Paid cash in, counted and weighed. Bank now disputes figure.
Discussion
sidicks said:
avinalarf said:
I never doubted your financial knowledge I do question some of your conclusions as to who should carry the can.
You say that the US govt. FORCED the banks to lend money as mortgages to borrowers that did not fulfill good practice criteria.
Why ?
If the banks knew these loans might well prove toxic why didn't they request the govt.to provide security against that risk ?
If the mortgages were bundled into risk profile CDO's why were they not easy to recognise ?
They were, if the investor bothered to do the due diligence...You say that the US govt. FORCED the banks to lend money as mortgages to borrowers that did not fulfill good practice criteria.
Why ?
If the banks knew these loans might well prove toxic why didn't they request the govt.to provide security against that risk ?
If the mortgages were bundled into risk profile CDO's why were they not easy to recognise ?
Indeed many investors wanted sub-prime included as this increased the yield payable on the notes, as they were of the view that they were protected from large numbers of defaults by the subordination in the structure.
avinalarf said:
Surely if the highest risk CDO's were a very small percentage of the total it would have been possible to isolate them ?
1. Who said they were a small part of the total?2. How would you 'isolate them'?
3. Many investors had highly levered exposures.
avinalrf said:
So why did the financial institutions treat all those CDO's as toxic and the market in them totally evaporate ?
1. Small numbers of defaults caused collateral calls on highly leveraged investors which led to fire sale of assets regardless of underlying values.2. Banks did not know the exposures other banks had to these risks and hence they were reluctant to lend to each other, drying up market liquidity.
avinalarf said:
You say that no laws were broken,so be it,but that doesn't mean that their was not sharp and reckless practice.
Why was it 'sharp' practice? Banks packaged up risk to sell to other investors, allowing them to originate more loans, providing liquidity to the wider economy. Isn't that what banks are supposed to do?Reckless?
As you have observed, 99.9% of European AAA RMBS securities paid all coupons and maturity payments expected. Banks invested in the RMBS issues of other lenders (and other jurisdictions) to increase diversification and thereby reduce risk.
avinalarf said:
It is nigh impossible,in a Capitalist society that is market driven,to impose tight laws for every circumstance.
That leaves it to the financial institutions to behave in a responsible fashion,which in this case they did not.
Which bit was irresponsible? It's only really with the benefit of hindsight that the severity of the liquidity issues can be understood. The banks were holding high quality AAA assets on their balance sheet.That leaves it to the financial institutions to behave in a responsible fashion,which in this case they did not.
I've been in business all my life and if I'd exposed or leveraged myself in such a manner I would accept that I had been foolhardy to act in such a manner.
If I told you that I'd put all my money on a share that tanked what would you say to me?
To me your arguments are contradictory.
I think we can agree that the CDO's with the highest yields were those that had the greatest risk element,therefore it should have been possible for the banks to see which those were.
If not,why not ?
So if it was impossible to say what was in the tranches of debt that the banks owned it means that the banks acted without due caution.
It's like a giant Ponzi scheme,in which the banks and some bankers enjoyed vast profits and then when the s
te hit the fanthey said "not me gov,didn't see that coming".
Tell me Sidicks'why are the top bankers paid fortunes to head up these companies if it's not too take responsibility when their decisions go so badly wrong ?
What is the justification for the profits being privatised and the losses having to be picked up by the man in the street.
You talk about the benefit of hindsight,if anybody puts themself in a position where they are so leveraged that it is impossible to extricate themselves without going skint whose fault is that ?
avinalarf said:
Granfondo said:
UK banks invested £1.4 Billion with Bernie Madoff chasing the easy money and Sidicks keeps mentioning "due diligence" 
Buonasera Granfondo.Come stai.
I often holiday in Italy and always visit Tuscany,whereabouts do you live ?
Granfondo said:
UK banks invested £1.4 Billion with Bernie Madoff chasing the easy money and Sidicks keeps mentioning "due diligence"
For a clever man I really don't understand where's he's coming from.All I can gather from his input is that the banking crisis was nobodies fault ,just an unfortunate thingy,nothing to see here.
If one of my managers fecked up so badly he'd be on his bike.
CarlosFandango11 said:
Did the cashier make an error with the OP's cash? The cashier counted and weighed the cash, despite the OP stating that he thought it was £60 short. The evidence says that the OP probably did deposit £5k.
When banks make mistakes, they are not legally entitled to take £60 from peoples accounts to make up for it.
When there is only £4940 of cash you are not legally entitled to an extra £60 which isn't there, even if this error wasn't identified until later. The bank are within their right to correct their error.When banks make mistakes, they are not legally entitled to take £60 from peoples accounts to make up for it.
avinalarf said:
After reading your comments I cannot escape the feeling that the banks acted irresponsibly.
I've been in business all my life and if I'd exposed or leveraged myself in such a manner I would accept that I had been foolhardy to act in such a manner.
If I told you that I'd put all my money on a share that tanked what would you say to me?
To me your arguments are contradictory.
Where did i say that banks were highly leveraged? It was other investors who were highly leveraged and forced to liquidate assets, thus depressing prices.I've been in business all my life and if I'd exposed or leveraged myself in such a manner I would accept that I had been foolhardy to act in such a manner.
If I told you that I'd put all my money on a share that tanked what would you say to me?
To me your arguments are contradictory.
avinalarf said:
I think we can agree that the CDO's with the highest yields were those that had the greatest risk element,therefore it should have been possible for the banks to see which those were.
If not,why not ?
So if it was impossible to say what was in the tranches of debt that the banks owned it means that the banks acted without due caution.
Eh. I said the opposite, investors doing due diligence could see what assets were held. And 99.9% of AAA rated assets held by banks paid all their coupons and interest payments, exactly as expected.If not,why not ?
So if it was impossible to say what was in the tranches of debt that the banks owned it means that the banks acted without due caution.
avinalarf said:
It's like a giant Ponzi scheme,in which the banks and some bankers enjoyed vast profits and then when the ste hit the fan
they said "not me gov,didn't see that coming".
It's nothing like a ponzi scheme, so your analogy fails.te hit the fanthey said "not me gov,didn't see that coming".
avinalarf said:
Tell me Sidicks'why are the top bankers paid fortunes to head up these companies if it's not too take responsibility when their decisions go so badly wrong ?
What happened to the people at the top?What happened to the shares of the people at the top off banks who received a bailout?
Wh benefitted from the decade of cheap credit prior to the crisis that saw record tax receipts (and hence record public spending)?
avinalarf said:
What is the justification for the profits being privatised and the losses having to be picked up by the man in the street.
The 'man in the street' didn't pick up the tab - the bailouts were repaid with interest and those outstanding are an asset of the UK.avinalarf said:
You talk about the benefit of hindsight,if anybody puts themself in a position where they are so leveraged that it is impossible to extricate themselves without going skint whose fault is that ?
They weren't 'so leveraged', as explained previously.Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 21st February 20:15
avinalarf said:
For a clever man I really don't understand where's he's coming from.
All I can gather from his input is that the banking crisis was nobodies fault ,just an unfortunate thingy,nothing to see here.
If one of my managers fecked up so badly he'd be on his bike.
i've said nothing of the sort - I didn't have you down as someone who misrepresents what other people say, sticking to their own inherent prejudices.All I can gather from his input is that the banking crisis was nobodies fault ,just an unfortunate thingy,nothing to see here.
If one of my managers fecked up so badly he'd be on his bike.
Shame.
bugmenot said:
When there is only £4940 of cash you are not legally entitled to an extra £60 which isn't there, even if this error wasn't identified until later. The bank are within their right to correct their error.
Really? On what basis do you make that claim. The OP has a receipt for £60. What proof is there that his £60 is the amount outstanding?sidicks said:
Really? On what basis do you make that claim. The OP has a receipt for £60. What proof is there that his £60 is the amount outstanding?
Realistically the £60 that the OP walked away from the branch with is the £60 that has now been identified as missing from the earlier £5000 deposit.As an example, let's say I want to deposit £1000 into my account. The cashier types an extra 0 on her keyboard and accidentally deposits £10,000 instead. I have a receipt for £10,000 but am I entitled to the extra £9000... NO!
bugmenot said:
Realistically the £60 that the OP walked away from the branch with is the £60 that has now been identified as missing from the earlier £5000 deposit.
As an example, let's say I want to deposit £1000 into my account. The cashier types an extra 0 on her keyboard and accidentally deposits £10,000 instead. I have a receipt for £10,000 but am I entitled to the extra £9000... NO!
Realistically? More than likely.As an example, let's say I want to deposit £1000 into my account. The cashier types an extra 0 on her keyboard and accidentally deposits £10,000 instead. I have a receipt for £10,000 but am I entitled to the extra £9000... NO!
Legally? I doubt it.
bugmenot said:
When there is only £4940 of cash you are not legally entitled to an extra £60 which isn't there, even if this error wasn't identified until later. The bank are within their right to correct their error.
The evidence points towards there being £5,000 of cash being paid in.Not sure what error the bank made, but it's there problem not the OPs.
sidicks said:
avinalarf said:
For a clever man I rea lly don't understand where's he's coming from.
All I can gather from his input is that the banking crisis was nobodies fault ,just an unfortunate thingy,nothing to see here.
If one of my managers fecked up so badly he'd be on his bike.
i've said nothing of the sort - I didn't have you down as someone who misrepresents what other people say, sticking to their own inherent prejudices.All I can gather from his input is that the banking crisis was nobodies fault ,just an unfortunate thingy,nothing to see here.
If one of my managers fecked up so badly he'd be on his bike.
Shame.
I have no prejudice just a desire to understand what happened.
My frustration with your approach to this discussion is that however apposite your comments are they do not,to this layman explain ....
1) WHY was there such a catastrophic loss of confidence ?
2)WHO was responsible,whether through design or accident ?
3)If there was no lasting damage done why have new banking regulations been put in place ?
Your explanations are very helpful but to this layman they do not answer those questions.
Let me use the furore over Sir PG and the BHS pension deficit as an analogy.
It is agreed that no laws were broken but one is still left with the gut feeling that someone took advantage to greatly feather their own nest at the expense of innocent parties.
You may be irritated that your many comments on this subject are either misunderstood or misinterpreted but that's not just by me.
avinalarf said:
Where I have misrepresented what you have said I apologise.
I have no prejudice just a desire to understand what happened.
My frustration with your approach to this discussion is that however apposite your comments are they do not,to this layman explain ....
1) WHY was there such a catastrophic loss of confidence ?
2)WHO was responsible,whether through design or accident ?
3)If there was no lasting damage done why have new banking regulations been put in place ?
Your explanations are very helpful but to this layman they do not answer those questions.
1. Uncertainty and leverage exacerbated the underlying issues.I have no prejudice just a desire to understand what happened.
My frustration with your approach to this discussion is that however apposite your comments are they do not,to this layman explain ....
1) WHY was there such a catastrophic loss of confidence ?
2)WHO was responsible,whether through design or accident ?
3)If there was no lasting damage done why have new banking regulations been put in place ?
Your explanations are very helpful but to this layman they do not answer those questions.
2. Lots of people - regulators, governments, individuals, rating agencies, investors...
3. So that something similar can't happen again?!
avinalarf said:
Let me use the furore over Sir PG and the BHS pension deficit as an analogy.
It is agreed that no laws were broken but one is still left with the gut feeling that someone took advantage to greatly feather their own nest at the expense of innocent parties.
You mean the issue where BHS, like many schemes, moved into deficit due almost entirely to falling interest rates as a result of government policy?It is agreed that no laws were broken but one is still left with the gut feeling that someone took advantage to greatly feather their own nest at the expense of innocent parties.
That's another example of the 'outraged' majority not understanding the detail of what took place.
avinalarf said:
You may be irritated that your many comments on this subject are either misunderstood or misinterpreted but that's not just by me.
Certainly not, but in the past even though our opinions have differed, you've certainly been open to listening to the comments of those who have more direct expertise in the topic under discussion and not relying on the tabloids for your 'facts'. Further you've previously been able to see the issues as grey, rather than black or white!Just because I don't see the banks as solely and entirely responsible (or accept that everything that banks / bankers do is corrupt), doesn't mean that I think that no-one is responsible or that banks / bankers don't share a big part of the blame or that some bankers have acted immorally and abominably.
Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 22 February 09:52
sidicks said:
Certainly not, but in the past even though our opinions have differed, you've certainly been open to listening to the comments of those who have more direct expertise in the topic under discussion and not relying on the tabloids for your 'facts'. Further you've previously been able to see the issues as grey, rather than black or white!
Just because I don't see the banks as solely and entirely responsible (or accept that everything that banks / bankers do is corrupt), doesn't mean that I think that no-one is responsible or that banks / bankers don't share a big part of the blame or that some bankers have acted immorally and abominably.
Thank you,your comments above certainly explain your position with more clarity.Just because I don't see the banks as solely and entirely responsible (or accept that everything that banks / bankers do is corrupt), doesn't mean that I think that no-one is responsible or that banks / bankers don't share a big part of the blame or that some bankers have acted immorally and abominably.
Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 22 February 09:52
You do me a disservice by suggesting I rely on tabloid headlines for my "facts"
It is only in your last paragraph above that you clearly spell out that you agree that "some bankers share a part of the blame etc."
Previously I got the impression that you were saying however amoral the behaviour of the banks/some bankers,as long as it was within the law,it was ok.
Regarding the BHS pension deficit,once again I'm somewhat confused by your apparent absolution of PG of any "blame".
I run a business and would not consider it good practice not to plan for the "rainy days".
By pulling out exceptionally large chunks of cash from that business,in the good times, both by dividends and selling off of valuable freeholds it is hardly surprising that when things got tough there wasn't the money there to support the continuance of that business.
Maybe that is within the law but it left many people redundant and/or with reduced pensions.
In business things can go wrong but I suggest to you that the actions of PG exasperated the turn of events.
avinalarf said:
Thank you,your comments above certainly explain your position with more clarity.
You do me a disservice by suggesting I rely on tabloid headlines for my "facts"
I said the opposite.You do me a disservice by suggesting I rely on tabloid headlines for my "facts"
avinalarf said:
It is only in your last paragraph above that you clearly spell out that you agree that "some bankers share a part of the blame etc."
Previously I got the impression that you were saying however amoral the behaviour of the banks/some bankers,as long as it was within the law,it was ok.
I've never said any such thing, having posted on numerous discussions on this topic over a long period!Previously I got the impression that you were saying however amoral the behaviour of the banks/some bankers,as long as it was within the law,it was ok.
avinalarf said:
Regarding the BHS pension deficit,once again I'm somewhat confused by your apparent absolution of PG of any "blame".
I run a business and would not consider it good practice not to plan for the "rainy days".
By pulling out exceptionally large chunks of cash from that business,in the good times, both by dividends and selling off of valuable freeholds it is hardly surprising that when things got tough there wasn't the money there to support the continuance of that business.
Maybe that is within the law but it left many people redundant and/or with reduced pensions.
In business things can go wrong but I suggest to you that the actions of PG exasperated the turn of events.
Actions by PG didn't cause or exacerbate the deficit. However, a failing business was certainly ill-prepared to have to cope with the economic situation it subsequently faced. Of course the Trustees of the scheme should share some blame as they don't appear to have been holding the Sponsor to account in the way they should, from what I've read.I run a business and would not consider it good practice not to plan for the "rainy days".
By pulling out exceptionally large chunks of cash from that business,in the good times, both by dividends and selling off of valuable freeholds it is hardly surprising that when things got tough there wasn't the money there to support the continuance of that business.
Maybe that is within the law but it left many people redundant and/or with reduced pensions.
In business things can go wrong but I suggest to you that the actions of PG exasperated the turn of events.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff