The failed financial regulator, the FSA, has been having something of tough time recently owing to its own incompetence and crass handling of its 18 month investigation into RBS.
Having exonerated the board of RBS and company, the FSA steadfastly refused to publish any form of report. Clearly the concept of "transparency" is not understood by those who inhabit the ivory towers of the FSA.
However, having been subjected to a barrage of well deserved ridicule and criticism, the FSA "relented" and agreed to publish a redacted report in March 2011.
Needless to say, expectations about the quality of the report should not be raised too high. In order to publish anything, the FSA claim that they will need to garner the permission of RBS first (ie RBS will have editorial rights over the report).
Impressed so far?
However, this litany of incompetence does not not end here. It transpires that the FSA exoneration of the RBS board may in fact be nonsense, and that the investigation nothing more than an incompetent whitewash.
WikiLeaks have published a cable that summaries a meeting between Sir Philip Hampton, the new chairman of RBS, and 3 US politicians.
During the meeting Sir Philip allegedly noted that he thought that the previous RBS had failed to live up to their "fiduciary duties", and did not conduct adequate due diligence before buying part of ABN Amro in 2007.
That hardly fits in with the FSA whitewash that exonerates the previous board.
Could someone please tell me why the FSA is still in existence?