The City takes a kicking (from the G20 leaders)

[scotal]

BOR said:

Scotal, this is an international problem, not just UK. I thought you would have understood that ?

I do, I don't know what level German bailouts have reached. I'm not actually aware how much trouble DB are in, nor indeed what the current mess is likely to do to the dresdner merger?

I'm also a bit concerned about how international regulation is going ot impact the genii at the FSA and what kneejerk reactions they will pull.

Edited by scotal on Friday 3rd April 11:57

[Podie]

BOR said:

John, I'm just a tiny cog in a big wheel. Scotal, this is an international problem, not just UK. I thought you would have understood that ?

BOR, you can't continue to make such comments without declaring your interest - it's a bit like expecting a bonus for "failure"

[anonymous-user]

johnfm said:

BOR said:

Cookie/Mechsympathy,

I assume the thinking is that Porky doesn't get an extra bucket of swill if he stakes all the bank's money (which is now, in effect, our money) on some ponzi scheme that his mate in the next sty told him couldn't fail.

No reward for reckless use of cash. No bonuses for building a house of cards.

BOR

please tell us what your selfless contribution to society is.

And why are you getting so uptight about it.

Why don't you explain why you feel bankers should get big bonuses for gambling with other peoples money, it's been an inequitable equation for years, if you win big, you get a big bonus, if you mess up you might lose your job, but then so would anybody messing up big in any other industry.

Most people have got no problem with people raking in the big bucks as long as they are taking some kind of risk themselves, but our bankers have been doing it risk free for years.

[johnfm]

Bluequay said:

johnfm said:

BOR said:

Cookie/Mechsympathy,

I assume the thinking is that Porky doesn't get an extra bucket of swill if he stakes all the bank's money (which is now, in effect, our money) on some ponzi scheme that his mate in the next sty told him couldn't fail.

No reward for reckless use of cash. No bonuses for building a house of cards.

BOR

please tell us what your selfless contribution to society is.

And why are you getting so uptight about it.

Why don't you explain why you feel bankers should get big bonuses for gambling with other peoples money, it's been an inequitable equation for years, if you win big, you get a big bonus, if you mess up you might lose your job, but then so would anybody messing up big in any other industry.

Most people have got no problem with people raking in the big bucks as long as they are taking some kind of risk themselves, but our bankers have been doing it risk free for years.

Who's getting uptight?

[Maxf]

Bluequay said:

Most people have got no problem with people raking in the big bucks as long as they are taking some kind of risk themselves, but our bankers have been doing it risk free for years.

A large % of bonueses are paid in shares - what has happened to those over the past 18 months?

ETA, what other industries make people 'take on some kind of risk themselves'?

Edited by Maxf on Friday 3rd April 12:01

[anonymous-user]

Maxf said:

Bluequay said:

Most people have got no problem with people raking in the big bucks as long as they are taking some kind of risk themselves, but our bankers have been doing it risk free for years.

A large % of bonueses are paid in shares - what has happened to those over the past 18 months?

Yeah but that's still not a real loss is it. If you gamble with 10K of my money and lose it, I'm 10K down. If you take a gamble it all looks ok, you get a 10K bonus and then it turns out badly and you lose your 10K bonus, you're are back at even. And it was your gamble that failed so you never deserved that bonus in the first place.

[anonymous-user]

johnfm said:

Bluequay said:

johnfm said:

BOR said:

Cookie/Mechsympathy,

I assume the thinking is that Porky doesn't get an extra bucket of swill if he stakes all the bank's money (which is now, in effect, our money) on some ponzi scheme that his mate in the next sty told him couldn't fail.

No reward for reckless use of cash. No bonuses for building a house of cards.

BOR

please tell us what your selfless contribution to society is.

And why are you getting so uptight about it.

Why don't you explain why you feel bankers should get big bonuses for gambling with other peoples money, it's been an inequitable equation for years, if you win big, you get a big bonus, if you mess up you might lose your job, but then so would anybody messing up big in any other industry.

Most people have got no problem with people raking in the big bucks as long as they are taking some kind of risk themselves, but our bankers have been doing it risk free for years.

Who's getting uptight?

It sounded like you were, asking what BOR's selfless contribution to society just because he doesn't believe that bankers should be able to make millions without an appropriate amount of risk on their part. Why not answer the main part of the question, why do you believe it is reasonable?

[scotal]

Bluequay said:

Maxf said:

Bluequay said:

Most people have got no problem with people raking in the big bucks as long as they are taking some kind of risk themselves, but our bankers have been doing it risk free for years.

A large % of bonueses are paid in shares - what has happened to those over the past 18 months?

Yeah but that's still not a real loss is it. If you gamble with 10K of my money and lose it, I'm 10K down. If you take a gamble it all looks ok, you get a 10K bonus and then it turns out badly and you lose your 10K bonus, you're are back at even. And it was your gamble that failed so you never deserved that bonus in the first place.

Why are you giving him 10k of your money to gamble with?

[Podie]

Bluequay said:

It sounded like you were, asking what BOR's selfless contribution to society just because he doesn't believe that bankers should be able to make millions without an appropriate amount of risk on their part. Why not answer the main part of the question, why do you believe it is reasonable?

BOR is the one beating the drum on this - yet has failed to declare his interest. Seems a perfectly reaosnable reques to ask him what he does.

[Maxf]

Bluequay said:

Maxf said:

Bluequay said:

Most people have got no problem with people raking in the big bucks as long as they are taking some kind of risk themselves, but our bankers have been doing it risk free for years.

A large % of bonueses are paid in shares - what has happened to those over the past 18 months?

Yeah but that's still not a real loss is it. If you gamble with 10K of my money and lose it, I'm 10K down. If you take a gamble it all looks ok, you get a 10K bonus and then it turns out badly and you lose your 10K bonus, you're are back at even. And it was your gamble that failed so you never deserved that bonus in the first place.

But a 'banker' may be transacting hundreds of millions of £s - how could you make that personal?

If you are paid a relatively low wage, with a high bonus (assuming a genuine performance bonus) then losing it would be a real loss.

[mechsympathy]

BOR said:

Cookie/Mechsympathy,

I assume the thinking is that Porky doesn't get an extra bucket of swill if he stakes all the bank's money (which is now, in effect, our money) on some ponzi scheme that his mate in the next sty told him couldn't fail.

No reward for reckless use of cash. No bonuses for building a house of cards.

How do you judge reckless? Investment is a risk but until it went tits up no one was calling it reckless.

The whole financial system is a house of cards which is built on the public's confidence. If people believe in it, it works. We are now seeing the results when that belief fails, and the desperate attempts to shore up that confidence by the G20.

[BOR]

Podie, let's not focus on the messenger, what's important is the message. There are millions of BORs out there.

[anonymous-user]

scotal said:

Bluequay said:

Maxf said:

Bluequay said:

Most people have got no problem with people raking in the big bucks as long as they are taking some kind of risk themselves, but our bankers have been doing it risk free for years.

A large % of bonueses are paid in shares - what has happened to those over the past 18 months?

Yeah but that's still not a real loss is it. If you gamble with 10K of my money and lose it, I'm 10K down. If you take a gamble it all looks ok, you get a 10K bonus and then it turns out badly and you lose your 10K bonus, you're are back at even. And it was your gamble that failed so you never deserved that bonus in the first place.

Why are you giving him 10k of your money to gamble with?

Surely you're not that ignorant. Say I had 10K of shares in Lehman Brothers when those bankers were making the risky strategy decisions which brought the company down they were effectively gambling with my money. And no I didn't before you ask!!

[Bing o]

BOR said:

Podie, let's not focus on the messenger, what's important is the message. There are millions of BORs out there.

We aren't, but it would be nice to know what your role in society is - as you say there are millions of BORs out there, I can only assume that you are:

unemployed
a hospital administrator

[scotal]

Bluequay said:

scotal said:

Bluequay said:

Maxf said:

Bluequay said:

Most people have got no problem with people raking in the big bucks as long as they are taking some kind of risk themselves, but our bankers have been doing it risk free for years.

A large % of bonueses are paid in shares - what has happened to those over the past 18 months?

Yeah but that's still not a real loss is it. If you gamble with 10K of my money and lose it, I'm 10K down. If you take a gamble it all looks ok, you get a 10K bonus and then it turns out badly and you lose your 10K bonus, you're are back at even. And it was your gamble that failed so you never deserved that bonus in the first place.

If you risked 10k of your money in banking shares, that's a risk you took. Not the bankers you invested in.
Exactly the same as if you'd been a shareholder fo any company that went bust.


Why are you giving him 10k of your money to gamble with?

Surely you're not that ignorant. Say I had 10K of shares in Lehman Brothers when those bankers were making the risky strategy decisions which brought the company down they were effectively gambling with my money. And no I didn't before you ask!!

If you risked 10k of your money in banking shares, that's a risk you took. Not the bankers you invested in.
Exactly the same as if you'd been a shareholder fo any company that went bust.

edit to fix my own quoting

Edited by scotal on Friday 3rd April 12:25

[Podie]

BOR said:

Podie, let's not focus on the messenger, what's important is the message. There are millions of BORs out there.

Sorry, this is contextually relevant.

It'd be like me saying "bankers deserve their bonuses" and me being a banker.

The fact you are so determined to avoid answering the question merely puts further doubt on your reasons for banging this point home continually.

Sorry chap, but currently looks like you have a vested interest.

[anonymous-user]

scotal said:

Bluequay said:

scotal said:

Bluequay said:

Maxf said:

Bluequay said:

Most people have got no problem with people raking in the big bucks as long as they are taking some kind of risk themselves, but our bankers have been doing it risk free for years.

A large % of bonueses are paid in shares - what has happened to those over the past 18 months?

Yeah but that's still not a real loss is it. If you gamble with 10K of my money and lose it, I'm 10K down. If you take a gamble it all looks ok, you get a 10K bonus and then it turns out badly and you lose your 10K bonus, you're are back at even. And it was your gamble that failed so you never deserved that bonus in the first place.

If you risked 10k of your money in banking shares, that's a risk you took. Not the bankers you invested in.
Exactly the same as if you'd been a shareholder fo any company that went bust.


Why are you giving him 10k of your money to gamble with?

Surely you're not that ignorant. Say I had 10K of shares in Lehman Brothers when those bankers were making the risky strategy decisions which brought the company down they were effectively gambling with my money. And no I didn't before you ask!!

I see so the people running these companys don't owe a duty of care to their shareholders. It's perfectly acceptable that they can gamble the whole future of the company so that if it comes off they can pull in a big fat bonus, and if it all goes tits up they can go next door and try it with someone elses money again.

[Bing o]

Podie said:

Sorry chap, but currently looks like you have a vested interest.

If you add the letters GORDONWN, his user name becomes an anagram...

[scotal]

Bluequay said:

I see so the people running these companys don't owe a duty of care to their shareholders. It's perfectly acceptable that they can gamble the whole future of the company so that if it comes off they can pull in a big fat bonus, and if it all goes tits up they can go next door and try it with someone elses money again.

These would be the same shareholders asking for bigger returns every year would it?

You're changing your argument, at first you were having your money gambled.
Now we've established that the gamble isnt the banks its yours, you want a DOC in place that guarantees you against loss.

If you want a no risk investment buy from NS&I.

[Maxf]

Bluequay said:

scotal said:

Bluequay said:

scotal said:

Bluequay said:

Maxf said:

Bluequay said:

Most people have got no problem with people raking in the big bucks as long as they are taking some kind of risk themselves, but our bankers have been doing it risk free for years.

A large % of bonueses are paid in shares - what has happened to those over the past 18 months?

Yeah but that's still not a real loss is it. If you gamble with 10K of my money and lose it, I'm 10K down. If you take a gamble it all looks ok, you get a 10K bonus and then it turns out badly and you lose your 10K bonus, you're are back at even. And it was your gamble that failed so you never deserved that bonus in the first place.

If you risked 10k of your money in banking shares, that's a risk you took. Not the bankers you invested in.
Exactly the same as if you'd been a shareholder fo any company that went bust.


Why are you giving him 10k of your money to gamble with?

Surely you're not that ignorant. Say I had 10K of shares in Lehman Brothers when those bankers were making the risky strategy decisions which brought the company down they were effectively gambling with my money. And no I didn't before you ask!!

I see so the people running these companys don't owe a duty of care to their shareholders. It's perfectly acceptable that they can gamble the whole future of the company so that if it comes off they can pull in a big fat bonus, and if it all goes tits up they can go next door and try it with someone elses money again.

When shares rose and dividends were paid did any shareholders say 'hold on here lads, what have you been up to - these profits seem a bit high, can you reign them back'? No.

Ok, I know its a flawed argument, but you see what I'm saying. Risks were taken for many years before the whole thing blew up - and shareholders were exstatic. Obviously the risk has been revealed and the tables have turned.

Edited by Maxf on Friday 3rd April 12:32