Is the UK heading for a credit downgrade? Can Sterling hold?
Discussion
BarryGibb said:
Steffan said:
BarryGibb said:
davepoth said:
and Collateralised Debt Obligations, where nobody is fully aware of the risks they're buying into,
rly?The USA is prosecuting many Bankers and Mortgage packagers on just that basis currently.
The USA believe that the investors were deliberately misled as to the reality of the complex financial instruments used in package mortgages as were the FED, the FSA and Uncle Tom Cobley.
I agree with davepoth and the USA.
Very few individuals understood the real effect of what they were buying into. Certainly not the investors.
It was deliberate fraud and should be seen as such.
BarryGibb said:
Steffan said:
BarryGibb said:
davepoth said:
and Collateralised Debt Obligations, where nobody is fully aware of the risks they're buying into,
rly?The USA is prosecuting many Bankers and Mortgage packagers on just that basis currently.
The USA believe that the investors were deliberately misled as to the reality of the complex financial instruments used in package mortgages as were the FED, the FSA and Uncle Tom Cobley.
I agree with davepoth and the USA.
Very few individuals understood the real effect of what they were buying into. Certainly not the investors.
It was deliberate fraud and should be seen as such.
The investors were introduced to a licensed qualifies advisor regulated by the authorities licencing such activities. The advisors are the ones charged with fraud.
If you think due diligence is required in a contract between a licensed qualified professional adviser and an investor seeking advice that is IMO incorrect.
Furthermore if you think that Due Diligence is a defence against fraud by misrepresentation which, is what this was, I think you are again mistaken.
The FSA is having none of this because it is only the taxpayers money which as I have said before the government recognise as mugs for the taking.
In addition the FSA would probably have to prosecute large numbers of their own authorised representatives. Not something they wish to do.
So in the UK its all down to the taxpayer over the next thirty years.
Good game Eh!
I would accept that the investors were foolish and naive. That is why the con men were able to procure this fraud and action should be take. It is in the USA.
Steffan said:
BarryGibb said:
Steffan said:
BarryGibb said:
davepoth said:
and Collateralised Debt Obligations, where nobody is fully aware of the risks they're buying into,
rly?The USA is prosecuting many Bankers and Mortgage packagers on just that basis currently.
The USA believe that the investors were deliberately misled as to the reality of the complex financial instruments used in package mortgages as were the FED, the FSA and Uncle Tom Cobley.
I agree with davepoth and the USA.
Very few individuals understood the real effect of what they were buying into. Certainly not the investors.
It was deliberate fraud and should be seen as such.
The investors were introduced to a licensed qualifies advisor regulated by the authorities licencing such activities. The advisors are the ones charged with fraud.
If you think due diligence is required in a contract between a licensed qualified professional adviser and an investor seeking advice that is IMO incorrect.
Furthermore if you think that Due Diligence is a defence against fraud by misrepresentation which, is what this was, I think you are again mistaken.
The FSA is having none of this because it is only the taxpayers money which as I have said before the government recognise as mugs for the taking.
In addition the FSA would probably have to prosecute large numbers of their own authorised representatives. Not something they wish to do.
So in the UK its all down to the taxpayer over the next thirty years.
Good game Eh!
I would accept that the investors were foolish and naive. That is why the con men were able to procure this fraud and action should be take. It is in the USA.
Similar to the UK when people were putting money in IceSave getting much more interest than other, safer banks.
You are absolutely right about Icesave.
The UK government simply refused to prosecute anybody and Lo! What a Surprise!
ONCE AGAIN the Taxpayer paid out all the investors. Without any hope of recovery or consultation.
Interestingly Iceland is prosecuting the then Prime Minister of Iceland at the time for his complicity in all of this.
Pity the UK government prefer to nobble the poor taxpayer. Every time.
The whole art of modern politics is to borrow far more than the country can afford and then make sure you are protected with an inflation proof pension and a future career in World Politics and that your palls are protected.
Next job is to spend even more taxpayers money to make sure you win the votes needed to gain reelection bought with Benefits largesse. Or borrow even more which is very appealing to Socialist nutters.
Fortunately it cannot last.
Hence my concern that the idiots in the Brown Government may have so increased our borrowings that the country cannot recover from their largesse.
The UK government simply refused to prosecute anybody and Lo! What a Surprise!
ONCE AGAIN the Taxpayer paid out all the investors. Without any hope of recovery or consultation.
Interestingly Iceland is prosecuting the then Prime Minister of Iceland at the time for his complicity in all of this.
Pity the UK government prefer to nobble the poor taxpayer. Every time.
The whole art of modern politics is to borrow far more than the country can afford and then make sure you are protected with an inflation proof pension and a future career in World Politics and that your palls are protected.
Next job is to spend even more taxpayers money to make sure you win the votes needed to gain reelection bought with Benefits largesse. Or borrow even more which is very appealing to Socialist nutters.
Fortunately it cannot last.
Hence my concern that the idiots in the Brown Government may have so increased our borrowings that the country cannot recover from their largesse.
Steffan said:
The whole art of modern politics is to borrow far more than the country can afford and then make sure you are protected with an inflation proof pension and a future career in World Politics and that your palls are protected.
Next job is to spend even more taxpayers money to make sure you win the votes needed to gain reelection bought with Benefits largesse. Or borrow even more which is very appealing to Socialist nutters.
AgreedNext job is to spend even more taxpayers money to make sure you win the votes needed to gain reelection bought with Benefits largesse. Or borrow even more which is very appealing to Socialist nutters.
BarryGibb said:
davepoth said:
and Collateralised Debt Obligations, where nobody is fully aware of the risks they're buying into,
rly?My understanding of it was that the due diligence only went back one or two levels at the most. That meant that they were usually only checking on other massive companies who were collateralising the CDOs they held and flogging it on, rather than the people who actually borrowed the money. The merry-go-round went on so long that it was incredibly difficult to figure out what the CDOs were originally based upon, until it all fell over and people started asking for money back.
Yesterday I said:
Nah.
It's the next boom I tells ya.
"Bullish brokers at Citigroup advised investors that the FTSE 100 index will rocket over the next 10 years."It's the next boom I tells ya.
experts forecast that the stock market could double in value in a decade
Look citi guys, if you're going to trawl PH for intel then at least cite the source
davepoth said:
BarryGibb said:
davepoth said:
and Collateralised Debt Obligations, where nobody is fully aware of the risks they're buying into,
rly?My understanding of it was that the due diligence only went back one or two levels at the most. That meant that they were usually only checking on other massive companies who were collateralising the CDOs they held and flogging it on, rather than the people who actually borrowed the money. The merry-go-round went on so long that it was incredibly difficult to figure out what the CDOs were originally based upon, until it all fell over and people started asking for money back.
BarryGibb said:
davepoth said:
BarryGibb said:
davepoth said:
and Collateralised Debt Obligations, where nobody is fully aware of the risks they're buying into,
rly?My understanding of it was that the due diligence only went back one or two levels at the most. That meant that they were usually only checking on other massive companies who were collateralising the CDOs they held and flogging it on, rather than the people who actually borrowed the money. The merry-go-round went on so long that it was incredibly difficult to figure out what the CDOs were originally based upon, until it all fell over and people started asking for money back.
baz1985 said:
If the ratings issued by Standard & Poor's (S&P), Moody's and Fitch were of critical importance they would have been side-lined long ago. It is preposterous to consider that 3 agencies with a combined revenue of circa $5.5bn can dictate terms to the global economy. In short, if they mattered they would be silently disbanded and marginalised.
The bond seller hires the agency.This is necessary to discover a price because of the lack of market transparency.
davepoth said:
BarryGibb said:
davepoth said:
BarryGibb said:
davepoth said:
and Collateralised Debt Obligations, where nobody is fully aware of the risks they're buying into,
rly?My understanding of it was that the due diligence only went back one or two levels at the most. That meant that they were usually only checking on other massive companies who were collateralising the CDOs they held and flogging it on, rather than the people who actually borrowed the money. The merry-go-round went on so long that it was incredibly difficult to figure out what the CDOs were originally based upon, until it all fell over and people started asking for money back.
BarryGibb said:
Can do, but I have very little sympathy for anyone that went into those deals without knowing 100% of the underlying. I would be surprised if they made up a large percentage of the CDO total notional.
They didn't need to really - CEO walks into the back room and says "What's our CDO liability?", and the backroom guy says "I have no idea".Looking at some of the big finance houses, they were running debt/equity ratios of 30:1 or more, so if 3% of their CDOs were CDO^ns, then they would be looking at potential bankruptcy in the worst case, and they had no idea how bad it might be.
davepoth said:
BarryGibb said:
Can do, but I have very little sympathy for anyone that went into those deals without knowing 100% of the underlying. I would be surprised if they made up a large percentage of the CDO total notional.
They didn't need to really - CEO walks into the back room and says "What's our CDO liability?", and the backroom guy says "I have no idea".Looking at some of the big finance houses, they were running debt/equity ratios of 30:1 or more, so if 3% of their CDOs were CDO^ns, then they would be looking at potential bankruptcy in the worst case, and they had no idea how bad it might be.
BarryGibb said:
I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. What is your background in this area?
A-level in Maths. However, I know that if you have debts totalling 300 GBP, and assets totalling 10 GBP, you are a bit stupid. If someone calls in 11 GBP of that debt and you have no possibility of refinancing it, you have a problem. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff