Bank profits... state ownership... dividends etc..

[heebeegeetee]

Timmy35 said:

heebeegeetee said:

Timmy35 said:

heebeegeetee said:

Marf said:

Damned if they do damned if they dont.

Criticised 3 years ago for lending too freely, criticised today for not lending enough.

Yeah, you'd think they could get it at the right level, given what they're paid for doing their jobs. "Employee in Request to Perform Well Shock!!".

And if they do do their jobs they get a nice bonus, whereas for the rest of us if we don't do our jobs right we just get pain.

I could weep for 'em.

I hope that you don't base your entire life on what you've read in the tabloids.

My wife works in a bank's regional th'ead office. I hear some great stuff.

Did the credit crunch only happen in tabloid land though?

Really. What does she do exactly.

Reward and recognition.

[Timmy35]

heebeegeetee said:

Timmy35 said:

heebeegeetee said:

Timmy35 said:

heebeegeetee said:

Marf said:

Damned if they do damned if they dont.

Criticised 3 years ago for lending too freely, criticised today for not lending enough.

Yeah, you'd think they could get it at the right level, given what they're paid for doing their jobs. "Employee in Request to Perform Well Shock!!".

And if they do do their jobs they get a nice bonus, whereas for the rest of us if we don't do our jobs right we just get pain.

I could weep for 'em.

I hope that you don't base your entire life on what you've read in the tabloids.

My wife works in a bank's regional th'ead office. I hear some great stuff.

Did the credit crunch only happen in tabloid land though?

Really. What does she do exactly.

Reward and recognition.

HR. Whilst they are no doubt valuable in their wonderful contribution to the smooth running of any organisation, I am not of the opinion that most HR professionals have a great deal of understanding of the business. Especially when that business is banking.

Edited by Timmy35 on Monday 9th August 16:01

[NoelWatson]

Timmy35 said:

heebeegeetee said:

Timmy35 said:

heebeegeetee said:

Timmy35 said:

heebeegeetee said:

Marf said:

Damned if they do damned if they dont.

Criticised 3 years ago for lending too freely, criticised today for not lending enough.

Yeah, you'd think they could get it at the right level, given what they're paid for doing their jobs. "Employee in Request to Perform Well Shock!!".

And if they do do their jobs they get a nice bonus, whereas for the rest of us if we don't do our jobs right we just get pain.

I could weep for 'em.

I hope that you don't base your entire life on what you've read in the tabloids.

My wife works in a bank's regional th'ead office. I hear some great stuff.

Did the credit crunch only happen in tabloid land though?

Really. What does she do exactly.

Reward and recognition.

HR. Whilst they are no doubt valuable in their wonderful contribution to the smooth running of any organisation, I am not of the opinion that most HR professionals have a great deal of understanding of the business. Especially when that business is banking.

Edited by Timmy35 on Monday 9th August 16:01

They get paid well enough!

[Timmy35]

NoelWatson said:

Timmy35 said:

heebeegeetee said:

Timmy35 said:

heebeegeetee said:

Timmy35 said:

heebeegeetee said:

Marf said:

Damned if they do damned if they dont.

Criticised 3 years ago for lending too freely, criticised today for not lending enough.

Yeah, you'd think they could get it at the right level, given what they're paid for doing their jobs. "Employee in Request to Perform Well Shock!!".

And if they do do their jobs they get a nice bonus, whereas for the rest of us if we don't do our jobs right we just get pain.

I could weep for 'em.

I hope that you don't base your entire life on what you've read in the tabloids.

My wife works in a bank's regional th'ead office. I hear some great stuff.

Did the credit crunch only happen in tabloid land though?

Really. What does she do exactly.

Reward and recognition.

HR. Whilst they are no doubt valuable in their wonderful contribution to the smooth running of any organisation, I am not of the opinion that most HR professionals have a great deal of understanding of the business. Especially when that business is banking.

Edited by Timmy35 on Monday 9th August 16:01

They get paid well enough!

Yes, given his attitude to workers in the finance sector, I find what his wife does to be highly ironic.

[heebeegeetee]

Timmy35 said:

Yes, given his attitude to workers in the finance sector, I find what his wife does to be highly ironic.

We do indeed have our moments.

You'd be alright though 'cos she'd be right on your side . My wife too thinks the banks did no wrong and that it wasn't their fault that they lent money to millions of people who weren't going to pay it back etc.

Like the 19 yr old son of a colleague, whom pre credit-crunch had been allowed to accrue a debt of £15k, and the only job he ever had was that of an apprentice motor mechanic, which he subsequently got bored of and was unemployed last time i heard.

I'm in a farcical situation at work myself right now, I work in a small business which is deeply in debt, the proprietor is paying none of his bills, hasn't paid an electricity bill since he started 16 months ago, and the only thing keeping him going (apart from his wife's benefit fraud) is the suppliers who he's not paying. I'd like to take the business over but can't while he's being propped up.

All that is going to happen is that he is going to fold eventually, but with far bigger debts than he needed to. He doesn't own his home or car, he has absolutely no money, so it'll be you, me and the rest of us picking up the tab.

Who is underwriting all this madness, tell me that? And this is an a time when things have been supposedly tightened up.

You have to wonder how cheap things would be if they were only sold to those who pay for them.

[Trommel]

Wife of a friend of mine does the same, doesn't have a clue about what the people she's sacking actually do.

HR, jobs for the girls.

[Hedders]

Trommel said:

Wife of a friend of mine does the same, doesn't have a clue about what the people she's sacking actually do.

HR, jobs for the girls.

I had a disciplinary hearing in which i was fairly sure i was being fired. They arranged the hearing for the day the new boss of HR started and then my boss took the morning off.

Getting fired by someone you have never met, who knows nothing about you or the company, is fairly sickening

[heebeegeetee]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I wonder about that with my wife too when she's defending the banks.

[Ozzie Osmond]

heebeegeetee said:

Like the 19 yr old son of a colleague, whom pre credit-crunch had been allowed to accrue a debt of £15k, and the only job he ever had was that of an apprentice motor mechanic, which he subsequently got bored of and was unemployed last time i heard.

Ah, but Mr Clever Banker lends out billions and if he "only" lends £15,000 to each person then if one of them doesn't pay the money back the bank hardly notices. So why waste money doing proper checks on the customer if there's no real risk? The only catch was the idiot banks didn't realise they'd changed the game by lending EVERYBODY too much money and the whole house of cards collapsed around them.

Same as the danger with derivatives. A limited amount of derivative trading is IMO fine - with investment the dog and derivatives as its tail. But next thing you know the whole derivative scene gets bigger than the subject-matter it's based upon and again the whole game changes. Namely gambling as the dog and investment as its tail. Complete lack of common sense.

[NobleGuy]

heebeegeetee said:

Like the 19 yr old son of a colleague, whom pre credit-crunch had been allowed to accrue a debt of £15k, and the only job he ever had was that of an apprentice motor mechanic, which he subsequently got bored of and was unemployed last time i heard.

I love this. Who's fault is it that he's in debt? The bank? Are we resigning all responsibility for our own actions as usual?

Is it worse that the banks lent money to people who couldn't (or is it wouldn't?) pay, or is it worse that these morons took the money in the first place?

Edited by NobleGuy on Tuesday 10th August 10:28

[heebeegeetee]

NobleGuy said:

heebeegeetee said:

Like the 19 yr old son of a colleague, whom pre credit-crunch had been allowed to accrue a debt of £15k, and the only job he ever had was that of an apprentice motor mechanic, which he subsequently got bored of and was unemployed last time i heard.

I love this. Who's fault is it that he's in debt? The bank? Are we resigning all responsibility for our own actions as usual?

Is it worse that the banks lent money to people who couldn't (or is it wouldn't?) pay, or is it worse that these morons took the money in the first place?

Edited by NobleGuy on Tuesday 10th August 10:28

You're right, he was possibly an uneducated, untrained moron. That's his excuse.

Now, the educated, trained and highly paid bank emplyees, who lent so much money to the wrong people that hte banks collapsed - what's their excuse?

[Hedders]

heebeegeetee said:

Now, the educated, trained and highly paid bank emplyees, who lent so much money to the wrong people that hte banks collapsed - what's their excuse?

"The government made us do it"?

[NoelWatson]

heebeegeetee said:

NobleGuy said:

heebeegeetee said:

Like the 19 yr old son of a colleague, whom pre credit-crunch had been allowed to accrue a debt of £15k, and the only job he ever had was that of an apprentice motor mechanic, which he subsequently got bored of and was unemployed last time i heard.

I love this. Who's fault is it that he's in debt? The bank? Are we resigning all responsibility for our own actions as usual?

Is it worse that the banks lent money to people who couldn't (or is it wouldn't?) pay, or is it worse that these morons took the money in the first place?

Edited by NobleGuy on Tuesday 10th August 10:28

You're right, he was possibly an uneducated, untrained moron. That's his excuse.

Now, the educated, trained and highly paid bank emplyees, who lent so much money to the wrong people that hte banks collapsed - what's their excuse?

Gordon Brown/Alan Greenspan

[heebeegeetee]

Hedders said:

heebeegeetee said:

Now, the educated, trained and highly paid bank emplyees, who lent so much money to the wrong people that hte banks collapsed - what's their excuse?

"The government made us do it"?

Yes, that is indeed the viewpoint of many, including Mr Watson above. It was the gubbermunt wot made 'em do it.

Made 'em they did, actually forced institutions to lend sums of money so large that there wasn't a hope in hell of getting the money back.

I think what actually happened was that the financial institutions kept up pressure on governments to relax regulation, and the governments were stupid enough to do it.

But I can imagine what so many PHers would be saying if regulation wasn't relaxed, accusations of stifling business and growth and investment would have constantly been thick in the air.

[NobleGuy]

heebeegeetee said:

NobleGuy said:

heebeegeetee said:

Like the 19 yr old son of a colleague, whom pre credit-crunch had been allowed to accrue a debt of £15k, and the only job he ever had was that of an apprentice motor mechanic, which he subsequently got bored of and was unemployed last time i heard.

I love this. Who's fault is it that he's in debt? The bank? Are we resigning all responsibility for our own actions as usual?

Is it worse that the banks lent money to people who couldn't (or is it wouldn't?) pay, or is it worse that these morons took the money in the first place?

Edited by NobleGuy on Tuesday 10th August 10:28

You're right, he was possibly an uneducated, untrained moron. That's his excuse.

Now, the educated, trained and highly paid bank emplyees, who lent so much money to the wrong people that hte banks collapsed - what's their excuse?

What's the excuse of the middle-class family who overstretched themseleves unnecessarily just to keep up with the Jones's? Did they need to replace those cars so often, or climb the property ladder a rung or two too high? Or were they just greedy so-and-so's who couldn't be bothered taking care of their own responsibilities and actually saving rather than relying on credit for everything? It works both ways equally.

[heebeegeetee]

NobleGuy said:

heebeegeetee said:

NobleGuy said:

heebeegeetee said:

Like the 19 yr old son of a colleague, whom pre credit-crunch had been allowed to accrue a debt of £15k, and the only job he ever had was that of an apprentice motor mechanic, which he subsequently got bored of and was unemployed last time i heard.

I love this. Who's fault is it that he's in debt? The bank? Are we resigning all responsibility for our own actions as usual?

Is it worse that the banks lent money to people who couldn't (or is it wouldn't?) pay, or is it worse that these morons took the money in the first place?

Edited by NobleGuy on Tuesday 10th August 10:28

You're right, he was possibly an uneducated, untrained moron. That's his excuse.

Now, the educated, trained and highly paid bank emplyees, who lent so much money to the wrong people that hte banks collapsed - what's their excuse?

What's the excuse of the middle-class family who overstretched themseleves unnecessarily just to keep up with the Jones's? Did they need to replace those cars so often, or climb the property ladder a rung or two too high? Or were they just greedy so-and-so's who couldn't be bothered taking care of their own responsibilities and actually saving rather than relying on credit for everything? It works both ways equally.

This is missing the point, massively.

People who borrow too much money are stupid, but they are not responsible for the collapse of the business that was lending them money. But at least very often the borrowers are acting out of stupidity and ignorance - what's the lenders excuse?

[Hedders]

I wonder how people would view a back street money lender (leg breaker) who went bust bceause he lent out ALL his capital and then some to the wrong sort of borrower?

I am betting most would hold him personally responsible for his actions, but if he were a bank for some reason it would not be his fault, but his customers!

[heebeegeetee]

Hedders said:

I wonder how people would view a back street money lender (leg breaker) who went bust bceause he lent out ALL his capital and then some to the wrong sort of borrower?

I am betting most would hold him personally responsible for his actions, but if he were a bank for some reason it would not be his fault, but his customers!

Or the government's.

[youngsyr]

heebeegeetee said:

NobleGuy said:

heebeegeetee said:

NobleGuy said:

heebeegeetee said:

Like the 19 yr old son of a colleague, whom pre credit-crunch had been allowed to accrue a debt of £15k, and the only job he ever had was that of an apprentice motor mechanic, which he subsequently got bored of and was unemployed last time i heard.

I love this. Who's fault is it that he's in debt? The bank? Are we resigning all responsibility for our own actions as usual?

Is it worse that the banks lent money to people who couldn't (or is it wouldn't?) pay, or is it worse that these morons took the money in the first place?

Edited by NobleGuy on Tuesday 10th August 10:28

You're right, he was possibly an uneducated, untrained moron. That's his excuse.

Now, the educated, trained and highly paid bank emplyees, who lent so much money to the wrong people that hte banks collapsed - what's their excuse?

What's the excuse of the middle-class family who overstretched themseleves unnecessarily just to keep up with the Jones's? Did they need to replace those cars so often, or climb the property ladder a rung or two too high? Or were they just greedy so-and-so's who couldn't be bothered taking care of their own responsibilities and actually saving rather than relying on credit for everything? It works both ways equally.

This is missing the point, massively.

People who borrow too much money are stupid, but they are not responsible for the collapse of the business that was lending them money. But at least very often the borrowers are acting out of stupidity and ignorance - what's the lenders excuse?

The lender's excuse is that if they don't lend the money to people who can, on the face of it, afford to pay it back, then someone else will.

All well and good you might think, but businesses don't make a profit by turning away customers, and if one bank in particular consistently turned down customers that others were accepting, then the conscientious bank would perform worse than the others (at least in the short term) and may well end up going out of business.

So, it's a no-win situation, they either compete on a level playing field with other banks and lend to stupid people, or they don't lend to them, to the detriment of their business.

The only way to put a stop to that situation is to legislate against it occurring in the first place, or to wait until the whole house of cards collapsed.

Nonetheless, I can understand the finance industry's upset at their portrayal in the press, which has been led by the very politicians who encouraged them to act in that manner in the first place. It was, after all, Brown who loosened up lending rules in the late 1990s, was it not?

[heebeegeetee]

youngsyr said:

The lender's excuse is that if they don't lend the money to people who can, on the face of it, afford to pay it back, then someone else will.

All well and good you might think, but businesses don't make a profit by turning away customers, and if one bank in particular consistently turned down customers that others were accepting, then the conscientious bank would perform worse than the others (at least in the short term) and may well end up going out of business.

So, it's a no-win situation, they either compete on a level playing field with other banks and lend to stupid people, or they don't lend to them, to the detriment of their business.

The only way to put a stop to that situation is to legislate against it occurring in the first place, or to wait until the whole house of cards collapsed.

Nonetheless, I can understand the finance industry's upset at their portrayal in the press, which has been led by the very politicians who encouraged them to act in that manner in the first place. It was, after all, Brown who loosened up lending rules in the late 1990s, was it not?

Do you think, on the face of it, a young man who has yet to complete his apprenticeship can afford a load of £15,000? He owns nothing, so if he defaults what are you going to do to recover your money?

I think that the banks have lent vast sums of money to people who on the face of it, if they lose their jobs there is no chance of recovering the money.

By all means let these customers with no collateral go to your rivals.