mean in reality? From me to be regulated, I have to have all my tax affairs in order, be vetted by the Gardai, submit a business plan, I can only operate whilst solvent. In recommending a regulated product, I have to supply an minimum amount of information including why I think that product suits you. I have a code of conduct that I have to adhere to.

But the Central Bank has let itself down with its actions in high profile cases such as the Irish banks and Custom House Capital. Compare that to the Financial Conduct Authority in the UK, which not only bites as well as bears its teeth but also comes out with very informative papers on how financial advice should be given.

The Central Bank is far too focused on box ticking than looking at the realities.


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie
 
Gulliver said:
I happen to be chairman of a regulated company, regulated as a Payments Institution. I can assure you that the regulation regime which now applies is intensive at every level, compliance is difficult and expensive, and significant sanctions are applied for breaches. I find it difficult to accept your comments as above
Click to expand...

44brendan said:
Would agree with Gulliver. The amount of information and regulation compliancy now erquired by CB is intensive to the point of extremeism. There is no level of slackness and any queries left either unanswered or incomplete are swiftly followed up.
Click to expand...

I agree that compliance costs and effort are now huges issues for financial entities in this country but that is not the same thing as saying that our financial regulation works as well as it should.

It's all very well fining a few foreign banks relatively large amounts for technical breaches in liquidity and credit limits that the banks themselves discovered while at the same time allowing something like Custom House Capital to occur which was a disgrace and I will never understand why more wasn't made of it.
 
A completely meanlingless term probably from someone who came from a far away land called Narnia.
Yep, we heard it all over the place, but it had as much meaning as a teenager saying they will clean their bedroom.
Nothing was regulated in this country for a long time.
Sure everyone was too busy patting themselves on the back to regulate.

Now, as per the normal Irish over reaction to a problem that was in plain sight, too much being done too late.

If people and companies (not just the banks) were regulated, then a whole lot of things would be vastly different.

Q -I find it difficult to accept your comments as above..
Fair enough Gulliver, regulation was always there, but the majority of persons and entities that did the damage,
no regulation was ever enforced.

I'll stop myself before I start...
 
Proper regulation requires two elements:
1 Proper and professional oversight,
2 Prosecution for those caught in breach

We have a reasonable (6 out of 10) amount of the first, but none of the second. It is now some 4 years since the CHC fraud and no sign of any prosecutions.

The CB have overly focused on the larger financial institutions but smaller financial firms seem to get less attention. And when fraud is discovered it takes years to see any accused brought to Court.
 
Sunny said:
while at the same time allowing something like Custom House Capital to occur which was a disgrace and I will never understand why more wasn't made of it.
Click to expand...

They knew that CHC was taking client money without asking them. Their response, 'you need to fill out these forms getting explicit instructions going forward'. Instead of protecting the policyholders, they gave CHC another chance.

The support that the policyholders have got since is pitiful. People have had their life savings taken from them and are told nothing. There was no processes in place to deal with these kind of issues, the exact thing that the Central Bank is set up to deal with.

Meanwhile, I jump through numerous hoops to get authorised for anything, even though they already have everything I am sending them on file!

In saying that, the people I have dealt with are very nice but they prioritise the wrong things.



Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie
 
Gulliver said:
I happen to be chairman of a regulated company, regulated as a Payments Institution. I can assure you that the regulation regime which now applies is intensive at every level, compliance is difficult and expensive, and significant sanctions are applied for breaches. I find it difficult to accept your comments as above
Click to expand...
.....................................

As an example of Central Banks {regulation} {intensive}{compliance with Consumer Codes}{significant sanctions}
Look no further than to quote Mr Eugene Mc Erlean former head of AIB Group Internal Audit and now a senior advisor to Transperency International Ireland on his Sunday Indo comment 27th April 2014.
the headline was;
FEARFUL REGULATORS MUST CLIMB TO PENTHOUSE FLOOR.

Quote; { If the combination of the insipid PPI review, last week,s commercial van insurance debacle and the repeated unproductive attempts to tackle the mortgage arrears crisis are key indicators of our regulators effectiveness, then maybe light-touch regulation never really went away}
Quote; If you talk to any credit union or insurance broker they are likely to agree with Jim Kidney that our regulator is very good at (policing the broken windows at street level ) but rarely goes to the (penthouse floor)}

Methinks we continue to have plenty of regulations to frighten the small fry.

I am told on PPI Banks/Mortgage providers on the {insipid} review were found to have miss-sold in 22% of cases.
They still are operating and I see no great hit on them.
From your post I would think @22% you would and rightly so be closed down.
 
Gulliver said:
I happen to be chairman of a regulated company, regulated as a Payments Institution. I can assure you that the regulation regime which now applies is intensive at every level, compliance is difficult and expensive, and significant sanctions are applied for breaches. I find it difficult to accept your comments as above
Click to expand...

I think many of you seem to have missed the words "the regulation regime which now applies" in my comment above.
 
Very interesting replies. But the big but is clearly that Joe Public is been screwed to the eyeball and if he brings a case to the FSOB, they more than likely will find for the Provider and not for the Punter.

Example: I was sold financial products where they were completely mis-sold. The persons concerned mis-sold to me on four separate occasions. They both lost their jobs, had their licenses revoked, but they both are back selling financial products. In the first case they have a senior job in a UK company with Irish sub office, offering advice on new business. In the second case the person is selling the products of the company they were with originally.

Fitness and Probity in the Central Bank have all the records for the past eighteen months and have done diddly squat to save any members of the public from enduring their crookedness.

So the point I make is that the CB can say these companies are regulated, but IMO regulated for what ?? The only regulation that they behold is to keep their toilet facilities clean and well stocked with bog roll.

The Central Bank are fooling the people. I for one would never invest a single cent with a Financial Provider in this country again. And when I say NEVER I mean NEVER.
 
Gulliver said:
I think many of you seem to have missed the words "the regulation regime which now applies" in my comment above.
Click to expand...

Sorry Gulliver, but I am unable to agree with your comments in this regard. The big boys are running rings around the small lads and winning each and every time. It really is time for the authorities to treat all with the same rules, and to cease putting pressure on those that are playing by the rule book.
 
Gulliver said:
I think many of you seem to have missed the words "the regulation regime which now applies" in my comment above.
Click to expand...

We don't know though. Let's see when the next big case comes along and how they handle it.

From my own point of view, I haven't seen any change in the last number of years. But then, I haven't looked to be non-compliant.


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie
 
Gulliver said:
I think many of you seem to have missed the words "the regulation regime which now applies" in my comment above.
Click to expand...
..........

I clearly understand that your comments apply to the here and now.
.
Can you understand ,that someone of the knowledge and stature and integrity of Mr Mc Erlean does not make comments lightly.
Mr Mc Erlean strongly infers that the (top-tables) ie Banks will be left untouched .
I agree with you that small/mid players will well watched and hammered for breachs.

My opinion ,borne of experience(for what weight my views carry) is stongly of the view that we will continue to have
1. Plenty of Regulations.ie huge cost for you.
2. Little hard enforcement , unless you are a smaller business.
 
And remember, from 1 July 2014, there will not longer be a multi-agency or authorised advisor, which is a good thing as people assumed authorised advisors provided more independent* advice when that is not necessarily true.

They have now introduced Investment Intermediaries and Insurance Intermediaries which will just confuse everyone again.


*the Central Bank definition of independent is an advisor who offers a client the option to pay by fee or commission. You cannot be deemed independent if you only offer commission. This is at odds with the public perception of independent which is not tied to any one provider.


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top