Following on from yesterday's article about the FSA wanting people to be afraid of its powers, it would seem that it has much more work to do if its dream is to ever become reality.
The Times reports that the FSA blocked an attempt last April by institutional investors in Royal Bank of Scotland to vote against Sir Fred Goodwin.
The FSA veto of a proposal to put all RBS directors up for re-election ensured that Sir Fred did not have to stand.
It seems that the FSA was afraid that a mass rebellion against the board would have destabilised the bank.
This raises the question, that has been asked so many times before:
Who exactly does the FSA serve, the shareholders or the banks etc that pay its fees?
On the basis of the above it would seem very clear the FSA is beholden to its paymasters in the City, rather than those it is meant to serve and protect.
Nothing will change until the tripartite system is abandoned and a new regulatory regime created, whereby the FSA is radically restructured or abolished.