Should Bank Board members be prosecuted?
Discussion
Bankers expect Joe Public to carry out due diligence, and to exercise prudence. Further they expect you to fund long term assets with long term liabilities.
On this basis (or any other), surely the Bankers have been negligent and have been trading whilst insolvent.
Should they not be prosecuted, or worse?
On this basis (or any other), surely the Bankers have been negligent and have been trading whilst insolvent.
Should they not be prosecuted, or worse?
I'd rather the thick chavvy t
ts with their 60" plasma and their new car on the never never and the fraudulent mortgage application that couldnt manage to wipe their own arse were prosecuted preferably. Typical crap regarding lack of personable responsibility and "everyone else apart from me is to blame" culture...
ts with their 60" plasma and their new car on the never never and the fraudulent mortgage application that couldnt manage to wipe their own arse were prosecuted preferably. Typical crap regarding lack of personable responsibility and "everyone else apart from me is to blame" culture...ahdguy said:
I'd rather the thick chavvy tts with their 60" plasma and their new car on the never never and the fraudulent mortgage application that couldnt manage to wipe their own arse were prosecuted preferably. Typical crap regarding lack of personable responsibility and "everyone else apart from me is to blame" culture...
+1000ts with their 60" plasma and their new car on the never never and the fraudulent mortgage application that couldnt manage to wipe their own arse were prosecuted preferably. Typical crap regarding lack of personable responsibility and "everyone else apart from me is to blame" culture...Pathetic.
ahdguy said:
I'd rather the thick chavvy tts with their 60" plasma and their new car on the never never and the fraudulent mortgage application that couldnt manage to wipe their own arse were prosecuted preferably. Typical crap regarding lack of personable responsibility and "everyone else apart from me is to blame" culture...
What - you mean the thick chavvy tts with their 60" plasma and their new car on the never never and the fraudulent mortgage application that couldnt manage to wipe their own arse were prosecuted preferably. Typical crap regarding lack of personable responsibility and "everyone else apart from me is to blame" culture...ts who leverged themselves with Credit Default Swaps and Collateralised Debt Obligations to near bankruptcy?Edited by audidoody on Monday 23 February 20:43
Soovy said:
ahdguy said:
I'd rather the thick chavvy tts with their 60" plasma and their new car on the never never and the fraudulent mortgage application that couldnt manage to wipe their own arse were prosecuted preferably. Typical crap regarding lack of personable responsibility and "everyone else apart from me is to blame" culture...
+1000ts with their 60" plasma and their new car on the never never and the fraudulent mortgage application that couldnt manage to wipe their own arse were prosecuted preferably. Typical crap regarding lack of personable responsibility and "everyone else apart from me is to blame" culture...Pathetic.
However that means the professional money men aka bankers were even more irresponsible as they actually loaned money to people and in fact encouraged it even though the people couldnt afford it.
At the end of the day as far as i am concerned the bankers were the cause the borrowers were merely effect.I wouldnt lend loads of my money out to people who i knew were irresponsible and unreliable with money. As for hanging them no I dont think that would be fair.
I would say that any bank that needed bailing out the board members should have recieved no bonus or payoff of any kind and should possibly have been stripped of the right to run a company.
No. At the end of the day, the powers that be relaxed teh rules, the banks exploited them. It doesn't matter what parallel you use, from F1 rules, to globabl economies any person/team/group could and would do the same when the governing bodies "allow an inch".
The Government (here and abroad) got lazy and over confident and their plan back fired on them because the banks started to learn the system being handed to them (and they played like a two-bit harp?
). The Banks are the scapegoats, not the problem.
The Government (here and abroad) got lazy and over confident and their plan back fired on them because the banks started to learn the system being handed to them (and they played like a two-bit harp?
). The Banks are the scapegoats, not the problem.Edited by Buffalo on Monday 23 February 20:53
Buffalo said:
No. At the end of the day, the powers that be relaxed teh rules, the banks exploited them. It doesn't matter what parallel you use, from F1 rules, to globabl economies any person/team/group could and would do the same when the governing bodies "allow an inch".
The Government (here and abroad) got lazy and over confident and their plan back fired on them because the banks started to learn the system being handed to them (and they played like a two-bit harp? ). The Banks are the scapegoats, not the problem.
Yet again i disagree. Yes the government is partly responsible however do we really need to live in a police state where the government has to tell a business how to run itself?The Government (here and abroad) got lazy and over confident and their plan back fired on them because the banks started to learn the system being handed to them (and they played like a two-bit harp?
). The Banks are the scapegoats, not the problem.Edited by Buffalo on Monday 23 February 20:53
I was giving it a bit of thought the other day. My initial thought was the government is to blame as they should have much more tightly regulated the banks to prevent them doing silly things like offering 100% mortgages and lending oodles of money to anyone who asked virtually without question.
But then I came to the thought.If i was running my own business how would i feel about the government telling me how to run it properly? What would be the point of having my own business if I could run it succefully or into the ground myself?
It was this point I came to the conclusion that in the end the government is slightly responsible however at the end of the day the banks are a BUSINESS full of purported professionals who know how to run a business successfully for profit. And like any other business they should know where they stand themselves and how big the risks are that they are taking as a whole.
If they as money experts take a stupid risk then it is their fault and theirs alone and they should bear responsibility for it.
jimmyb said:
Whilst I agree about personal responsibility loads of people on here running around going not the bankers fault the people didnt HAVE to take on debts they couldnt possibly service.
However that means the professional money men aka bankers were even more irresponsible as they actually loaned money to people and in fact encouraged it even though the people couldnt afford it.
At the end of the day as far as i am concerned the bankers were the cause the borrowers were merely effect.I wouldnt lend loads of my money out to people who i knew were irresponsible and unreliable with money. As for hanging them no I dont think that would be fair.
I would say that any bank that needed bailing out the board members should have recieved no bonus or payoff of any kind and should possibly have been stripped of the right to run a company.
However that means the professional money men aka bankers were even more irresponsible as they actually loaned money to people and in fact encouraged it even though the people couldnt afford it.
At the end of the day as far as i am concerned the bankers were the cause the borrowers were merely effect.I wouldnt lend loads of my money out to people who i knew were irresponsible and unreliable with money. As for hanging them no I dont think that would be fair.
I would say that any bank that needed bailing out the board members should have recieved no bonus or payoff of any kind and should possibly have been stripped of the right to run a company.
jimmyb said:
If they as money experts take a stupid risk then it is their fault and theirs alone and they should bear responsibility for it.
Actually - I agree. But the question was should Bank Board members be prosecuted. IMO, no. If the Government can't tell them how to invest their own money, it can't wade in there and prosecute board members either. The Government has always governed UK banking policy. They relaxed the rules to try and stimulate growth because we have no decent industry sector and this is the result. I don't for a minute disagree that the banks have pushed the limit, but as far as I can see they have acted within the guidelines set out by Governments here and all over the world.
If there are law suits, IMO there can only be private cases brought to court between the bank and their employed individuals involved if they feel that board members acted against the Bank's own integrity (or between banking companies if there is an issue with inter-bank lending policy being violated). The "UK vs the Banks" lawsuit pushed by Government could not be justified IMO.
To paraphrase an actual conversation between a banker from London and an accounting student who has thousands in debt racked up on credit cards.....
Bankers: Hurff durff durff! We pay millions in taxes! who told you to borrow money that we encouraged to borrow!
Accounting smartarse: When you city bankers mess things up, you come snivelling on all fours, begging for our Tax money to bail you out.
It's a sorry state of affairs when neither side wants to take the blame. As the saying goes, "It takes two to Tango".
Bankers: Hurff durff durff! We pay millions in taxes! who told you to borrow money that we encouraged to borrow!
Accounting smartarse: When you city bankers mess things up, you come snivelling on all fours, begging for our Tax money to bail you out.
It's a sorry state of affairs when neither side wants to take the blame. As the saying goes, "It takes two to Tango".
Edited by dr.pepper on Monday 23 February 21:35
Buffalo said:
jimmyb said:
If they as money experts take a stupid risk then it is their fault and theirs alone and they should bear responsibility for it.
Actually - I agree. But the question was should Bank Board members be prosecuted. IMO, no. If the Government can't tell them how to invest their own money, it can't wade in there and prosecute board members either. The Government has always governed UK banking policy. They relaxed the rules to try and stimulate growth because we have no decent industry sector and this is the result. I don't for a minute disagree that the banks have pushed the limit, but as far as I can see they have acted within the guidelines set out by Governments here and all over the world.
If there are law suits, IMO there can only be private cases brought to court between the bank and their employed individuals involved if they feel that board members acted against the Bank's own integrity (or between banking companies if there is an issue with inter-bank lending policy being violated). The "UK vs the Banks" lawsuit pushed by Government could not be justified IMO.
Soovy said:
ahdguy said:
I'd rather the thick chavvy tts with their 60" plasma and their new car on the never never and the fraudulent mortgage application that couldnt manage to wipe their own arse were prosecuted preferably. Typical crap regarding lack of personable responsibility and "everyone else apart from me is to blame" culture...
+1000ts with their 60" plasma and their new car on the never never and the fraudulent mortgage application that couldnt manage to wipe their own arse were prosecuted preferably. Typical crap regarding lack of personable responsibility and "everyone else apart from me is to blame" culture...Pathetic.
Can i ask how the hell we managed to get into such a state that you could take out a 125% Mortgage?
I struggled to get 80% of the property i bought 4 years ago.
Let's be honest, if i had a 125% Mortgage i don't think i could sleep at night.
LHDisbest said:
Soovy said:
ahdguy said:
I'd rather the thick chavvy tts with their 60" plasma and their new car on the never never and the fraudulent mortgage application that couldnt manage to wipe their own arse were prosecuted preferably. Typical crap regarding lack of personable responsibility and "everyone else apart from me is to blame" culture...
+1000ts with their 60" plasma and their new car on the never never and the fraudulent mortgage application that couldnt manage to wipe their own arse were prosecuted preferably. Typical crap regarding lack of personable responsibility and "everyone else apart from me is to blame" culture...Pathetic.
Can i ask how the hell we managed to get into such a state that you could take out a 125% Mortgage?
Whether you like it or not, EVERYONE is to blame for the mess we're.
-Bank Traders
-The greedy public
-The regulatory bodies
-The government
They have all played a part in the mess we're in by being greedy bds.
Joe Public and that fking useless one-eyed in 10 Downing Street bleating on about bankers boils my fking piss.
-Bank Traders
-The greedy public
-The regulatory bodies
-The government
They have all played a part in the mess we're in by being greedy b
ds.Joe Public and that f
king useless one-eyed in 10 Downing Street bleating on about bankers boils my fking piss.jimmyb said:
LHDisbest said:
Soovy said:
ahdguy said:
I'd rather the thick chavvy tts with their 60" plasma and their new car on the never never and the fraudulent mortgage application that couldnt manage to wipe their own arse were prosecuted preferably. Typical crap regarding lack of personable responsibility and "everyone else apart from me is to blame" culture...
+1000ts with their 60" plasma and their new car on the never never and the fraudulent mortgage application that couldnt manage to wipe their own arse were prosecuted preferably. Typical crap regarding lack of personable responsibility and "everyone else apart from me is to blame" culture...Pathetic.
Can i ask how the hell we managed to get into such a state that you could take out a 125% Mortgage?
Not so much coke and champagne going about now.
Skipppy said:
Whether you like it or not, EVERYONE is to blame for the mess we're.
-Bank Traders
-The greedy public
-The regulatory bodies
-The government
They have all played a part in the mess we're in by being greedy bds.
Joe Public and that fking useless one-eyed in 10 Downing Street bleating on about bankers boils my fking piss.
How can members of the public share any blame for the collapse of banks? It is not the public's responsnbility to keep banks solvent and in any case they clearly are not privy to all the information required to make any sensible judgement on how the banks are doing. If Ladbrookes offer me a silly bet on Man Utd winning the league, I just take it - I don't worry about Ladbrookes going bust as I assume that the people in charge there have got their sums right. But if I lose, I take responsibility for myself and my own financial situation only. I think a lot of people are giving the bankers a very easy time over this stuff - and I think it's just because they want to heap even more blame of the Government and "chavs" with plasma TVs as they cant face the fact that phenominally well paid private sector bods have actually been proved to be utterly useless. -Bank Traders
-The greedy public
-The regulatory bodies
-The government
They have all played a part in the mess we're in by being greedy b
ds.Joe Public and that f
king useless one-eyed in 10 Downing Street bleating on about bankers boils my fking piss.Skipppy said:
Whether you like it or not, EVERYONE is to blame for the mess we're.
-Bank Traders
-The greedy public
-The regulatory bodies
-The government
They have all played a part in the mess we're in by being greedy bds.
Joe Public and that fking useless one-eyed in 10 Downing Street bleating on about bankers boils my fking piss.
Didn't mean to focus on one particular group, and I totally agree with the above which just about sums it up, but the government and media 'spin' means the sole focus has been placed upon the 'greedy' bankers, to divert attention away from the government and population (voters) at large. -Bank Traders
-The greedy public
-The regulatory bodies
-The government
They have all played a part in the mess we're in by being greedy b
ds.Joe Public and that f
king useless one-eyed in 10 Downing Street bleating on about bankers boils my fking piss.As mentioned before I just couldn't sleep if I had tons on debt on credit cards and a 125% mortgage, but people without the slightest clue of simple mathematics simply think "feck me, they are gonna give me 150K rather than 75k, I'm quids in!!!! Think of all the gear I can buy!".
They were ruthless enough when they were in power - a lot of traditional bankers got fired by people like Fred Goodwin so they could focus on losing billions. They should lose their titles, and return all the money they took, and live on the dole for a bit. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
However, pretty soon you are going to have to think about the other people responsible - particularly the politicians.
I don't really place the blame with Joe Average who borrowed the money - he was encouraged to do it, the politicians were giving him the green light, and the economy was depending on him buying the cars, the houses, the TV's etc etc. What do you expect him to do? And nobody is going to bail him out, he is going to have to deal with it the hard way. Given that he is also the taxpayer (because you needed some kind of credit rating to get loans even in the good days) he is also going to get to pay for it twice over. Lastly, while you can only run an economy on debt up to the point that people have to stop borrowing, I don't think that is really where the Banks have lost all this money. They have put it in hokey cokey investments, of one sort or another, which appeared for a time to be soaring in value. On the basis of that they took their huge pay packets bonusses and the rest. Little of that wealth was real, and the idea that we are going to simply return to that arrangement, as Brown seems to believe, is utterly unrealistic, because too mant people have been taken for a ride this time, and the nature of the scam is fairly clear to most. So they won't put their money into it a second time.
Only twelve months ago, few people would have been prepared to believe that RBS could go down. They had faith in the institution and they thought that Sir Fred Goodwin was a smart operator and safe pair of hands. What credibility have RBS got left? Who is going to put their money in an RBS managed pension? And it is the same story across the sector. Who is going to put money into the British financial services industry, for all their Dixon of Dock Green TV ads? Hardly anyone I expect.
And rightly so, because all that will happen is that, at best, their investment will rise on paper for a few years then plummet like a stone when all the insiders take their money out.
However, pretty soon you are going to have to think about the other people responsible - particularly the politicians.
I don't really place the blame with Joe Average who borrowed the money - he was encouraged to do it, the politicians were giving him the green light, and the economy was depending on him buying the cars, the houses, the TV's etc etc. What do you expect him to do? And nobody is going to bail him out, he is going to have to deal with it the hard way. Given that he is also the taxpayer (because you needed some kind of credit rating to get loans even in the good days) he is also going to get to pay for it twice over. Lastly, while you can only run an economy on debt up to the point that people have to stop borrowing, I don't think that is really where the Banks have lost all this money. They have put it in hokey cokey investments, of one sort or another, which appeared for a time to be soaring in value. On the basis of that they took their huge pay packets bonusses and the rest. Little of that wealth was real, and the idea that we are going to simply return to that arrangement, as Brown seems to believe, is utterly unrealistic, because too mant people have been taken for a ride this time, and the nature of the scam is fairly clear to most. So they won't put their money into it a second time.
Only twelve months ago, few people would have been prepared to believe that RBS could go down. They had faith in the institution and they thought that Sir Fred Goodwin was a smart operator and safe pair of hands. What credibility have RBS got left? Who is going to put their money in an RBS managed pension? And it is the same story across the sector. Who is going to put money into the British financial services industry, for all their Dixon of Dock Green TV ads? Hardly anyone I expect.
And rightly so, because all that will happen is that, at best, their investment will rise on paper for a few years then plummet like a stone when all the insiders take their money out.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff