Vickers on banking
Discussion
johnfm said:
But as posted above, B&B, NR etc didn't have investment bank divisions.
Makes not a jot of difference now, but those type of banks, which splashed out any size of loan regardless of the prospect of repayment, will now be under scrutiny and legislation regarding the loans, including mortgages that they sell to people. At long last some sanity is being brought back to the financial world. Pity it had to go tits up for action to be taken though.Eric Mc said:
And the banking industry showed itself to be incapable of that. That is the problem.
Sadly, it seems that some posters in here are still trying to defend actions taken by imbeciles, their bosses. Just shows the arrogance and stupidity that seems to continue to thrive despite all that has happened over the past 4 years.Eric Mc said:
With the exception of The Nationwide, all the rest are fairly small operations with very limited high street presence.
We may actually see a resurgance in building societies akin to what happened in the late 19th and early 20th centuries - which would be a good thing.
Another fairly safe form of lending (although usually for smaller amounts) is the Credit Union. These are very popular in Ireland and in the old industrialised parts of the UK but you don't see them in the more affluent parts of the country.
I think there could be a scope for the enlargement of the Credit Union movement too.
All is not lost. We just have to look at alternative methods of saving and borrowing. For far too long the mega-banks and demtualised building societies ruled the roost - and more or less blew themselves up with their own greed and ambition.
Yes, ive been interested in things like this for the future. It seemed unfair that buidling socs contributions to FSCS increased despite the scheme only being activated for banks. Instead of bailing the banks, i would have liked to have seen the feasibility of apportioning off some of their savings and loans books to the mutuals (obviously some would have to be defaulted on, or nationalized) rather than re-capitalizing the banks. We may actually see a resurgance in building societies akin to what happened in the late 19th and early 20th centuries - which would be a good thing.
Another fairly safe form of lending (although usually for smaller amounts) is the Credit Union. These are very popular in Ireland and in the old industrialised parts of the UK but you don't see them in the more affluent parts of the country.
I think there could be a scope for the enlargement of the Credit Union movement too.
All is not lost. We just have to look at alternative methods of saving and borrowing. For far too long the mega-banks and demtualised building societies ruled the roost - and more or less blew themselves up with their own greed and ambition.
That being said, the american mutuals (savings and loans) had a massive failure back in the late 80s - i wonder what triggered this - People seem to attach a lot of weight to the repeal of the Glass Steagall act allowing our banking problems (or at least the US problems), but obviously its enactment didnt prevent the savings and loans crisis - Were Savings and Loans institutions free from Glass Steagall regs in the states?
Don't know what type of legal framework American savings and loan operations were under.
In the UK, the building societies were extremely restricted in what they could do with their investors' money - mainly because the people who ran the building societies were strictly under the control of those self same investors.
That is the reason so many building societies were dead keen to become banks - so they could start playing the markets and do all the other more risky things they were gagging to do.
In the UK, the building societies were extremely restricted in what they could do with their investors' money - mainly because the people who ran the building societies were strictly under the control of those self same investors.
That is the reason so many building societies were dead keen to become banks - so they could start playing the markets and do all the other more risky things they were gagging to do.
Eric Mc said:
Don't know what type of legal framework American savings and loan operations were under.
In the UK, the building societies were extremely restricted in what they could do with their investors' money - mainly because the people who ran the building societies were strictly under the control of those self same investors.
That is the reason so many building societies were dead keen to become banks - so they could start playing the markets and do all the other more risky things they were gagging to do.
Let's not forget the actions of the carpetbaggers in the transition of BSocs into Banks.In the UK, the building societies were extremely restricted in what they could do with their investors' money - mainly because the people who ran the building societies were strictly under the control of those self same investors.
That is the reason so many building societies were dead keen to become banks - so they could start playing the markets and do all the other more risky things they were gagging to do.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff