Paid cash in, counted and weighed. Bank now disputes figure.
Discussion
Presumably the cashier's till was short £60 - this has then been found to be when your money was paid in.
You know that you paid in the right amount of money, but yu accepted £60 in case you made a mistake.
Fair enough, but now you know it was the cashier who made the mistake and the £60 belongs to the bank and not you.
You know that you paid in the right amount of money, but yu accepted £60 in case you made a mistake.
Fair enough, but now you know it was the cashier who made the mistake and the £60 belongs to the bank and not you.
sidicks said:
CDOs..
I'm hugely looking forward to your justification for the use of CDO's, especially synthetic ones. otoh, Yipper maybe meant CDSs. Maybe not quite as roflable especially with their 'sale' to unsophisticated investors who may not have realised they were ever being 'sold' anything at all, never mind an unpredictable financial time bomb.
Fancy justifying THEM too ?
sidicks said:
We shouldn't take this thread off topic, but I'm pretty confident of which one of us knows what they are talking about!
It's very clear now that there have been repeated cover ups by both HBOS and Lloyds banks of years-long, multiple, repeated multi million pound fraud.It's very, very clear - now there has been a years long trial, that banks and their cohorts treat people and their businesses in an appalling manner as and when they feel like it.
"Six people have been convicted following a six year Thames Valley Police investigation into a complex multi-million pound fraud involving bank employees and private business advisors dating back more than a decade"
http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/newsevents/newse...
I fail to see how, given such a high profile case bringing to light and proving these shocking practices by banks - you can dismiss someone who states a summary of exactly what numerous victims of this fraud actually experienced over a number of years? It would seem that you're in denial.
drainbrain said:
I'm hugely looking forward to your justification for the use of CDO's, especially synthetic ones.
What's there to justify - branching an investment to appeal to different types of investor based on their appetite for risk. Entirely reasonable investments if you understand them.drainbrain said:
otoh, Yipper maybe meant CDSs. Maybe not quite as roflable especially with their 'sale' to unsophisticated investors who may not have realised they were ever being 'sold' anything at all, never mind an unpredictable financial time bomb.
Fancy justifying THEM too ?
Who bought CDS but didn't understand what they were buying? Fancy justifying THEM too ?
I assume you mean unsophisticated investors who sold CDS rather than bought CDS? Or do you not understand this either?
S1_RS said:
stevensdrs said:
So you knew at the time having counted the cash yourself that the teller was making a mistake yet you kept schtum. Legally the bank doesn't have a leg to stand on but morally and to keep a good relationship with the bank you need to stump up the sixty quid.
I told the cashier I had counted it out, she replied that some of the notes had stuck together. The fact she then weighed them and said it was correct was enough for me to doubt myself, she counted and weighed, I only counted. Morally I don't think there is any need to give £60 to the bank.
S1_RS said:
I recently sold a car for cash so went to pay it in to my bank today, 4K in twenties in one account, 1K into another. I had counted both sums out. When I paid it in the cashier physically counted them out then weighed each bundle of notes, one bundle was apparently £40 over, another was £20 over so she handed me back £60, recounted and weighed the bundles and satisfied herself the figures were correct, then paid them in and gave me a receipt for both deposits. Fast forward 4 hours and the cashier phones me up and says a colleague checked the bundles and found them short. The cashier is now blaming her weighing scales saying they must be out. From a legal point where do I stand? Surely having been given a receipt they have no comeback after the event? They cannot be 100% certain the bundles in question were mine? Morally I will drop the £60 in to the bank but I'm not sure I really need to?
So you didn't give the £60 back to the person who overpaid for your car?Edited by S1_RS on Thursday 16th February 16:43
ReaderScars said:
It's very clear now that there have been repeated cover ups by both HBOS and Lloyds banks of years-long, multiple, repeated multi million pound fraud.
It's very, very clear - now there has been a years long trial, that banks and their cohorts treat people and their businesses in an appalling manner as and when they feel like it.
"Six people have been convicted following a six year Thames Valley Police investigation into a complex multi-million pound fraud involving bank employees and private business advisors dating back more than a decade"
http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/newsevents/newse...
Wow! 6 people! That's pretty conclusive that the entire system is corrupt...It's very, very clear - now there has been a years long trial, that banks and their cohorts treat people and their businesses in an appalling manner as and when they feel like it.
"Six people have been convicted following a six year Thames Valley Police investigation into a complex multi-million pound fraud involving bank employees and private business advisors dating back more than a decade"
http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/newsevents/newse...
ReaderScars said:
I fail to see how, given such a high profile case bringing to light and proving these shocking practices by banks - you can dismiss someone who states a summary of exactly what numerous victims of this fraud actually experienced over a number of years? It would seem that you're in denial.
It would seem that you don't understand the difference between a few crooks and "the entire UK banking system".You say people who had an appetite for the risk bought CDO's but it's my understanding that they were incorrectly rated and effectively missold. A bunch of junk mortgages bundled together with some good ones and given a AAA rating. I have very little understanding of the intricacies but it would seem to me that the people creating sub prime filled CDO's and selling them as low risk thanks to corrupt/bulls
t ratings knew what they were doing. It's not like just a few people were creating them on the sly.
What about libor fixing?
t ratings knew what they were doing. It's not like just a few people were creating them on the sly. What about libor fixing?
Just to reply to the people saying I should refund the cash to whoever bought the car, the 5K was part of a stash of about 9K made up of £6.1K from the sale of the car plus other cash I made selling off parts of it before I sold it. I have no way of knowing what cash was what as it was all in one pile. I did double check the cash from the sale of the car when I got home and that came out exact, if he had overpaid I would have refunded him without question. Although obviously my counting skills have now been called into question.
With regard to the bank I know exactly what would have happened had I withdrawn 5K and then gone home and found it was £60 short.
With regard to the bank I know exactly what would have happened had I withdrawn 5K and then gone home and found it was £60 short.
djc206 said:
You say people who had an appetite for the risk bought CDO's but it's my understanding that they were incorrectly rated and effectively missold. A bunch of junk mortgages bundled together with some good ones and given a AAA rating. I have very little understanding of the intricacies but it would seem to me that the people creating sub prime filled CDO's and selling them as low risk thanks to corrupt/bullst ratings knew what they were doing. It's not like just a few people were creating them on the sly.
1) You clearly don't understand the tranching process of a CDO (or similar) structuret ratings knew what they were doing. It's not like just a few people were creating them on the sly. 2) Did the banks rate their own mortgages, or was that a third party?
3) Is the credit rating a guarantee or an indication?
4) How many AAA tranches actually lost money?
5) If the investors knew there were sub-prime in the CDOs, why did they invest in them? Why didn't they do their own due diligence?
djc206 said:
What about libor fixing?
What about it?Has anyone said it didn't happen or tried to defend it?
S1_RS said:
Just to reply to the people saying I should refund the cash to whoever bought the car, the 5K was part of a stash of about 9K made up of £6.1K from the sale of the car plus other cash I made selling off parts of it before I sold it. I have no way of knowing what cash was what as it was all in one pile. I did double check the cash from the sale of the car when I got home and that came out exact, if he had overpaid I would have refunded him without question. Although obviously my counting skills have now been called into question.
With regard to the bank I know exactly what would have happened had I withdrawn 5K and then gone home and found it was £60 short.
Exactly, you have no liability to the person you sold the car to, or to the bank.With regard to the bank I know exactly what would have happened had I withdrawn 5K and then gone home and found it was £60 short.
djc206 said:
You say people who had an appetite for the risk bought CDO's but it's my understanding that they were incorrectly rated and effectively missold. A bunch of junk mortgages bundled together with some good ones and given a AAA rating. I have very little understanding of the intricacies but it would seem to me that the people creating sub prime filled CDO's and selling them as low risk thanks to corrupt/bullst ratings knew what they were doing. It's not like just a few people were creating them on the sly.
What about libor fixing?
With CDOs, they seem to have been mis-priced as low risk due to banks incorrectly modelling them. This doesn't seem to be anything deliberate or corrupt here, but perhaps banks were incompetent.t ratings knew what they were doing. It's not like just a few people were creating them on the sly. What about libor fixing?
Below are a couple of good articles explaining a bit more about this:
https://www.wired.com/2009/02/wp-quant/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/was-david-li-the-guy...
I wouldn't try to defend banks for LIBOR fixing or anyhting else mentioned in this thread...
CarlosFandango11 said:
With CDOs, they seem to have been mis-priced as low risk due to banks incorrectly modelling them. This doesn't seem to be anything deliberate or corrupt here, perhaps the abnks were incompetent.
Indeed - it was the correlation in the underlying assets that caused the problem (but in many cases this was a MTM problem not a default problem).Regardless, why were investors buying these assets and not doing their own modelling of the risks - whose fault is that?
Your bank is weird, a cashier that can't count, a system of weighing bank notes rather than a machine to scan them and then they think it's perfectly acceptable to call customers and ask for money back because they made a mistake.
How do they check bank notes are genuine if all they do is weigh them?
Anyway, if this tale is true as you describe it I wouldn't take £60 in and give it to them.
Do you think if you took out £5k, counted it and then came back later and said some was missing they'd just top it up and believe you?? Not a chance.
How do they check bank notes are genuine if all they do is weigh them?
Anyway, if this tale is true as you describe it I wouldn't take £60 in and give it to them.
Do you think if you took out £5k, counted it and then came back later and said some was missing they'd just top it up and believe you?? Not a chance.
sidicks said:
djc206 said:
You say people who had an appetite for the risk bought CDO's but it's my understanding that they were incorrectly rated and effectively missold. A bunch of junk mortgages bundled together with some good ones and given a AAA rating. I have very little understanding of the intricacies but it would seem to me that the people creating sub prime filled CDO's and selling them as low risk thanks to corrupt/bullst ratings knew what they were doing. It's not like just a few people were creating them on the sly.
1) You clearly don't understand the tranching process of a CDO (or similar) structuret ratings knew what they were doing. It's not like just a few people were creating them on the sly. 2) Did the banks rate their own mortgages, or was that a third party?
3) Is the credit rating a guarantee or an indication?
4) How many AAA tranches actually lost money?
5) If the investors knew there were sub-prime in the CDOs, why did they invest in them? Why didn't they do their own due diligence?
djc206 said:
What about libor fixing?
What about it?Has anyone said it didn't happen or tried to defend it?
2) a corrupt third party picked for the purpose by the bank
3) an indication that you would hope could be trusted or else it serves no purpose
4) not a clue
5) because they foolishly trusted the system presumably which goes some way to proving the point that others have made about banks and ratings agencies being rotten. I'd agree that a lack of due diligence is stupid and I don't feel for institutions that lost money but normal working people are still reeling from the effects of the financial crash that they played no part in creating.
You said the system isn't bent. Following the libor scandal it became clear that the issues with banking go beyond a few individuals playing silly buggers.
djc206 said:
1) enlighten me then
Enlighten yourself - it's been explained on here before.djc206 said:
2) a corrupt third party picked for the purpose by the bank
See the explanation provided by Fandango.djc206 said:
3) an indication that you would hope could be trusted or else it serves no purpose
It's a measure of the expected default rate based on a number of fully transparent assumptions.djc206 said:
4) not a clue
Quite important!djc206 said:
5) because they foolishly trusted the system presumably which goes some way to proving the point that others have made about banks and ratings agencies being rotten.
Not really. Plenty of investors bought similar securities and made good money on them because they did the due diligence and understood the risks. The rating is a function of the assumptions about the future. If you have a different opinion than was used by the rating agency then don't buy the asset. Nothing rotten whatsoever.djc206 said:
I'd agree that a lack of due diligence is stupid and I don't feel for institutions that lost money but normal working people are still reeling from the effects of the financial crash that they played no part in creating.
The crisis suffered by normal working people was primarily a function of a decade of government overspending which was uncovered by the credit crisis. Those 'normal working people' were not complaining in the previous decade when cheap credit was allowing ever increasing government spending. djc206 said:
You said the system isn't bent. Following the libor scandal it became clear that the issues with banking go beyond a few individuals playing silly buggers.
How many people were involved in Libor fixing?Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff