A stroll down Whitehall In recent weeks ther have been a considerable number of posts discoursing on the questionable practices and activities in the Financial Services Industry and how the same names appear with disturbing regularity. Because this is a discussion board on Equitable Life , posts should link to the misfortunes of ELAS. While I am sure that many of the critical observations are amply justified , in a few cases , the links seem rather tenuous to this financial unsophisticate. For this and other reasons , may I enter a plea for these wise and learned Fools to turn their gaze west from the "City" and take a stroll down Whitehall and drop into the Treasury. Let us remember that the whole sorry story started with:(a) reckless mismanagement by the then ELAS board(b) gross failure of duty (amounting to negligence , some would say) by the Treasury and its subsidiaries (GAD, FOS, FSA). Do not forget that some of the names which regularly arouse the ire of posters to this board were not called in by a vote of members of a mutual society , but were "parachuted" in by ....... The Treasury. What were the reasons for the Treasury , or some , as yet un-named "Treasury Knight so to do: To protect the public interest? or To cover up The Treasury's own incompetence and , perhaps , pull its staff pension funds out of ELAS before the suckers ..sorry , ordinary members of the Society realised that something was badly amiss with the Society? I leave Fools to decide. It suits the Treasury very well to see all these scapegoats on whom unhappy ELAS members can vent their spleen , as it suits it to sow dissent within the ranks of ELAS e.g. WPAs v GARs , ELTA v EMAG , just about everybody v EMAG. A veritable barrel of "Red Herrings to mislead ELAS members?! Many of the other actors in the ELAS tragedy have been subjected to scathing , and some times vitriolic critcsm. Why should one of the leading actors (some might say , leading villain) be allowed to bask in anonymity , likely with a hefty bonus and gold-plated pension to boot. The case of Fred Goodwin has set a precedent. If he can be "de-knighted" even "Treasury Knights" might have to suffer the same fate. I , for one , would be "de-lighted". As I lurk about this board , I get the impression , mistaken or otherwise , that Fools seem strangely reluctant to pursue this line of discussion/investigation and I fail to understand why.
© Copyright 1998-2013, The Motley Fool Limited. All rights reserved. This material is for personal use only.The Motley Fool, Fool, and the "Fool" logo are registered trademarks of The Motley Fool, Inc.Place of Reg: England & Wales. Company Reg No: 3736872. VAT Reg No: 945 6990 68. Registered Office: 5th Floor, 60 Charlotte Street London W1T 2NU.
Page load time and server: