Hector Sants, who was in charge of regulation at the start of the credit crisis, has been knighted. It is in recognition for services to financial regulation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20858164

But it is not funny....
Buying his co-operation?

Or was it that his ineptitude has enabled a regime that otherwise could not have been introduced?

I think it serves to prove, if any were needed, what an absurd system it is.

Of course this shower will give him a knighthood. His actions (or sometimes, in-actions) did more to bring down the last lot than probably any other single individual.

Of course his mates are going to reward him. Job done.

Why is anyone surprised? Hasn't Cameron always brown nosed the bankers and had inappropriate mates that he has rewarded?

He started his job two months before the Northern Rock collapse according to the story.


"He took the job as head of the FSA two months before the collapse of Northern Rock in 2007, which was followed by huge government bailouts for two leading banks, Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds TSB."


Perhaps more scouring required for you to have a genuine reason for getting your knickers in a twist. On another forum someone was moaning about the lack of black athletes getting a gong and somewhere else I was listening to paralympians moaning. I reckon I should be in line for one as I am really good at telling people on the internet they are wrong.

While trawling the Internet, perhaps someone might be able to find what it is that he has done to deserve his honour!

He was the chief exec of the FSA. Osborne thought he had done such a good job he asked him to stay and his reward was a knighthood. In fact he did such a good job at the FSA that Osborne is getting rid of it.

Yes but some other organisation will have to replace it and it will need someone to head it.

In the world of Finance and Banking there are no losers only a limited few who just move seats if things go wrong.
Remember the Bankers Motto "Heads we win - tails you lose"

1/ Proof please.

2/ Are you saying that Sants wasn't at the FSA from 2004 (Director of Wholesale and Institutional Markets) rising to CEO in 2007 ?

3/ Or are you saying he haxn'y been knighted in "recognition for services to financial regulation."

Where was the OP wrong?

My view is that to award anything to anyone in recognition of work in financial regulation under the current circumstances seems completely preposterous.

In pointing out an irony that wasn't there.

Not quite true is it? Or maybe you think Captain Smith should have been decorated for services to Marine Navigation because he'd only been the captain of the Titanic for a few days.

You not going to answer the other questions asked of you then? Baited breath here.

Not quite the same is it? It's not as though someone else set the course for the ship, ignored charts, set the speed then immediately before impact stepped aside and said "she's all yours cap'n". In the case of the FSA that is an approximation of what seems likely to have happened. Decisions and strategies over many months or years did or did not contribute to the financial meltdown.

No, I am not answering the other questions as they all presuppose that the OP was correct in laughing at the irony that wasn't there. Oh, and also because this is just the internet and I don't have to answer dorkish questions.

To some the elevated appointments of Mr S prior to taking the helm might suggest at least a passing awareness of the plot, and some active participation in its' preparation and implementation.

Had he come in from outside and immediately said 'Hard a'port, full astern, sound the alarm (even if only to key personnel)' then maybe some doubters would be less concerned.

Me, I doubt any of us know enough to be sure where accountability sits. At the moment 'bankers' are the whipping boys and girls but there are many other factors

Just because you refuse two accept it, doesn't mean it doesn't exists. It might be unfair, but that doesn't take away from what is apparent; irony was your choice of word, not mine.

How the heck can ANYONE justifiably accept a queens honour for their effort in the financial service industry, at this point in time? If you cannot see that, then there's little point in the discussion, especially as even you accept you are not fully aware of the facts either.

These are the facts: he was in charge at the point of the crash, we've experienced the worst financial crash in decades, millions face decades of financial misery, pensions are next to worthless, he's just received a queens award for his efforts in regulation. This would be either for the regulation before the crash, which means my point stands, or for after the crash, but wouldn't it be a but premature especially as it can take some time for policies to be seen to be functioning properly?

Quite. Besides, gongs are given out for longevity in many cases for senior civil servants, bankers, politicians etc. Besides, even if he had made a mistake in the run up to the meltdown, who is to say that he hasn't done an amazing job since? Should Churchill not be credited with supreme war leadership on the grounds of his role in the Dardanelles campaign?

We'll take that as a 'can't' then. Here chicky chicky chicky....

Any moron could answer 2 & 3, so I will let you do it with the help of Google.

As to the first one......

It happended on his watch. Giving out an award for services to financial regulation seems incredibly crass and or ill judged to say the least.

It was him, who at the inquiry was told that some of his answers 'weren't helping' wasn't it?

Except, apparently you.

