Last year in the UK, it was made mandatory that all telephone and other mobile devices used by employees trading or offering advisory services in regulated financial services firms, had to be recorded. The technology exists to do this relatively easily and
is commonly used by many customer service centres globally outside of financial services to aid in any disputes and deter any wrong doing whether accidental or deliberate. It therefore seems somewhat absurd that the Diamond and Tucker phone calls were not
recorded. Had they been, much of the ambiguity and confusion over who said what and when that has emerged from the Parliamentary enquiry would have easily been resolved if there had been recordings. It seems the Tucker evidence and that of Diamond was based
on file notes and hazy memories of the meanings and the context of conversations. Some of these notes are procedural requirements and some regulatory but in a number of cases procedures were not totally adhered to. Hence we seem to have misunderstandings and
contradictory statements that during the Parliamentary enquiry look somewhat lax or which by some might be seen as a bit dodgy.
Why then is it that all phone conversations at such an important institution such as the Bank of England are not recorded or indeed at the Treasury and the FSA?
What is good for the goose has to be good for the gander and one hopes that today all those involved in regulatory finance whether at the FSA, Bank of England or the Treasury or for that matter any government agency, will soon have all their telephone conversations
recorded as they are enforcing financial services firms to do. The problem is who will sanction for none compliance? Perhaps we need another regulator?
© Finextra Research 2016