Paid cash in, counted and weighed. Bank now disputes figure.
Discussion
pc.iow said:
sidicks said:
How many people were involved in Libor fixing?
You sound like a real banker.Just out of interest, are you a police officer by any chance?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/08/hu...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Do you think these are somehow representative of the 'Entire police force'?
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 16th February 20:46
sidicks said:
pc.iow said:
sidicks said:
How many people were involved in Libor fixing?
You sound like a real banker.Just out of interest, are you a police officer by any chance?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/08/hu...
Do you think this is somehow representative of the 'Entire police force'?
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 16th February 20:44
pc.iow said:
This thread is about a cashier not being able to count money. Well, it was before your snide high and mighty replies anyway.
I only responded to ignorant comments made by another poster - perhaps you should direct your aggression towards him.And your only contribution on this thread was to direct a snide insult towards me, so not quite sure why you think you've got the moral high ground?
pc.iow said:
This thread is about a cashier not being able to count money
ExactlyCan we get it back there please
I've had this happen, a call 10 minutes after I left the bank, similar amount, I accepted that we're human and all make mistakes, they amended and everyone lived happily ever after
cheddar said:
Exactly
Can we get it back there please
I've had this happen, a call 10 minutes after I left the bank, similar amount, I accepted that we're human and all make mistakes, they amended and everyone lived happily ever after
Was a similar amount involved in your case (and was the process used to count the money the same)?Can we get it back there please
I've had this happen, a call 10 minutes after I left the bank, similar amount, I accepted that we're human and all make mistakes, they amended and everyone lived happily ever after
It seems farcical to me that the bank counted the money, re-counted the money, weighed the money and re-weighed the money, issued a receipt for £5,000 and still thinks thinks they can claim they made an error and ask for the money back!
sidicks said:
Granfondo said:
Defending the indefensible takes a "special" kind of "banker"! 
No-one is defending anything 'indefensible', just explaining some misunderstandings.No surprise you don't understand the difference.
This thread is not about how the banking industry works at the obvious level you work in it at.
But carry on with the lols mate.
pc.iow said:
And there you go again!
This thread is not about how the banking industry works at the obvious level you work in it at.
But carry on with the lols mate.
Same comment as above...This thread is not about how the banking industry works at the obvious level you work in it at.
But carry on with the lols mate.
Aiming a comment at me rather than talk about the thread topic - you're not very good at this, are you?!
sidicks said:
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?So I'm to believe that all those incredibly intelligent and successful people were all wildly incompetent as opposed to dirty? Ridiculous.
But the ratings agencies themselves have been forced to accept some responsibility for giving incorrect ratings and being slow to downgrade ratings when things went awry. Apparently Lehman was A rated a month before it collapsed, sounds a bit off doesn't it?
The average person has little say over what happens at that level and yet they were the ones left picking up the pieces.
Surely one of the issues with due diligence with these products is the sheer complexity of the product making that very difficult, time consuming and given the assessed risk being low a seemingly unnecessary expense? I've read that 85% of CDO's were rated by 2 of the big 3 firms in order to alleviate investor fears. I'm not saying that due diligence shouldn't be carried out but it would appear many large investors thought it unnecessary in light of this, clearly incorrectly.
Well it would appear from a quick look that state banks in Germany lost a lot on AAA rated CDO's, I doubt they were alone. I can't find a figure of how many people/institutions or what amount was lost on them, maybe you could help with that number seeing as you posed the question and therefore presumably know the answer?
This was an interesting read.
Edit: sorry for continuing to take this wildly off track, I'll bugger off and have a gin now.
OP personally I'd probably feel bad for the cashier not the bank and return it to stop them getting in trouble.
Edited by djc206 on Thursday 16th February 21:09
Legally, you're not entitled to money that isn't yours, regardless of your receipt. If the cashier made an error and deposited £5000 when in reality there was only £4940, you're not entitled to that £60. I'm surprised they didn't just take £60 from your account once they realised the error.
Edited by bugmenot on Thursday 16th February 21:10
sidicks said:
Yipper said:
It ain't rocket science, son. The banks and others wrapped bad mortgages with fancy packaging and ripped everyone off
As I expected, you understand very little in this area. No surprise there.https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/apr/18/g...
djc206 said:
I have read up on them and I fail to see how you think the people who composed, rated and sold them weren't operating in a dishonest manner.
Reading up and understanding are clearly two very different things...djc206 said:
So I'm to believe that all those incredibly intelligent and successful people were all wildly incompetent as opposed to dirty? Ridiculous.
How many of these AAA assets incurred defaults?djc206 said:
But the ratings agencies themselves have been forced to accept some responsibility for giving incorrect ratings and being slow to downgrade ratings when things went awry. Apparently Lehman was A rated a month before it collapsed, sounds a bit off doesn't it?
Does a A rating mean that an investment can never default?djc206 said:
The average person has little say over what happens at that level and yet they were the ones left picking up the pieces.
How?djc206 said:
Surely one of the issues with due diligence with these products is the sheer complexity of the product making that very difficult, time consuming and given the assessed risk being low a seemingly unnecessary expense?
Why would you invest in complex products if you don't understand them? Surely the fact that a product is complex is exactly the reason why you need to do the appropriate due diligence?!djc206 said:
I've read that 85% of CDO's were rated by 2 of the big 3 firms in order to alleviate investor fears. I'm not saying that due diligence shouldn't be carried out but it would appear many large investors thought it unnecessary in light of this, clearly incorrectly.
Whose fault is that?Regardless, how many CDO tranches actually defaulted?
djc206 said:
Well it would appear from a quick look that state banks in Germany lost a lot on AAA rated CDO's, I doubt they were alone. I can't find a figure of how many people/institutions or what amount was lost on them, maybe you could help with that number seeing as you posed the question and therefore presumably know the answer?
This was an interesting read.
Selling assets in the secondary market is quite different than holding an asset to maturity - rating agencies rate assets to maturity...This was an interesting read.
Yipper said:
A biased article about banks from The Guardian, with one small paragraph about one (disputed) CDO structure and you think that means you understand the asset class?Edited by sidicks on Thursday 16th February 21:18
bugmenot said:
Legally, you're not entitled to money that isn't yours, regardless of your receipt. If the cashier made an error and deposited £5000 when in reality there was only £4940, you're not entitled to that £60. I'm surprised they didn't just take £60 from your account once they realised the error.
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.Edited by bugmenot on Thursday 16th February 21:10
When banks make mistakes, they are not legally entitled to take £60 from peoples accounts to make up for it.
sidicks said:
Yipper said:
Source: The Guardian
Have a read of the legendary "Vampire Squid" article.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-grea...
Happy to help and update your knowledge base further.
Yipper said:
The evidence is mounting
Have a read of the legendary "Vampire Squid" article.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-grea...
Happy to help and update your knowledge base further.
Another article that apparently fails to understand the basic concept of tranching within CDOs (and the reasonable requirement of investors to due their own due diligence on an asset)!!Have a read of the legendary "Vampire Squid" article.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-grea...
Happy to help and update your knowledge base further.
Seemingly designed to appeal to the less sophisticated reader who is meant to think there is something fundamentally wrong in having a AAA rated asset where some of the underlying assets are high risk.
Also this article is more concerned with potential misrepresentation on behalf of GS rather than any fundamental problem with the construction of CDOs and similar assets.
But I'm sure you knew that...?
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 16th February 21:29
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff