A rather bizarre story reporting that AIB, a full 3 months in advance of a deadline for assessing the fitness and probity of certain staff under new legislation, have said they may not be able to do it.
The literal application of the legislation appears to be the issue, with AIB citing a number of around 10,000 staff covered by the definition in the consultation paper (p10 covers the piece about having control over the property of a customer, which appears to be the sticking point).
As Elderfield himself noted in his recent speech, this is supposed to be similar to the FSA approach (which I suspect will drive the as yet undefined Solvency II approach), and I don't believe they ask for administrators to be assessed. One senses that the aggressive regulatory approach currently being taken is leading to a closed door policy between senior staff in the regulator and industry - this kind of private correspondence leaking as a lobbying tactic is very unseemly.
An online repository for Solvency II, ERM and Corporate Governance material and comment from the Principal of Governance Matters, an independent Risk Consultancy firm based on the Isle of Man.
No comments:
Post a Comment