Correspondence: 06/03/2003 - Letter to John Tiner of the FSA from Alex Henney 6 May '03 - Letter from Alec Henney to John Tiner of the FSA Dear Mr. Tiner, I respond to your letter of 16 April. I note we have fundamentally different styles of writing. I put specific points, and you respond with generalities. If you disagree with my assertion in my submission to Penrose that the FSA has done nothing for the generality of members of the Equitable, perhaps you would let me know exactly what you think the FSA has done for us so that I can share some good news about the FSA with the members of EMAG. You mention regarding the provision of information that "relevant factors [to take account] include the benefit to policyholders of having the information, the ability of the firm to provide it and the cost of doing so (particularly when those costs will be borne by the policyholders)":-
Regarding the governance of big life mutuals (which your predecessor Michael Foot agreed was a concern), the FSA could have taken the initiative and made representations to the DTI about the need for special provisions in the Bill on "Modernising Company Law" related to the governance of such large mutuals. Even the board of the Equitable has finally recognised some of the shortcomings in the governance arrangements which we pointed out, and is proposing changes. But no thanks to the FSA. I imagined you listened to the recent Money Box programme and read the FT article "Monster task baffles watchdog" of 19 April. The time is overdue to split conduct of business regulation from prudential regulation because of the potential conflict of interest, which was realised in a big way with The Equitable. I am circulating relevant parts of our correspondence to various journalists. Yours sincerely, ALEX HENNEY |