Oh no, I'm sorry, you ARE able to answer them but you just can't be bothered. you know, the sort of person who makes silly-bugger statements and then refuses to back them up because, well, because their brain's simply too big. You'te not GMR are you?

I repeat: His was an award for his efforts in regulation. This would be either for the regulation in place before the crash, which means my point stands, or for after the crash, but wouldn't that be premature especially as it can take some time for policies to be seen to be functioning properly?

Why should I google them when someone with adequate google capability has already done it? Keep up the good work.

You mouthed off, were challenged, and then were unable to back it up.

Given second chance, you said you couldn't be bothered.

Thank you for filling in a few gaps about yourself for our future refernce.

Here's the Torygraphs take on it..

Take one from Fred but give one to Hector

I suspect the those who are responsible for selecting who is to be honoured were well aware of this situation. Rather nice to know that they don't just play to the gallery and dole out honours against what the masses might think. In this case, rather a lot was necessarily done behind the scenes as it was necessary to maintain some scant confidence in the system whilst the corrections took place. He was up against some very powerful and influential individuals. Yes, the economic mess we are in at the moment is very bad, but could have been far worse. Some justification then for recognising his efforts.

I see you found time to Google that

...or better had the department he worked for, and eventually headed, actually done their job! A knighthood for a department seen as failing and being replaced. The knighthood is vulgar. The poor overworked man has had to subsequently 'make do' with a multimillion pound job at Barclays.

As I've said twice already: his was an award for his efforts in regulation. This would be either for the regulation in place before the crash, which means my point stands, or for after the crash, but wouldn't that be premature especially as it can take some time for policies to be seen to be functioning properly?

DP

He may well have been instrumental in closing it down and working up the replacement. Common management tactic in commercial firms, where a group subsidiary starts to fail - send in a new man to put it right or take it out. Huge salaries to us seem wholly unjustified, but that's the market rate. He wouldn't get any respect from the rest of the industry if he was paid less. That's really a separate issue. Reading between the lines, the Treasury and the Bank of England seem quite pleased with him; things are now back on track in process terms at least. A knighthood is then a reasonable response.

Reward for failure, again. He presided over a department that failed to regulate effectively. If it is for subsequent work, then it is too early. My point about the multi million pound job is that he is well rewarded already, and the award just helps to exacerbate the ill feeling amongst many people.

Wasting your time. I think he / she's got you on 'ignore'

He's in the clear then. Thank heavens. I mean it's not as though under his time as regulator two of our biggest banks were given world record fines for knowingly laundering drugs money for the big cartels, and for terrorist financiers in the middle east, or a bank lost it's top chaps because of it's manipulation of the Libor rate is it?

I have sympathy for Andy Capp's view. With small businesses struggling to get affordable credit, or indeed any support from their bank as a result of the credit crunch caused, in part, by poor and naive regulation, to propose the individual concerned for an honour is at the very least insensitive, at worst another case of very poor judgement at the top of Government.

Oh do think things through before posting rubbish. They breached regulations and broke laws. So to use an analogy, when someone commits murder and is caught, it's parliament's fault as there was something wrong with the law?

You really are an insular bunch on here. No wonder it's always the same posters and no one new comes along. And because I went to bed and failed to respond a Telegraph link in 5 minutes, I have someone on ignore?

I think I might have to take a break. Idiot baiting is addictive.

Oh dear, forgot under which identity to login as?

Newres has admitted to being Squelchy (Re posts 27 and 32).

Not too difficult to catch you out again, was it?

Indeed, why not take a break and use the time to become better informed and also to sort out your identity crisis.

Now that was irony. And now I will explain why to the three active posters here and the 12 that read it. You said I was ill informed having just before called me Squelchy and accused me of having multiple identities. But it is actually you that is ill informed because I have never posted on this chat room under any identity than this one although I have previously registered.

Do show where I admitted to being Squelchy. You have a long way to go to catchup with Weavers Walk who is at least able to read and accuratelyish transcribe what he read through Google.

I reckon you would all be a lot more interesting if you debated the way we used to in the pub. Based on our own knowledge and debating skills. Google has uniquely performed the task of making idiots all over the world look moderately intelligent.

Anyway guys, Christmas is over and I have to get back to earning a crust. Not for me a job in the council where I can post and still get paid by the taxpayer alas.

Happy 2013.

Lets look at 'affordable credit'. Arguably, the bank failure was down to what were termed toxic loans. In other words the banks had been lending to people who couldn't pay back. What that actually meant was that they had relaxed their rules and started taking far bigger risks.

