Sir Philip Green vs Select committee
Discussion
avinalarf said:
Agree with the above and reiterate as I've said before,the banking fiasco was scandalous and the minimal,if any, personal retribution against those who benefitted hugely financially ,especially in the UK is scandalous.
What 'personal retribution' do you deem appropriate for people who have done nothing illegal? avinalarf said:
Once again the regulations were either not there,or not enforced,indeed governments were just as culpable,in awe to the financial machinations that were going on.
This form of Capitalism is so corrosive and destructive and is no friend to the majority of entrepreneurs that work their arse off but are prepared to have a moral compass.
However legislation should have been in place to curb the excesses of the greedy and unscrupulous.
I doubt whether it will as it will need to be agreed by all the major players globally.
Greed is Good....no it bloody isn't .
And yet no one was complaining about this 'excess' pre-2007 when it was drying the economy, leading to record tax receipts and higher public spending...This form of Capitalism is so corrosive and destructive and is no friend to the majority of entrepreneurs that work their arse off but are prepared to have a moral compass.
However legislation should have been in place to curb the excesses of the greedy and unscrupulous.
I doubt whether it will as it will need to be agreed by all the major players globally.
Greed is Good....no it bloody isn't .
Edited by sidicks on Monday 1st August 16:39
Digga said:
crankedup said:
Murcielago_Boy said:
Burwood said:
re Fred Goodwin, yes he had a £700K p.a pension. He agreed (forced) to give up £200k.
True story, I did a stint at RBS. Fred didn't want anyone to know he has a private jet so the bank purchased an aircraft leasing company. Technically the other company owned the jet, not RBS (no jet on the books thanks) They kept the jet in France. The costs to run it were much greater than normal because the crew had to fly into the UK to pick him up. Aviation rules meant an overnight for the crew. I recall a flight to Spain would cost all in about £150k when you factored in the frequency and running costs. His wife and friends used the jet, his wife has a high end car with driver. That guy absolutely milked that cow(the bank) for all its worth. He was so arrogant, he bought ABN Amro and didn't even conduct proper DD. £10B in toxic debt was lurking on their balance sheet. The guy single handedly destroyed ABN/RBS and sucked Billions from the treasury.
How did the rest of board approve this behaviour?True story, I did a stint at RBS. Fred didn't want anyone to know he has a private jet so the bank purchased an aircraft leasing company. Technically the other company owned the jet, not RBS (no jet on the books thanks) They kept the jet in France. The costs to run it were much greater than normal because the crew had to fly into the UK to pick him up. Aviation rules meant an overnight for the crew. I recall a flight to Spain would cost all in about £150k when you factored in the frequency and running costs. His wife and friends used the jet, his wife has a high end car with driver. That guy absolutely milked that cow(the bank) for all its worth. He was so arrogant, he bought ABN Amro and didn't even conduct proper DD. £10B in toxic debt was lurking on their balance sheet. The guy single handedly destroyed ABN/RBS and sucked Billions from the treasury.
Where the F**K were the shareholders? What the hell?!
Edited by Murcielago_Boy on Monday 1st August 14:48
ts the bed.sidicks said:
And yet no one was complaining about this 'excess' pre-2007 when it was drying the economy, leading to record tax receipts and higher public spending...
1) The banks should have had their own due diligence in place that regulated against such bad practice that would inevitably blow up in their faces.2) The financial bodies should have been more aware of the machinations of the USA banks that were bundling up toxic mortgage loans and passing the parcels,just a Ponzi scheme.
3) "no one was complaining"....well you can hardly expect your average Joe to know what was going on.
They rely on the Government and financial regulators to keep a watch.
I really don't understand where you're coming from on this subject.
Will you please extrapolate.
avinalarf said:
1) The banks should have had their own due diligence in place that regulated against such bad practice that would inevitably blow up in their faces.
2) The financial bodies should have been more aware of the machinations of the USA banks that were bundling up toxic mortgage loans and passing the parcels,just a Ponzi scheme.
3) "no one was complaining"....well you can hardly expect your average Joe to know what was going on.
They rely on the Government and financial regulators to keep a watch.
I really don't understand where you're coming from on this subject.
Will you please extrapolate.
You haven't explained what 'personal retribution' should apply to those acting legally but incompetently (albeit in some cases, only with the benefit of hindsight) - who is this referring to?2) The financial bodies should have been more aware of the machinations of the USA banks that were bundling up toxic mortgage loans and passing the parcels,just a Ponzi scheme.
3) "no one was complaining"....well you can hardly expect your average Joe to know what was going on.
They rely on the Government and financial regulators to keep a watch.
I really don't understand where you're coming from on this subject.
Will you please extrapolate.
avinalarf said:
sidicks said:
And yet no one was complaining about this 'excess' pre-2007 when it was drying the economy, leading to record tax receipts and higher public spending...
1) The banks should have had their own due diligence in place that regulated against such bad practice that would inevitably blow up in their faces.2) The financial bodies should have been more aware of the machinations of the USA banks that were bundling up toxic mortgage loans and passing the parcels,just a Ponzi scheme.
3) "no one was complaining"....well you can hardly expect your average Joe to know what was going on.
They rely on the Government and financial regulators to keep a watch.
I really don't understand where you're coming from on this subject.
Will you please extrapolate.
sidicks said:
avinalarf said:
1) The banks should have had their own due diligence in place that regulated against such bad practice that would inevitably blow up in their faces.
2) The financial bodies should have been more aware of the machinations of the USA banks that were bundling up toxic mortgage loans and passing the parcels,just a Ponzi scheme.
3) "no one was complaining"....well you can hardly expect your average Joe to know what was going on.
They rely on the Government and financial regulators to keep a watch.
I really don't understand where you're coming from on this subject.
Will you please extrapolate.
You haven't explained what 'personal retribution' should apply to those acting legally but incompetently (albeit in some cases, only with the benefit of hindsight) - who is this referring to?2) The financial bodies should have been more aware of the machinations of the USA banks that were bundling up toxic mortgage loans and passing the parcels,just a Ponzi scheme.
3) "no one was complaining"....well you can hardly expect your average Joe to know what was going on.
They rely on the Government and financial regulators to keep a watch.
I really don't understand where you're coming from on this subject.
Will you please extrapolate.
It was cynical manipulation of derivatives to make huge profit.
I have stated several times that the legislation wasn't in place and therefore accept that there could be nothing much done in the form of punishment,I'd made that pretty clear in previous posts.
Edited by avinalarf on Monday 1st August 18:29
avinalarf said:
I don't think it was, in most cases,incompetence with regard to the banks,in the USA.
It was cynical manipulation of derivatives to make huge profit.
Which derivatives are you referring to? I thought you were tailing about the banking crisis of 2008?It was cynical manipulation of derivatives to make huge profit.
avinalarf said:
I have stated several times that the legislation wasn't in place and therefore accept that there could be nothing much done in the form of punishment,I'd made that pretty clear in previous posts.
Ok, so what exactly are you expecting to happen? What is 'scandalous' about people Not being prosecuted for NOT committing any offences?The market and monetary meltdown of 2007/8 will be pored over and over for decades to come. Without a doubt students now and future will learn much from studies into the catastrophe and how it came about. Those deemed to have been responsible will have their names churned out in narrative and speech, as a warning which we hope will be heeded. Having said that I expect another great meltdown in the future, not if but when.
sidicks said:
avinalarf said:
I don't think it was, in most cases,incompetence with regard to the banks,in the USA.
It was cynical manipulation of derivatives to make huge profit.
Which derivatives are you referring to? I thought you were tailing about the banking crisis of 2008?It was cynical manipulation of derivatives to make huge profit.
avinalarf said:
I have stated several times that the legislation wasn't in place and therefore accept that there could be nothing much done in the form of punishment,I'd made that pretty clear in previous posts.
Ok, so what exactly are you expecting to happen? What is 'scandalous' about people Not being prosecuted for NOT committing any offences?It's really not that difficult to understand my argument and I'm pretty sure you do,but for some reason you decide to comment on a part of my post without reading my whole comment.
What I expect to happen is that apposite legislation be put in place that holds fully responsible those banks and individuals in those banks to suffer the consequences of their reckless behaviour.
You must know that,for example,if I ,as a company director,continue to trade whilst knowing the company is insolvent,there
is legislation in place to sanction me.
