Obama fuels fire of Banking hysteria
22 January 2010, 09:28 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obama fuels fire of Banking hysteria
So banks should not be too big to fail.
Banks should pay back the taxpayer before their own bonuses.
Retail banks should not be allowed to run or invest in Hedge Funds.
Retail banks should not be allowed to run or invest in Private Equity deals.
Retail banks should not be allowed to trade on their own behalf.
All seems pretty sensible, except it isn't.
If this happens, supported by a puppet Government here in London, either Tory or Labour, it will cause the break up of Barclays and will lead RBS to become loss making. Neither of which is good for the UK or the taxpayer.
It will also totally avoid the cause of the problem. Hedge Funds, PE or proprietary trading not were the cause of the financial crisis. The only contribution they make are headline grabbing profits and bonuses
There is some sense in better regulating reserving and debt load - just as there was post the Great Depression.
All because he lost the Kennedy seat up in New England and needs to prop up a war in Afghanistan and distract from an ailing Health Bill.
The only hope is that the UK Government water all this down and the US Banks all move to London!
Banks should pay back the taxpayer before their own bonuses.
Retail banks should not be allowed to run or invest in Hedge Funds.
Retail banks should not be allowed to run or invest in Private Equity deals.
Retail banks should not be allowed to trade on their own behalf.
All seems pretty sensible, except it isn't.
If this happens, supported by a puppet Government here in London, either Tory or Labour, it will cause the break up of Barclays and will lead RBS to become loss making. Neither of which is good for the UK or the taxpayer.
It will also totally avoid the cause of the problem. Hedge Funds, PE or proprietary trading not were the cause of the financial crisis. The only contribution they make are headline grabbing profits and bonuses
There is some sense in better regulating reserving and debt load - just as there was post the Great Depression.
All because he lost the Kennedy seat up in New England and needs to prop up a war in Afghanistan and distract from an ailing Health Bill.
The only hope is that the UK Government water all this down and the US Banks all move to London!
Last edited by Trout; 22 January 2010 at 09:33 AM.
22 January 2010, 10:24 AM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's too early to be able to condemn Trout's analysis as "wrong" because nobody really knows the ramifications of what Obama is advocating.
Personally i think he could have put in measures to prevent a repeat of 2008's events without beginning the wholesale dismantling of the investment banking industry.
What's your take on it then, Warren?
Personally i think he could have put in measures to prevent a repeat of 2008's events without beginning the wholesale dismantling of the investment banking industry.
What's your take on it then, Warren?
22 January 2010, 12:46 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Don't worry, our goverment hasn't got the ***** to stand up against the banks.
Myners: UK will not impose Obama-style banking reforms | New Model Adviser ® | Citywire
You create a country based on the financial industy at the expense of all others and appear surprised when the financial world catches the mother of all colds?
You then do everything you can to support this broken industry at the expense of the stupid tax payers.
What you don't do is allow a couple of banks to fall, allow your currency to become devalued, make your country a good proposition to outside manufacturing industry, put jobs into the hands of those that were born here and make your country a worthwhile place to be out of the ashes of a country completely based on the financial equivelent of f*ck all.
No, best no do that.
Myners: UK will not impose Obama-style banking reforms | New Model Adviser ® | Citywire
You create a country based on the financial industy at the expense of all others and appear surprised when the financial world catches the mother of all colds?
You then do everything you can to support this broken industry at the expense of the stupid tax payers.
What you don't do is allow a couple of banks to fall, allow your currency to become devalued, make your country a good proposition to outside manufacturing industry, put jobs into the hands of those that were born here and make your country a worthwhile place to be out of the ashes of a country completely based on the financial equivelent of f*ck all.
No, best no do that.
22 January 2010, 12:51 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would not claim to be any kind of an expert with regard to banking practices.
It nevertheless seems wrong to me that they should pay themselves such enormous bonuses for doing the job they were paid very well for doing and using the taxpayers' cash to make themselves into millionaires after their abject failure in the first place!
Les
It nevertheless seems wrong to me that they should pay themselves such enormous bonuses for doing the job they were paid very well for doing and using the taxpayers' cash to make themselves into millionaires after their abject failure in the first place!
Les
Trending Topics
22 January 2010, 01:15 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
The problem was/is that the people who made these decisions had contracts. These contracts granted bonuses (probably) irrespective of performance.
The decision makers got it wrong BUT the contract says they get £££££ in their pocket. To then stop the bonuses would be a breach of contract and the newly government purchased bank would be shelling out double the bonus in court costs and damages.
The decision makers got it wrong BUT the contract says they get £££££ in their pocket. To then stop the bonuses would be a breach of contract and the newly government purchased bank would be shelling out double the bonus in court costs and damages.
22 January 2010, 01:29 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think he has ***** and agree with what he is trying to do. Banks are borrowing cheap, taking huge risks, making massive profits, yet when they get it wrong the taxpayer bails them out and we all pay for it. To be fair when I put my money in a bank I want it to be safe. If I want to take risk I'll do it myself. It's about time someone stood up and got to grips with an industry that is turning more crooked by the day.
22 January 2010, 01:39 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by TelBoy; 22 January 2010 at 01:40 PM.
22 January 2010, 01:44 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contracts of Employment are being thrown in the bin for BA Cabin Crew ........ no-one cries for them.
Tear up these greedy fat bankers Contract too - shove the contact right up their rear end and take everything they own off them, to pay us back
Tear up these greedy fat bankers Contract too - shove the contact right up their rear end and take everything they own off them, to pay us back
22 January 2010, 02:03 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Class record holder at Pembrey Llandow Goodwood MIRA Hethel Blyton Curborough Lydden and Snetterton
Posts: 8,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there are quite a few of 'us' that took out a lot of toxic albeit poorly regulated loans
22 January 2010, 02:10 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem was/is that the people who made these decisions had contracts. These contracts granted bonuses (probably) irrespective of performance.
The decision makers got it wrong BUT the contract says they get £££££ in their pocket. To then stop the bonuses would be a breach of contract and the newly government purchased bank would be shelling out double the bonus in court costs and damages.
The decision makers got it wrong BUT the contract says they get £££££ in their pocket. To then stop the bonuses would be a breach of contract and the newly government purchased bank would be shelling out double the bonus in court costs and damages.
What kind of a contradiction in terms is that?
Les
22 January 2010, 02:14 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Its called employment law.
I don't agree of course and I believe the banks should have be allowed to fail. Rather than ween the population off debt, the country needs weening of the financial industry as its major source of funding.
Obama can say these things because the US isn't as tied to its financial sector as we are.
Theres plenty of eastern european countries that have debt which is highly likely to go toxic. Most of which have just joined the EU.
Last edited by EddScott; 22 January 2010 at 02:17 PM.
22 January 2010, 02:28 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a "bonus" in the sense that it isn't salary, it's a lump sum payment that doesn't benefit from any other perks such as pension contributions etc.
22 January 2010, 02:30 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22 January 2010, 02:38 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Well, as I understand it, during the 80s and particularly the 90s we became dependent on the financial industry as the primary source of income for the country. This is why we have been so badly affected by the economic downturn compared to other countries.
What I think would have been a better idea is to have allowed some banks to fall and allow sterling to become devalued. This would make the country unattractive to immigrants and attractive to foreign and UK manufacture. Couple this with a drive to get the workshy into the work force and with luck the country is no longer wedged in the pocket of the banks and actually has a manufacturing industry it can be proud of again.
The FSA might even be able to police the banks properly without being brow beaten into having to STFU or going after the easy option and f*cking about with the IFA sector for the umpteenth time just because the banks don't like IFAs.
What I think would have been a better idea is to have allowed some banks to fall and allow sterling to become devalued. This would make the country unattractive to immigrants and attractive to foreign and UK manufacture. Couple this with a drive to get the workshy into the work force and with luck the country is no longer wedged in the pocket of the banks and actually has a manufacturing industry it can be proud of again.
The FSA might even be able to police the banks properly without being brow beaten into having to STFU or going after the easy option and f*cking about with the IFA sector for the umpteenth time just because the banks don't like IFAs.
Last edited by EddScott; 22 January 2010 at 02:40 PM.
22 January 2010, 02:43 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah right, as a contributor to GDP you mean.
Allowing banks to fail though, i'm not sure that would have had the uncomplicated rosy outcome you predict. Some would argue that this mess would have been a whole lot less severe had Lehmans been bailed.
Allowing banks to fail though, i'm not sure that would have had the uncomplicated rosy outcome you predict. Some would argue that this mess would have been a whole lot less severe had Lehmans been bailed.
22 January 2010, 02:48 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I think would have been a better idea is to have allowed some banks to fall and allow sterling to become devalued. This would make the country unattractive to immigrants and attractive to foreign and UK manufacture. Couple this with a drive to get the workshy into the work force and with luck the country is no longer wedged in the pocket of the banks and actually has a manufacturing industry it can be proud of again.
22 January 2010, 03:26 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
the biggest thing that smacks me in the face and anoys the hell out of me in the first post is the bit about being loss making if the rules are enforced.
any other trade, job, etc etc that makes a loss, the business goes under, well perhaps rbs should be desolved, but in a controlled way rather than just crash out, if they can't make money.
why should banks have free reign to use tax payers money when there so inept they can't make money themselves?
any other trade, job, etc etc that makes a loss, the business goes under, well perhaps rbs should be desolved, but in a controlled way rather than just crash out, if they can't make money.
why should banks have free reign to use tax payers money when there so inept they can't make money themselves?
22 January 2010, 03:30 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
If the currency of your country is expensive compared to the rest of the world you will lose out when it comes to manufacturing or where a large mainly unskilled workforce is needed. Whether a UK company or foreign company makes no odds, they'll still move to Poland or some other low rent country.
If, due to an economic crisis, you allow your currency to lose value your country then starts looking attractive to those that would have gone to other less expensive countries for its workforce.
The downside to this is that if your country has become so dependent on being spoon fed by other countries (like us) everything imported becomes very expensive. Hopefully this will improve as the country gets used to making its own products again.
This should also reduce the burden on the social because if you no longer have imported workforce you need to get the workshy back in the game.
If, due to an economic crisis, you allow your currency to lose value your country then starts looking attractive to those that would have gone to other less expensive countries for its workforce.
The downside to this is that if your country has become so dependent on being spoon fed by other countries (like us) everything imported becomes very expensive. Hopefully this will improve as the country gets used to making its own products again.
This should also reduce the burden on the social because if you no longer have imported workforce you need to get the workshy back in the game.
22 January 2010, 03:39 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the currency of your country is expensive compared to the rest of the world you will lose out when it comes to manufacturing or where a large mainly unskilled workforce is needed. Whether a UK company or foreign company makes no odds, they'll still move to Poland or some other low rent country.
If, due to an economic crisis, you allow your currency to lose value your country then starts looking attractive to those that would have gone to other less expensive countries for its workforce.
The downside to this is that if your country has become so dependent on being spoon fed by other countries (like us) everything imported becomes very expensive. Hopefully this will improve as the country gets used to making its own products again.
This should also reduce the burden on the social because if you no longer have imported workforce you need to get the workshy back in the game.
If, due to an economic crisis, you allow your currency to lose value your country then starts looking attractive to those that would have gone to other less expensive countries for its workforce.
The downside to this is that if your country has become so dependent on being spoon fed by other countries (like us) everything imported becomes very expensive. Hopefully this will improve as the country gets used to making its own products again.
This should also reduce the burden on the social because if you no longer have imported workforce you need to get the workshy back in the game.
I was more intrigued as to how you managed to blend the banking systems troubles in with that old SN favourite...immigration?
Ultimately migrants will go where the jobs are (it's a lesson the massive migrant British workforce has known for years and years
)
22 January 2010, 04:14 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot on and yet there are those on here who think Maggie did no wrong and it is all Blair/Brown's fault - well no worries as Dave is coming and you will all get a timely reminder that a **** Conservative governmnet is as bad as a **** Labour government!!!!!
22 January 2010, 04:16 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
But this is exactly what has happened, we have devalued our currency significantly.
I was more intrigued as to how you managed to blend the banking systems troubles in with that old SN favourite...immigration?
Ultimately migrants will go where the jobs are (it's a lesson the massive migrant British workforce has known for years and years)
I was more intrigued as to how you managed to blend the banking systems troubles in with that old SN favourite...immigration?
Ultimately migrants will go where the jobs are (it's a lesson the massive migrant British workforce has known for years and years
)Immigration and a knackered and corrupt banking system is one of many troubles in this country that are easily blended into one long horror story.
As for british migrants, you will find that most are skilled workers who are placed in areas where their skills are required - oil, gas, call centres. I'm talking about unskilled labour that don't need a degree to put a washing machine together.
The country needs a complete economic makeover, not just a poor facelift that will leave us with the financial equivilent of MRSA.
Most of that is actually true.
Last edited by EddScott; 22 January 2010 at 04:19 PM.
22 January 2010, 04:47 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Class record holder at Pembrey Llandow Goodwood MIRA Hethel Blyton Curborough Lydden and Snetterton
Posts: 8,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Edd, our unskilled labour market is subject to a minimum wage and from a manufacturing POV those washing machines will be built cheaper elsewhere, exchange rates would have to self destruct to compete with other worldwide labour rates