So then, after the failures, lesson 1 was reduce risk and stop reckless lending. What happens next? Some small businesses start squeaking that they can't get loans. What that really meant was that their business case doesn't stack up. Same with first time house buyers. At one time mortgage loans were on the basis of 3 times your income, that meant even though it was tight, you were likely to pay back. Now, could you even consider buying a home on an average local income even in Newbury.

Of course, to come out of recession, we need to invest in commercial opportunities but to stop us going back, the risks must be carefully assessed. Recently I've actually helped some small business ventures secure loans and that has generally meant re assessing the business case and making sure the risks are understood and to a degree mitigated.

No business wants lots of red tape and restriction, so the regulatory regimes have to strike a careful balance. Equally, they need to be seen as sound by our international trading partners. That means the honours function ibecomes more than just a personal reward. For both reasons, its justified in this case. He was given an almost impossible task.

newres: you might find that coming on here and calling people idiots for no apparent reason other than they disagree with your less than candid views, will not win you many admirers.

As for anyone else sympathetic to the award bestowed, it would take someone with a very narrow minded point of view to fail to recognise the inappropriateness of awarding high office with knighthoods that have systemic failed the nation in such a profound way. Even if the individual himself was not at fault.

Not sure if this helps or hinders, but since it's one of my posts being quoted, I'll expand on it.

I have p.m'd 'Squelchy' in the recent past with a few links that I thought he / she might find useful. I mentioned 'Newbelly' in one of them. Sadly, I have deleted the reply, but it went something along the lines of = Squelchy seems to spend all day working with idiots, and didn't see why he / she had to put up with them in his / her spare time. I took that to mean that 'Newbelly' had probably been put 'on ignore' and he / she was therefore no longer able to read posts from 'Newbelly'. Hence my observation that Newbelly may be wasting their time trying to chat to them.

That was all, in no way was I saying that anyone here was anybody else. nor should my post be taken to suggest any such thing.

Thank you

Quite the reverse I would suggest. Someone who can see and understand the wider picture; rather than simply following the baying of the mob! I'd argue that to close your mind to any alternative opinion demonstrates a strictly parochial view at best.

(Just for the same of clarity I'm not 'newres' either!)

I did not close my mind to your opinion, only that you appear to not to see why it is an issue. You go even further and imply you understand the merits behind the decision, although I doubt you do and are merely speculating.

I am well aware that the 'masses' did not like the award of this honour. I am well aware of the reasons. I can also see why this honour was given and therefore do not see it as an issue. How dare you say that I am simply speculating about the merits of the decision implying that I do not know what I am talking about. That is offensive and I must ask you to withdraw that statement.

I did have a full response for you, but on second thoughts I think it would be more appropriate to explain that I regret you are offended, but I feel I don't deserve your ire based on the posts I have made. Indeed, I don't feel you can justifiably state that I have closed my mind to your suggestion, I merely cast doubt on its merits. I never said or implied that you didn't know what you were talking about; that is a distortion of events.

I don't believe that people deserve high reward for digging one out of a mess that they helped to put us in in the first place. It is the least they could do.

I am willing to accept that. However as to the correctness of the award I will continue to have confidence in the judgement of the Honours Committee, the Prime Minister and the Palace secretariat. I also do not intend to repeat what I've said earlier save to say that my personal experience also supports this.

I'm sure there has a been a number of deserving recipients, but surely recent history regards 'cash for honours' and indeed, the award of a knighthood and the subsequent removal for Fred Goodwin must cast doubt in the integrity of the awards system?

The awards system has never been perfect. Now certainly better that when it started and people were rewarded simply for having intimate relations with the monarch. Of late its a lot cleaner, but we are dealing with humans. When Goodwin was given the honour, it was for charity and at the time, it appeared he was running his business with integrity. Regrettably even the Honours Committee aren't blessed with hindsight. The honours system may well be flawed, but apart from agreeing there should be one, no acceptable better alternative has yet been proposed. That some are even willing to try and bribe their way to an honour shows it still has some value.

He was knighted for his services to banking. I think the awards system should be more transparent. A proper citation for a start. Although you somewhat deride the idea of the 'masses' baying for blood, in the instance of the banking industry, I think they have a right. To the average Joe, the award to Hector Sants looks preposterous.

Wrong.





Spot on. Goodwin's knighthood, awarded in 2004 for "services to banking", was "cancelled and annulled" on 1 February 2012.

Gold star to you!