But can we see the result of the stress tests the new revved-up regulator has undertaken to see whether our broken banks are capable of withstanding a worst case economic scenario, just as our US counterparts have?

No we can't. The decision was announced by the FSA recently. The FSA’s reasoning is that although the stress-tests are ‘necessarily forward looking’ they are not forecasts of what is likely to happen. Instead they are designed to be deliberately severe, with an element of judgement on behalf of the regulator.

They are also not one-off exercises either, the FSA says, but instead are being ‘embedded’ into the regulator’s ‘intensive supervisory regime’, as an ‘integral element of our ongoing supervisory approach’.

So there you go then, to all of you worried about the safety of your retail deposits or the value of your banking shares. Or even those of you facing the prospect of years of higher tax bills to pay for the bailout. No worries, apparently the FSA has it all under control.

Now forgive my cynicism, but I am not convinced that the FSA does have it all under control. Or even most of it. For one, the withholding of any information like this makes me instinctively suspicious, especially when these banks still have stacks of dodgy toxic assets on their books. Just look at how MP’s fought to prevent the disclosure of their expenses claims to see how secrecy can create suspicion.
 
And in any case the FSA hasn’t yet regained my full confidence in the ‘trust us we know what we are doing’ stakes. Don’t you think  we have a right to see this kind of information given the scale of the taxpayer bailout, the amount of retail deposits at stake, and the almighty mess the regulator made of things last time round?