The regulator admitted it would only make public statements about its investigations into the banks if it takes action against the companies or their directors. Otherwise it is under no obligation to even admit the investigations have concluded, the Guardian reports.
It follows the controversy surrounding the FSA’s decision not to take action against former RBS bosses including its former chief executive Sir Fred Goodwin.
Most of the criticism facing the FSA focuses on the move to cite section 348 of the Financial Services and Markets Act as a reason not to publish the report by PriceWaterhouseCoopers into the events at RBS before it was bailed out.
A FSA spokesperson said: “If [our investigations] lead to enforcement action, then it would be usual for the FSA to make these outcomes public if such actions against individuals or institutions are successful.”
Meanwhile, Lord Oakeshott, a Liberal Democrat treasury spokesman, has demanded the PwC report into RBS be placed in the parliamentary library, redacted to protect the most sensitive information if necessary.
He said: “Where HBOS and RBS brought the British banking system to its knees it’s inconceivable that the FSA’s findings should not be published”.
The FSA is looking into disclosures made by the HBOS board around the time of its £4bn rights issue in 2008. The B&B investigation is similarly focusing on the way the company communicated with investors during its botched rights issue, also in 2008.