Which dirivitaves ? I'm referring to the bundling up of toxic mortgage loans by some of the USA banks.
Now if dirivitaves is not the correct expression,forgive me,but I suspect you jolly well know what I meant.
I understand from previous posts that you are informed in this topic and maybe your work is in this field.
My expertise lies in retailing and the associated fields.
It would help the debate if you politely explained to me where you thought I was mistaken rather than arrogantly trying to score points.
I'm certain I could tie most people,without my knowledge of retailing,up in knots but as I'm a lovely geezer I prefer not to ridicule a person but instead give them the benefit of my knowledge in polite debate.
Edited by avinalarf on Monday 1st August 20:43
avinalarf said:
You are not reading the thrust of my comments but prefer to be competitive.
That is not the case - you're just not making a coherent point!avinalarf said:
It's really not that difficult to understand my argument and I'm pretty sure you do,but for some reason you decide to comment on a part of my post without reading my whole comment.
I'm happy for you to clarify the point you are trying to make...avinalarf said:
What I expect to happen is that apposite legislation be put in place that holds fully responsible those banks and individuals in those banks to suffer the consequences of their reckless behaviour.
So that's seemingly an expectation for the future (recognising the such rules may not have existed in the past...) - no-one would disagree that rules should be put in place to discourage reckless behaviour'. As an aside, ironically the EU decision to try and implement lower bonuses and higher base salaries does the opposite. Breaking the rules would mean that you are liable to prosecution.
However, your claim is that:
"Agree with the above and reiterate as I've said before,the banking fiasco was scandalous and the minimal,if any, personal retribution against those who benefitted hugely financially ,especially in the UK is scandalous".
Which makes no sense, given you've already agreed that the actions of (the vast majority) of people involved were not illegal. I'm still not clear whether you are referring to the 2008 banking crisis or the more recent Libor issues?
avinalarf said:
You must know that,for example,if I ,as a company director,continue to trade whilst knowing the company is insolvent,there
is legislation in place to sanction me.
Yes, if you break law you are subject to prosecution. And your point?is legislation in place to sanction me.
Edited by sidicks on Monday 1st August 20:50
crankedup said:
The market and monetary meltdown of 2007/8 will be pored over and over for decades to come. Without a doubt students now and future will learn much from studies into the catastrophe and how it came about. Those deemed to have been responsible will have their names churned out in narrative and speech, as a warning which we hope will be heeded. Having said that I expect another great meltdown in the future, not if but when.
No different to the great crash. People are greedy - everyone is, prime example people wanted better savings interest so went to Icelandic saving offering 5.5% and all happy about it as they have beaten the normal rates. However s
t hits the fan they want their money back not happy about the risk they had taken. No one really knows what event actually kicked off the Great crash but people saw it coming for years yet even those bright enough and in the game kept going - why? Human nature.
The 1999 dot com bust everyone was greedy investing in things which never had nor ever would make any money yet it was a get rich quick thing. Maybe people thought I'll go for it but know it's high risk and I'll get out at the right time and let some other mug take a bath at my benefit.
The 2000-2008 boom.
What went wrong?
Poor regulation - so rightly you operate within the rules. Heck if you could take home enough bonus to see you your kids and grand kids good never having to work again & legally wouldn't you do it? I would.
The Fed should have bailed out Lehmans Bro it was a small player and instead of chronic financial meltdown it could have been managed over a long period.
The U.K. Labour govt was poor spend spend spend and borrowing heavily during "the good times" they are the leaders so Joe Bloggs looks at them and follows suit. But that govt ruined lives made them shackled to the handouts and a decade or so went by these individuals trapped in a cycle and now very much suffering and making noise about being in trouble - fact is they were never not in trouble but in the past a big plaster was placed on it.
Speculation on Oil overinflated he cost base and made ruinous investment decisions - in fact Scotland Nearly based their separate future on it. Snake oil springs to mind.
Maybe it was deliberate by the USA following 9/11 to give people an uplift after such horrific terrorism on home soil. Maybe we all needed a bit of feeling some good.
sidicks said:
avinalarf said:
You are not reading the thrust of my comments but prefer to be competitive.
That is not the case - you're just not making a coherent point!avinalarf said:
It's really not that difficult to understand my argument and I'm pretty sure you do,but for some reason you decide to comment on a part of my post without reading my whole comment.
I'm happy for you to clarify the point you are trying to make...avinalarf said:
What I expect to happen is that apposite legislation be put in place that holds fully responsible those banks and individuals in those banks to suffer the consequences of their reckless behaviour.
So that's seemingly an expectation for the future (recognising the such rules may not have existed in the past...) - no-one would disagree that rules should be put in place to discourage reckless behaviour'. As an aside, ironically the EU decision to try and implement lower bonuses and higher base salaries does the opposite. Breaking the rules would mean that you are liable to prosecution.
However, your claim is that:
"Agree with the above and reiterate as I've said before,the banking fiasco was scandalous and the minimal,if any, personal retribution against those who benefitted hugely financially ,especially in the UK is scandalous".
Which makes no sense, given you've already agreed that the actions of (the vast majority) of people involved were not illegal. I'm still not clear whether you are referring to the 2008 banking crisis or the more recent Libor issues?
avinalarf said:
You must know that,for example,if I ,as a company director,continue to trade whilst knowing the company is insolvent,there
is legislation in place to sanction me.
Yes, if you break law you are subject to prosecution. And your point?is legislation in place to sanction me.
Edited by sidicks on Monday 1st August 20:50
I was referring to the 2008 banking crisis.
avinalarf said:
We appear to agree on this Topic,which I suspected all along.
I was referring to the 2008 banking crisis.
So what 'derivatives were manipulated' during the banking crisis?I was referring to the 2008 banking crisis.
What rules were broken during the banking crisis?
Who do you want to be prosecuted for the banking crisis and for what offence?
Welshbeef said:
crankedup said:
The market and monetary meltdown of 2007/8 will be pored over and over for decades to come. Without a doubt students now and future will learn much from studies into the catastrophe and how it came about. Those deemed to have been responsible will have their names churned out in narrative and speech, as a warning which we hope will be heeded. Having said that I expect another great meltdown in the future, not if but when.
No different to the great crash. People are greedy - everyone is, prime example people wanted better savings interest so went to Icelandic saving offering 5.5% and all happy about it as they have beaten the normal rates. However s
t hits the fan they want their money back not happy about the risk they had taken. No one really knows what event actually kicked off the Great crash but people saw it coming for years yet even those bright enough and in the game kept going - why? Human nature.
The 1999 dot com bust everyone was greedy investing in things which never had nor ever would make any money yet it was a get rich quick thing. Maybe people thought I'll go for it but know it's high risk and I'll get out at the right time and let some other mug take a bath at my benefit.
The 2000-2008 boom.
What went wrong?
Poor regulation - so rightly you operate within the rules. Heck if you could take home enough bonus to see you your kids and grand kids good never having to work again & legally wouldn't you do it? I would.
The Fed should have bailed out Lehmans Bro it was a small player and instead of chronic financial meltdown it could have been managed over a long period.
The U.K. Labour govt was poor spend spend spend and borrowing heavily during "the good times" they are the leaders so Joe Bloggs looks at them and follows suit. But that govt ruined lives made them shackled to the handouts and a decade or so went by these individuals trapped in a cycle and now very much suffering and making noise about being in trouble - fact is they were never not in trouble but in the past a big plaster was placed on it.
Speculation on Oil overinflated he cost base and made ruinous investment decisions - in fact Scotland Nearly based their separate future on it. Snake oil springs to mind.
Maybe it was deliberate by the USA following 9/11 to give people an uplift after such horrific terrorism on home soil. Maybe we all needed a bit of feeling some good.
If I was young and could play football so well I would be employed by Man Utd or whoever. Be paid a kings ransom to kick a bag of wind about , morally I see no problem, but I personally value many other professional people far higher and yet they are rewarded far less. It seems that if you want big earnings you either play with balls or play with pretend money in computers.
sidicks said:
avinalarf said:
We appear to agree on this Topic,which I suspected all along.
I was referring to the 2008 banking crisis.
So what 'derivatives were manipulated' during the banking crisis?I was referring to the 2008 banking crisis.
What rules were broken during the banking crisis?
Who do you want to be prosecuted for the banking crisis and for what offence?
In your opinion what caused the banking crisis of 2008 ?
What,if any,legislation do you think,should be introduced to avoid or at least alleviate the probability of a similar crisis in future ?
avinalarf said:
In order to inform my understanding of the subject,let me agree with you that no laws were broken and therefore no prosecutions should have been sought.
Certainly the majority of those that could be prosecuted were prosecuted.avinalarf said:
In your opinion what caused the banking crisis of 2008 ?
This has been discussed on this forum many times, so we shouldn't take this too far off topic, but it was a combination of:- Greedy individuals borrowing excessively
- Greedy governments encouraging (and in some cases mandating) excessive credit as it helped increase tax revenues and allowed them to spend wildly
- Greedy banks taking advantage of the situation
- Poor regulators who didn't understand what they were regulating
avinalarf said:
What,if any,legislation do you think,should be introduced to avoid or at least alleviate the probability of a similar crisis in future ?
- Tighter controls on credit for individuals- Closer scrutiny of government policy
- Regulators with the right experience and oversight - need the right regulation not just more regulation
- Better risk management within banks
- increased clawback for bank employees
sidicks said:
avinalarf said:
In order to inform my understanding of the subject,let me agree with you that no laws were broken and therefore no prosecutions should have been sought.
Certainly the majority of those that could be prosecuted were prosecuted.avinalarf said:
In your opinion what caused the banking crisis of 2008 ?
This has been discussed on this forum many times, so we shouldn't take this too far off topic, but it was a combination of:- Greedy individuals borrowing excessively
- Greedy governments encouraging (and in some cases mandating) excessive credit as it helped increase tax revenues and allowed them to spend wildly
- Greedy banks taking advantage of the situation
- Poor regulators who didn't understand what they were regulating
avinalarf said:
What,if any,legislation do you think,should be introduced to avoid or at least alleviate the probability of a similar crisis in future ?
- Tighter controls on credit for individuals- Closer scrutiny of government policy
- Regulators with the right experience and oversight - need the right regulation not just more regulation
- Better risk management within banks
- increased clawback for bank employees
I have to agree with all of that.
BTW,the dirivitaves I was referring to were MBS.
Correct me if I'm wrong but was it not,in simple terms,the parcelling up of mortgages,many of which were toxic,in the sense that they were never going to be repaid,the prime reason for the crisis ?
The banks then sold and bought these MBS's which proved toxic.
Apart from greed,did the banks just not concern themselves with the worth of these MBS's ,only to keen to make a buck ?
Or did they know and just passed the parcel ?
And why did it all blow up in 2008 ?
avinalarf said:
...was it not,in simple terms,the parcelling up of mortgages,many of which were toxic,in the sense that they were never going to be repaid,the prime reason for the crisis...
ISWYM but it depends how far you want to take it.Without Clinton-Achtenberg and gov't mandating non-recourse ninja mortgages over many years by abusing equal opps under egalitarian delusion, there wouldn't have been that level of toxic debt to wrap in fancy paper. Clinton is at the root of it, along with his enforcer.
avinalarf said:
Thank you.
I have to agree with all of that.
BTW,the dirivitaves I was referring to were MBS.
Correct me if I'm wrong but was it not,in simple terms,the parcelling up of mortgages,many of which were toxic,in the sense that they were never going to be repaid,the prime reason for the crisis ?
The banks then sold and bought these MBS's which proved toxic.
Apart from greed,did the banks just not concern themselves with the worth of these MBS's ,only to keen to make a buck ?
Or did they know and just passed the parcel ?
And why did it all blow up in 2008 ?
If banks knew they were 'toxic', why did they buy them?I have to agree with all of that.
BTW,the dirivitaves I was referring to were MBS.
Correct me if I'm wrong but was it not,in simple terms,the parcelling up of mortgages,many of which were toxic,in the sense that they were never going to be repaid,the prime reason for the crisis ?
The banks then sold and bought these MBS's which proved toxic.
Apart from greed,did the banks just not concern themselves with the worth of these MBS's ,only to keen to make a buck ?
Or did they know and just passed the parcel ?
And why did it all blow up in 2008 ?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff