Azure Share Discussion Threads

[Abuse team] 24/12/2004 00:58

Post removed by ADVFN

[uknighted] 23/12/2004 22:23

And the same to you, Anomalous.
Thanks for your sterling work on behalf of the Action Group and small investors everywhere.

[anomalous] 23/12/2004 11:13

I would like to wish all members of the Room Service Shareholder Action Group and all our friends and supporters a wonderfull Christmas holiday.
Best Wishes
Anomalous

[Abuse team] 23/12/2004 02:43

Post removed by ADVFN

[Abuse team] 23/12/2004 02:17

Post removed by ADVFN

[bobby2424] 23/12/2004 00:19

Jaknife you'd love the shareholders to 'move on' but they are determined and they will see victory in 2005.Shore Capital and Winterfloods are just as guilty as EVO were.Season greetings to all.

[littlebert] 22/12/2004 11:44

Not read the thread for a while: Nice to see all the stories of 'victories' for the shareholders, more and more evidence of rules being stretched to breaking point by EVG employees in their market trading, reports of 'shorting' attacks on EVG itself,and tales of banks turning their backs on EVG future ventures.... but do you think they give a sh!t? They have been fined a fraction of what they have made from dubious practice, and their share price continues to go up, not down, since the reported short attacks. If the FSA is to come out of these investigations with any credibility, Evolution has to be seen to have been punished, and moreover, suffered. To date, they are like a playground bully who has robbed dinner money of fifty kids and been punished with a half hours detention.

[anomalous] 19/12/2004 22:26

Email has been sent. Please remove the address.

[anomalous] 19/12/2004 21:08

Skiboy 10 and vanhalen

There's an update out but yours bounced back.
Skiboy = Over quota
vanhalen = quota exceeded
Can you send me an email address that works please?

[Abuse team] 18/12/2004 02:03

Post removed by ADVFN

[shirishg] 17/12/2004 03:59

Post removed by ADVFN

[anomalous] 17/12/2004 00:29

City attacks FSA over costs burden
By Patrick Hosking, Investment Editor
The Times
17 December 2004

THE cream of the City lined up to lambast the Financial Services Authority (FSA) yesterday, accusing the regulator of forcing ever-heavier compliance costs on them.
The financial watchdog's regime placed "too great a burden" on firms, prevented the offering of new products and services and was detrimental to consumers, the Financial Services Practitioner Panel, an FSA monitoring body, concluded No fewer than 29 per cent of all City firms, including banks, brokers, advisers and fund managers, complained that compliance now accounts for more than 15 per cent of their total costs, according to a survey commissioned by the panel, which comprises 14 senior City figures.

Smaller retail firms were even harder hit, with 36 per cent of them saying that compliance expenses had breached the 15 per cent level.

More than half of all firms said they had reduced the nature or type of business they conducted because of costs. Accountants and solicitors were especially put off.

Concern over costs and other frustrations overshadowed more positive findings from the survey of 3,100 firms, the majority of which reckoned their relations with the FSA had improved in the past two years.

Jonathan Bloomer, the panel's chairman, chief executive of Prudential, said: "While some encouraging signs emerged from its findings, there is clearly still much room for improvement." He pointed to progress in reducing consultation papers, the FSA's preference for market-led solutions and its pragmatic approach to European legislation.

On costs, firms were not so much concerned about the levy imposed on all City firms as the level of investment in staff and systems to ensure they were compliant. The majority said the cost was "excessive" and only one firm in ten thought the expense was reasonable.

Nine out of ten think compliance costs will continue to rise. Many also attacked the FSA's cost-benefit analysis for underestimating the cost of new rules and overstating the likely benefits.

Firms also complained about the variable quality of FSA staff, with many saying they didn't show good understanding of their businesses. Technical guidance was sometimes unclear or inconsistent. In day-to-day areas, however, firms acknowledged slight improvements since the last survey in 2002.

John Tiner, FSA chief executive, said: "We take the question of the costs of regulation, particularly for small firms, very seriously." A new study into compliance costs was launched two weeks ago. "We believe that there may be scope to reduce their burden," he added.

The FSA defended the quality of its staff. More than half the 400 people recruited since April were previously employed by regulated firms, it said.

In sharp contrast to the claims in the survey, it pointed to a study last year by European Economics, which found that compliance costs were just 1.6 per cent of total costs.



And they missed the opportunity to fine Evolution £12.9 million?! Tut Tut.

[anomalous] 16/12/2004 18:13

>Very Quick - please respond if you want the money - if not, do you mind if the rest of the shareholders have it?

Can the rest of you that I emailed for information get in contact ASAP please, because if you don't you might miss out too.

[greenchair] 15/12/2004 11:15

VERY QUICK - 10 Dec'04 - 12:55 - 520 of 593


Greenchair: Yes that still my E-mail address.




VERY QUICK > You have mail. Please acknowledge if you receive, I'm unsure about your full mail address.

[Abuse team] 13/12/2004 16:54

Post removed by ADVFN

[anomalous] 07/12/2004 18:58

Vanhalen..........LOL