Discussion
Saddle bum said:
With regard to bankers, I'm beginning to hear the expression "Spiv" bandied about.
Good to see it come back into fashion, applied to a fitting subject.
Seems to be a very apt term, albeit polite by today's standards. Personally, I am trying to reel in my anger and frustration regarding this whole sorry investment banking scenario. The one good thing I hope that will come out of it all is the complete 'root and branch' overhaul of the industry. At least Vince Cable made an early start to separate the retail and investments sides.Good to see it come back into fashion, applied to a fitting subject.
crankedup said:
Saddle bum said:
With regard to bankers, I'm beginning to hear the expression "Spiv" bandied about.
Good to see it come back into fashion, applied to a fitting subject.
Seems to be a very apt term, albeit polite by today's standards. Personally, I am trying to reel in my anger and frustration regarding this whole sorry investment banking scenario. The one good thing I hope that will come out of it all is the complete 'root and branch' overhaul of the industry. At least Vince Cable made an early start to separate the retail and investments sides.Good to see it come back into fashion, applied to a fitting subject.
crankedup said:
Seems to be a very apt term, albeit polite by today's standards. Personally, I am trying to reel in my anger and frustration regarding this whole sorry investment banking scenario. The one good thing I hope that will come out of it all is the complete 'root and branch' overhaul of the industry. At least Vince Cable made an early start to separate the retail and investments sides.
Northern Rock was a retail bank only.The main problem isnt the structure of banks, thats more a visual comfort blanket, the problem lies with flawed management structure within them and inability of the controls within the bank to control the bank!
Laughingman21 said:
rhinochopig said:
Paying back the initial loans is very different to the global impact the banking collapse had though isn't it. We're still reaping the 'rewards' of sub-prime, irresponsible lending, etc.
Irresponsible lending or irresponsible borrowing?Just look at the mess some of the EU governments are in. People/Companies/Governments have been borrowing more than they can afford for years. It was a global problem with the culture towards what people could afford to borrow. Everybody had got caught up in spending today and paying back tomorrow to the point nobody did their sums. To blame just the banks is very narrow minded.
If you want people to blame, the credit agencies should easily share some of the blame, but they never made the headlines as they were merely the middle men and didn't actually take a financial hit for their wrecklessness.
To draw parallels with my own industry - nuclear - we could bring the price of electricity down dramatically, if we were to spend less on assessing the risk presented by an operational plant; indeed the market puts considerable pressure on operators to do so. Now if we were to remove the large safety margins we operate to because the public wants cheaper electricity and the s
t hits the fan, do you think an acceptable defence is one of the public made us do it? It's all about the tolerability of risk, and the burden to ensure that the risk is tolerable falls on the experts within that business sector; be it the institutions themselves or the regulator. I really don't buy the public are to blame argument sorry.To answer you final question, yes the credit agencies share the blame too.
rhinochopig said:
Laughingman21 said:
rhinochopig said:
Paying back the initial loans is very different to the global impact the banking collapse had though isn't it. We're still reaping the 'rewards' of sub-prime, irresponsible lending, etc.
Irresponsible lending or irresponsible borrowing?Just look at the mess some of the EU governments are in. People/Companies/Governments have been borrowing more than they can afford for years. It was a global problem with the culture towards what people could afford to borrow. Everybody had got caught up in spending today and paying back tomorrow to the point nobody did their sums. To blame just the banks is very narrow minded.
If you want people to blame, the credit agencies should easily share some of the blame, but they never made the headlines as they were merely the middle men and didn't actually take a financial hit for their wrecklessness.
To draw parallels with my own industry - nuclear - we could bring the price of electricity down dramatically, if we were to spend less on assessing the risk presented by an operational plant; indeed the market puts considerable pressure on operators to do so. Now if we were to remove the large safety margins we operate to because the public wants cheaper electricity and the s
t hits the fan, do you think an acceptable defence is one of the public made us do it? It's all about the tolerability of risk, and the burden to ensure that the risk is tolerable falls on the experts within that business sector; be it the institutions themselves or the regulator. I really don't buy the public are to blame argument sorry.To answer you final question, yes the credit agencies share the blame too.
However, as I said in my earlier post, the borrowing/lending cycle had become so ingrained into the modern world (across individuals, companies and governments) that I think most people had become complacent with the status quo and mistook this to mean there was no risk. Sadly, evryone was wrong.
Arguably, the banks (as "experts") should have been more aware of the risks and acted, but then the same thing could be said of other experts e.g. the government at the time, credit agencies, BoE, the many large businesses that have since gone down the pan due to excessive debt, etc.
Laughingman21 said:
That's a fair point you've made with the comparison to the nuclear industry and I agree that the banks shouldn't have lent to everybody who held their hand out.
However, as I said in my earlier post, the borrowing/lending cycle had become so ingrained into the modern world (across individuals, companies and governments) that I think most people had become complacent with the status quo and mistook this to mean there was no risk. Sadly, evryone was wrong.
Arguably, the banks (as "experts") should have been more aware of the risks and acted, but then the same thing could be said of other experts e.g. the government at the time, credit agencies, BoE, the many large businesses that have since gone down the pan due to excessive debt, etc.
I'm not sure bankers had become complacent. I think they must have realised it would not last for very long but they went ahead regardless. I remember the days when an offer of a credit card, with transfer rates quite remarkably low, would come through the letter box almost every day. I remember one which offered nearly twice the ceiling of the one I was using at the time.However, as I said in my earlier post, the borrowing/lending cycle had become so ingrained into the modern world (across individuals, companies and governments) that I think most people had become complacent with the status quo and mistook this to mean there was no risk. Sadly, evryone was wrong.
Arguably, the banks (as "experts") should have been more aware of the risks and acted, but then the same thing could be said of other experts e.g. the government at the time, credit agencies, BoE, the many large businesses that have since gone down the pan due to excessive debt, etc.
I was then fairly flush, not my normal condition, and so they did not appeal but imagine someone who was struggling a bit. Who is wrong when temptation is deliberately put in the way of people?
Almost everyone did think we'd cracked it this time and the days of boom/bust were over. Sensible people running things after the BoE was allowed to do its own thing. I bet bankers were no quite so convinced though.
Short term profit and hang the consequences was the banking ethos it apears. The majority of borrowers probably believed they would be able to pay it back. We've bought a house: we're saved!
I remember the horror when I discovered my 18 year old daughter had a credit card. I thought how I was when I was her age - a financial dunce.
the Barclays issues were not from this year, or last, it's from back a few years. They have been massively open with the regulators and everyone that they needed to be.
Everybody associated has been dismissed or left the bank.
as always the press and Joe public are jumping up and down, but the fact of the matter is this is old news within the bank.
Also - the amount of financial crime and credit risk work is going on for all the banks is huge. A lot of investment has gone into it.
Barclays just happen to be first...........all the banks are guilty to a greater and lesser extent.
There will always be people within an organisation that take the piss. Banks are huge and there are crooks in every walk of life. Just because they wear posh suits doesn't make it any different.
It is not a culture within any bank.
The rants from what i can see are the usual jealous misinformed people making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Everybody associated has been dismissed or left the bank.
as always the press and Joe public are jumping up and down, but the fact of the matter is this is old news within the bank.
Also - the amount of financial crime and credit risk work is going on for all the banks is huge. A lot of investment has gone into it.
Barclays just happen to be first...........all the banks are guilty to a greater and lesser extent.
There will always be people within an organisation that take the piss. Banks are huge and there are crooks in every walk of life. Just because they wear posh suits doesn't make it any different.
It is not a culture within any bank.
The rants from what i can see are the usual jealous misinformed people making a mountain out of a mole hill.
rhinochopig said:
I did expect that response. Given the consequences of failure, the banks have a responsibility to ensure that when they lend, they have an acceptable probability of having it repaid. The banks are the experts and understand this risk better than anyone whereas joe public who wants his or big TV are often barely literate. The banks could simply so no sorry fella you don't meet the minimum credit requirements. But they chose not to.
....
Lest we lose the moment, think for a moment about what is now happening. Fingers have been burnt, and yet now the very same banks being chastised for "lending irresponsibly" are now being berated for not lending enough. I'm not too sure how those two positions reconcile - badly is the only answer I can come up with, as I don't think people are all of a sudden more creditworthy. Ergo one of two positions exists....
1) people's creditworthiness was never that bad. Therefore things were being blown out of all proportion.
2) people's creditworthiness remains dogs hit and yet the government are keen for the banks to lend to them anyway.
And yet who gets blamed? Who will get blamed in 5yrs' time when all those bad loans resurface again?
Also, think why the bailing out started. In the uk, which bank was first? Would that bank going have caused everything to fail, or just cause hardship to its customers in the main? Who were the customers?
How many banks actually begged for help? Which ones? Where was their customer base?
Did the govt force any bank to take on risk that it probably shouldn't have?
Don't think I hold banks blameless in all of this. There is much that the industry must improve on. But the way blame is being laid 100% at the door of the banking sector by serfs, politicians and media alike is disingenuous to say the least and will not lead to anything being resolved properly. Hysteria will lead to nothing.
The populous of the country needs to start reading between the lines and perhaps looking in the mirror and at who it elects to run things more closely. This particularly applies to those voting Labour over the last decade...
djstevec said:
crankedup said:
Seems to be a very apt term, albeit polite by today's standards. Personally, I am trying to reel in my anger and frustration regarding this whole sorry investment banking scenario. The one good thing I hope that will come out of it all is the complete 'root and branch' overhaul of the industry. At least Vince Cable made an early start to separate the retail and investments sides.
Northern Rock was a retail bank only.The main problem isnt the structure of banks, thats more a visual comfort blanket, the problem lies with flawed management structure within them and inability of the controls within the bank to control the bank!
crankedup said:
Yes I agree, although in many eyes a bank is a bank, if the two major sections are structurally divided each standing or falling by its own performance this should at least help build confidence in us ordinary customers. But yes I do fully agree with what you say.
Personally I strongly suspect it will achieve absolutely nothing.It will be badly worded and implemented, and even if it wasn't the masses will dislike the downsides of doing it (the unintended consequences) at least as much as the current situation.
Time will tell....But as ever we need to be careful what we wish for.
RacerMDR said:
the Barclays issues were not from this year, or last, it's from back a few years. They have been massively open with the regulators and everyone that they needed to be.
Everybody associated has been dismissed or left the bank.
as always the press and Joe public are jumping up and down, but the fact of the matter is this is old news within the bank.
Also - the amount of financial crime and credit risk work is going on for all the banks is huge. A lot of investment has gone into it.
Barclays just happen to be first...........all the banks are guilty to a greater and lesser extent.
There will always be people within an organisation that take the piss. Banks are huge and there are crooks in every walk of life. Just because they wear posh suits doesn't make it any different.
It is not a culture within any bank.
The rants from what i can see are the usual jealous misinformed people making a mountain out of a mole hill.
You are joking of course, I think the CEO of Barclays is still in post so your assertion of all involved have been dismissed is inaccurate.Everybody associated has been dismissed or left the bank.
as always the press and Joe public are jumping up and down, but the fact of the matter is this is old news within the bank.
Also - the amount of financial crime and credit risk work is going on for all the banks is huge. A lot of investment has gone into it.
Barclays just happen to be first...........all the banks are guilty to a greater and lesser extent.
There will always be people within an organisation that take the piss. Banks are huge and there are crooks in every walk of life. Just because they wear posh suits doesn't make it any different.
It is not a culture within any bank.
The rants from what i can see are the usual jealous misinformed people making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Piss taking in organisations only occurs when the industry carries a poor working ethos, poor disciplinary management, poor supervision.
You freely admit that financial crime is huge within banks! And then go on to say 'it is not a culture within banks'.
If you held shares in Barclays you may be ranting.
Jealous and misinformed, mountain out of a molehill.
It doesn't get much worse for the investment banking industry than the news which has come out during the past four years or so, but it just seems to be getting worse every month now. Still you obviously know better than M.King, the P.M. and Chancellor. not to mention most of the population it seems.
crankedup said:
You are joking of course, I think the CEO of Barclays is still in post so your assertion of all involved have been dismissed is inaccurate.
Piss taking in organisations only occurs when the industry carries a poor working ethos, poor disciplinary management, poor supervision.
You freely admit that financial crime is huge within banks! And then go on to say 'it is not a culture within banks'.
If you held shares in Barclays you may be ranting.
Jealous and misinformed, mountain out of a molehill.
It doesn't get much worse for the investment banking industry than the news which has come out during the past four years or so, but it just seems to be getting worse every month now. Still you obviously know better than M.King, the P.M. and Chancellor. not to mention most of the population it seems.
I actually said the work going into Financial crime is huge.........not financial crime itself. Badly worded from me Piss taking in organisations only occurs when the industry carries a poor working ethos, poor disciplinary management, poor supervision.
You freely admit that financial crime is huge within banks! And then go on to say 'it is not a culture within banks'.
If you held shares in Barclays you may be ranting.
Jealous and misinformed, mountain out of a molehill.
It doesn't get much worse for the investment banking industry than the news which has come out during the past four years or so, but it just seems to be getting worse every month now. Still you obviously know better than M.King, the P.M. and Chancellor. not to mention most of the population it seems.
By that i mean it is high on the agenda and priority list.
The CEO of Barclays should not be dismissed - he wasn't responsible. Some rogue bankers have been.
Having said that - the CEO has stood up and made himself accountable, which is honourable in my opinion.
YOu honestly think that if a member of a company commits an illegal, questionable act that the CEO should automatically resign?
In a company with how many worldwide employees?
I don't agree with that in all honesty.
Murph7355 said:
crankedup said:
Yes I agree, although in many eyes a bank is a bank, if the two major sections are structurally divided each standing or falling by its own performance this should at least help build confidence in us ordinary customers. But yes I do fully agree with what you say.
Personally I strongly suspect it will achieve absolutely nothing.It will be badly worded and implemented, and even if it wasn't the masses will dislike the downsides of doing it (the unintended consequences) at least as much as the current situation.
Time will tell....But as ever we need to be careful what we wish for.
crankedup said:
...
You freely admit that financial crime is huge within banks!....
I don't think that's what he said. I believe he was referring to the amount of work that goes into telling people that these things are not on, training them not to partake etc, and basically saying that no matter how much of this you do, there will always be those who take the piss (in any industry).You freely admit that financial crime is huge within banks!....
crankedup said:
...
It doesn't get much worse for the investment banking industry than the news which has come out during the past four years or so, but it just seems to be getting worse every month now. Still you obviously know better than M.King, the P.M. and Chancellor. not to mention most of the population it seems.
Aren't you the same crankedup that is often getting vexed by the fqtards that are the PM and Chancellor? And aren't these the same two that aren't exactly using their rapier intelligence to sort out the country's finances (get your own house in order first perhaps...?).It doesn't get much worse for the investment banking industry than the news which has come out during the past four years or so, but it just seems to be getting worse every month now. Still you obviously know better than M.King, the P.M. and Chancellor. not to mention most of the population it seems.
And forgive me for not taking too much comfort in the average intelligence of the general population.
RacerMDR said:
crankedup said:
You are joking of course, I think the CEO of Barclays is still in post so your assertion of all involved have been dismissed is inaccurate.
Piss taking in organisations only occurs when the industry carries a poor working ethos, poor disciplinary management, poor supervision.
You freely admit that financial crime is huge within banks! And then go on to say 'it is not a culture within banks'.
If you held shares in Barclays you may be ranting.
Jealous and misinformed, mountain out of a molehill.
It doesn't get much worse for the investment banking industry than the news which has come out during the past four years or so, but it just seems to be getting worse every month now. Still you obviously know better than M.King, the P.M. and Chancellor. not to mention most of the population it seems.
I actually said the work going into Financial crime is huge.........not financial crime itself. Badly worded from me Piss taking in organisations only occurs when the industry carries a poor working ethos, poor disciplinary management, poor supervision.
You freely admit that financial crime is huge within banks! And then go on to say 'it is not a culture within banks'.
If you held shares in Barclays you may be ranting.
Jealous and misinformed, mountain out of a molehill.
It doesn't get much worse for the investment banking industry than the news which has come out during the past four years or so, but it just seems to be getting worse every month now. Still you obviously know better than M.King, the P.M. and Chancellor. not to mention most of the population it seems.
By that i mean it is high on the agenda and priority list.
The CEO of Barclays should not be dismissed - he wasn't responsible. Some rogue bankers have been.
Having said that - the CEO has stood up and made himself accountable, which is honourable in my opinion.
YOu honestly think that if a member of a company commits an illegal, questionable act that the CEO should automatically resign?
In a company with how many worldwide employees?
I don't agree with that in all honesty.
Diamond was CEO of BarCap at the time, Rich Ricci was the COO. I doubt the decision to do this would have been taken arbitrarily below their level.
The issue prior to Sept 20-07 was collusion between traders and rate fixers. That is much more serious in terms of market manipulation than the actions taken during the credit crunch when setting LIBOR in markets that weren't lending to each other at all was nigh on impossible on some days with any accuracy.
Edited by djstevec on Friday 29th June 17:03
RacerMDR said:
crankedup said:
You are joking of course, I think the CEO of Barclays is still in post so your assertion of all involved have been dismissed is inaccurate.
Piss taking in organisations only occurs when the industry carries a poor working ethos, poor disciplinary management, poor supervision.
You freely admit that financial crime is huge within banks! And then go on to say 'it is not a culture within banks'.
If you held shares in Barclays you may be ranting.
Jealous and misinformed, mountain out of a molehill.
It doesn't get much worse for the investment banking industry than the news which has come out during the past four years or so, but it just seems to be getting worse every month now. Still you obviously know better than M.King, the P.M. and Chancellor. not to mention most of the population it seems.
I actually said the work going into Financial crime is huge.........not financial crime itself. Badly worded from me Piss taking in organisations only occurs when the industry carries a poor working ethos, poor disciplinary management, poor supervision.
You freely admit that financial crime is huge within banks! And then go on to say 'it is not a culture within banks'.
If you held shares in Barclays you may be ranting.
Jealous and misinformed, mountain out of a molehill.
It doesn't get much worse for the investment banking industry than the news which has come out during the past four years or so, but it just seems to be getting worse every month now. Still you obviously know better than M.King, the P.M. and Chancellor. not to mention most of the population it seems.
By that i mean it is high on the agenda and priority list.
The CEO of Barclays should not be dismissed - he wasn't responsible. Some rogue bankers have been.
Having said that - the CEO has stood up and made himself accountable, which is honourable in my opinion.
YOu honestly think that if a member of a company commits an illegal, questionable act that the CEO should automatically resign?
In a company with how many worldwide employees?
I don't agree with that in all honesty.
crankedup said:
Well like you I don't have a crystal ball, all I can say is that the industry, as it stands, is completely discredited. Politicians know that they cannot sit back and let the industry sort itself out and regain public confidence, the two are simply no longer compatible IMO. I find it difficult to perceive that the industry cannot be formally regulated to a high standard, that will discontinue the 'wrongdoings' and poor practices that have existed for far too long and some may think are just 'part and parcel' of the industry. As has been said, many good people work in the sector and they have been let down by managerial culture. Yes we need to be careful what we wish for, but the status quo is not an option.
The politicians you seem to be giving so much credit to (when it suits;)) are desperately deploying as much sleight of hand as they can.Fact is, there are already more rules and regulations than you can shake a s
tty stick at. But they are not policed effectively.Splitting the banks up in some arbitrary fashion could well have big downsides to the very people the government (etc) purport to want to "protect", and I'm afraid that unless those responsible for policing it (fundamentally who is that?) are improved, you will simply end up with twice as much mess.
The status quo is not an option, you are right. Nor is making things worse by opting for a dumb arsed and ill thought through solution driven more by wanting to win popularity with our moronic media and not blame ourselves than common sense.
Murph7355 said:
crankedup said:
...
You freely admit that financial crime is huge within banks!....
I don't think that's what he said. I believe he was referring to the amount of work that goes into telling people that these things are not on, training them not to partake etc, and basically saying that no matter how much of this you do, there will always be those who take the piss (in any industry).You freely admit that financial crime is huge within banks!....
crankedup said:
...
It doesn't get much worse for the investment banking industry than the news which has come out during the past four years or so, but it just seems to be getting worse every month now. Still you obviously know better than M.King, the P.M. and Chancellor. not to mention most of the population it seems.
Aren't you the same crankedup that is often getting vexed by the fqtards that are the PM and Chancellor? And aren't these the same two that aren't exactly using their rapier intelligence to sort out the country's finances (get your own house in order first perhaps...?).It doesn't get much worse for the investment banking industry than the news which has come out during the past four years or so, but it just seems to be getting worse every month now. Still you obviously know better than M.King, the P.M. and Chancellor. not to mention most of the population it seems.
And forgive me for not taking too much comfort in the average intelligence of the general population.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff