Bankers

[munky]

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

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.

Quite. I don't recall cranky and his ilk calling for the Sainsbury's CEO to resign over the potato fraud. Apparently his (lack of) logic only applies to banks.

[crankedup]

Murph7355 said:

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 stty 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.

Not much credit to the politicians being given by me! and in fairness they do seem to be representing my POV. They have the common sense to know the game is up within the industry and major changes are required. They are not completely stupid and know they need to be on the public's side. Nothing more to it than that IMO.
I don't follow your argument regarding the splitting of the retail and investment banking arms. Each will need to be run in a responsible manner and like any other business be competitive or fail. Retail customers are protected from a failure of a retail bank.
I agree, the FSA have been pussies ensuring compliance apparently, a much stronger organisation will be required, an organisation that will have teeth. Also criminality within banks will need strong measures and draconian penalties applied for wrong doings in the future.
You clearly have a strong disliking to any changes which may affect the industry, but obviously it cannot be allowed to continue in the long term without major changes. I am struggling to find another major industry that has not been subjected to major change during the past decade or so, not change for the sake of change, but to be competitive and engender respect from customers.

[anonymous-user]

munky said:

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

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.

Quite. I don't recall cranky and his ilk calling for the Sainsbury's CEO to resign over the potato fraud. Apparently his (lack of) logic only applies to banks.

Racer's opinion would only account for the deriv trader/rate fixers collusion, the decision by the senior management to publish lowers rates AFTER that, would have come from the senior management of Barclays or BarCap which BD was a member of at that time.

[crankedup]

munky said:

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

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.

Quite. I don't recall cranky and his ilk calling for the Sainsbury's CEO to resign over the potato fraud. Apparently his (lack of) logic only applies to banks.

Small chips compared to Barclays Be interesting to read a validated defence of the Barclays issue, rather than silly throw away off the cuff remarks from people who should know better.

[Murph7355]

crankedup said:

Not much credit to the politicians being given by me! and in fairness they do seem to be representing my POV. They have the common sense to know the game is up within the industry and major changes are required. They are not completely stupid and know they need to be on the public's side. Nothing more to it than that IMO.
I don't follow your argument regarding the splitting of the retail and investment banking arms. Each will need to be run in a responsible manner and like any other business be competitive or fail. Retail customers are protected from a failure of a retail bank.
I agree, the FSA have been pussies ensuring compliance apparently, a much stronger organisation will be required, an organisation that will have teeth. Also criminality within banks will need strong measures and draconian penalties applied for wrong doings in the future.
You clearly have a strong disliking to any changes which may affect the industry, but obviously it cannot be allowed to continue in the long term without major changes. I am struggling to find another major industry that has not been subjected to major change during the past decade or so, not change for the sake of change, but to be competitive and engender respect from customers.

In the post I quoted, and another where you seemed to be holding the PM, Chancellor, Mervyn King (not exactly an unbiased individual) and the general public up as paragons of intellectual virtue, you seemed to be giving plenty of credit. But as you note above, they appear to agree with your pov on this one so why not Just be careful how you lambast the same people when your povs don't align in future

If you split up banks but keep the same piss poor regulation, what will you end up with? (a) a rosy world where everyone has risk free loans, healthy savings accounts and we all get free stuff all day long and the evil investmentors all burn in hell. Or (b) twice as many badly regulated banks lending to the same uncreditworthy plebs making the same amount of profit and creating the same amount of wealthy employees?

Retail customers are protected to a point (a point that most will not breach) already. Splitting the banks up will not improve this for the man in the street without a penalty. Read poorer interest rates, lack of ability to get loans, charges on accounts and all manner of other items that you will then bemoan as unfair as it hurts the poor. Indeed that sort of thing will likely happen regardless even without an improvement in notional "protection".

I actually said I agree change is needed. So I'm not against it. I'd just like the first change to be properly policed regulation, to see if what we have is actually bad.

Meanwhile I'd also like the man in the street to point his fingers at himself. Without his own greed (be it a mortgage too far, cheap loans, pensions, shareholdings in banks or whatever), the oxygen your hated bankers need would be reduced and they'd have to modify their behaviour.

Either that or we accept there are benefits in our own greed and STFU and get off our high horses.

[RYH64E]

RacerMDR said:

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.

Hard to see how the senior people will survive this one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...


"Bob Diamond: Barclays falsified Libor to protect bank during financial crisis
Barclays chief executive Bob Diamond has admitted for the first time that the bank made a conscious decision to falsify Libor rates in order to protect the bank at the height of the financial crisis.

In the most detailed account so far on how the Libor rates were manipulated, Mr Diamond said fixing of Libor rates was carried out by individual trades and, separately, by the bank itself.

The Libor scandal saw £3.2bn wiped off the bank’s value on Thursday in the biggest one day fall in its share price for more than three years."

[munky]

crankedup said:

munky said:

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

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.

Quite. I don't recall cranky and his ilk calling for the Sainsbury's CEO to resign over the potato fraud. Apparently his (lack of) logic only applies to banks.

Small chips compared to Barclays Be interesting to read a validated defence of the Barclays issue, rather than silly throw away off the cuff remarks from people who should know better.

I bet you think Adam Clayton should resign as well. After all, his employee committed fraud whilst under his direct supervision. Must be his fault.

[crankedup]

Murph7355 said:

crankedup said:

Not much credit to the politicians being given by me! and in fairness they do seem to be representing my POV. They have the common sense to know the game is up within the industry and major changes are required. They are not completely stupid and know they need to be on the public's side. Nothing more to it than that IMO.
I don't follow your argument regarding the splitting of the retail and investment banking arms. Each will need to be run in a responsible manner and like any other business be competitive or fail. Retail customers are protected from a failure of a retail bank.
I agree, the FSA have been pussies ensuring compliance apparently, a much stronger organisation will be required, an organisation that will have teeth. Also criminality within banks will need strong measures and draconian penalties applied for wrong doings in the future.
You clearly have a strong disliking to any changes which may affect the industry, but obviously it cannot be allowed to continue in the long term without major changes. I am struggling to find another major industry that has not been subjected to major change during the past decade or so, not change for the sake of change, but to be competitive and engender respect from customers.

In the post I quoted, and another where you seemed to be holding the PM, Chancellor, Mervyn King (not exactly an unbiased individual) and the general public up as paragons of intellectual virtue, you seemed to be giving plenty of credit. But as you note above, they appear to agree with your pov on this one so why not Just be careful how you lambast the same people when your povs don't align in future

If you split up banks but keep the same piss poor regulation, what will you end up with? (a) a rosy world where everyone has risk free loans, healthy savings accounts and we all get free stuff all day long and the evil investmentors all burn in hell. Or (b) twice as many badly regulated banks lending to the same uncreditworthy plebs making the same amount of profit and creating the same amount of wealthy employees?

Retail customers are protected to a point (a point that most will not breach) already. Splitting the banks up will not improve this for the man in the street without a penalty. Read poorer interest rates, lack of ability to get loans, charges on accounts and all manner of other items that you will then bemoan as unfair as it hurts the poor. Indeed that sort of thing will likely happen regardless even without an improvement in notional "protection".

I actually said I agree change is needed. So I'm not against it. I'd just like the first change to be properly policed regulation, to see if what we have is actually bad.

Meanwhile I'd also like the man in the street to point his fingers at himself. Without his own greed (be it a mortgage too far, cheap loans, pensions, shareholdings in banks or whatever), the oxygen your hated bankers need would be reduced and they'd have to modify their behaviour.

Either that or we accept there are benefits in our own greed and STFU and get off our high horses.

If any other person(s) hold the same POV as myself its called agreement! Intellects, your term not mine.
Splitting the retail from investment arms of banks is great news, I have always been in favour of that.

Keeping the same regulations after the split, I don't think so.

Remainder is pure noise.

[crankedup]

munky said:

crankedup said:

munky said:

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

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.

Quite. I don't recall cranky and his ilk calling for the Sainsbury's CEO to resign over the potato fraud. Apparently his (lack of) logic only applies to banks.

Small chips compared to Barclays Be interesting to read a validated defence of the Barclays issue, rather than silly throw away off the cuff remarks from people who should know better.

I bet you think Adam Clayton should resign as well. After all, his employee committed fraud whilst under his direct supervision. Must be his fault.

U2. Great band that rock the world.

[Transmitter Man]

Wurls,

No hidden agenda, it's just that there's bending rules then there's breaking them.

Someone's got their head in the sand me thinks.

No one's accountable.

Bob D said around a year ago that basically he'd clean up.

Nothings changed - life goes on.

Top bankers get together once a week around the breakfast table to agree strategy for the week and the bottom line is the market gets rigged, they lie to whoever while lining their pockets.
Joe public and SME's suffer.

Wonderful.

Phil

[Countdown]

munky said:

I bet you think Adam Clayton should resign as well. After all, his employee committed fraud whilst under his direct supervision. Must be his fault.

If Adam Clayton created/tolerated a culture of misfeasance and his employees thought such behaviour was acceptable it would be disingenuous for Adam to then turn around and profess himself to be blameless.

[Blackpuddin]

RacerMDR said:

The CEO of Barclays should not be dismissed - he wasn't responsible.

How many sh*t sandwiches are some folk prepared to eat before they say 'enough'?

[speedy_thrills]

It doesn't matter if he knew or not, it's his job to know.

[Blackpuddin]

Exactly. If he knew, he's an arse. If he didn't know, he's an arse.

[munky]

speedy_thrills said:

It doesn't matter if he knew or not, it's his job to know.

1) Logistically, how is he supposed to know what 146,000 people are doing?
2) How is he supposed to know what someone is doing, when they are covering it up with the aim of the boss not finding out?

[munky]

Countdown said:

munky said:

I bet you think Adam Clayton should resign as well. After all, his employee committed fraud whilst under his direct supervision. Must be his fault.

If Adam Clayton created/tolerated a culture of misfeasance and his employees thought such behaviour was acceptable it would be disingenuous for Adam to then turn around and profess himself to be blameless.

It doesn't matter if he did or didn't; according to speedy_thrills it's his job to know.

If every boss of a large company quit every time someone, somewhere in the organisation did something wrong, each one would only last a week in the job. It's utterly ridiculous and achieves nothing.

[Countdown]

munky said:

1) Logistically, how is he supposed to know what 146,000 people are doing?

Controls assurance. Risk management. Application of rigorous and public sanctions for non-compliance

munky said:

2) How is he supposed to know what someone is doing, when they are covering it up with the aim of the boss not finding out?

A %age of employees will always be corrupt. It's human nature. It's the manager's job to create systems where the risk of getting caught (and the consequent penalties) outweighs the benefits/rewards of the inappropriate behaviour.

[RYH64E]

munky said:

speedy_thrills said:

It doesn't matter if he knew or not, it's his job to know.

1) Logistically, how is he supposed to know what 146,000 people are doing?
2) How is he supposed to know what someone is doing, when they are covering it up with the aim of the boss not finding out?

As I understand it, it wasn't just rogue employees there was some kind of corporate sanctioned falsification of Libor rates, if true then he should have known about that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...

Telegraph said:

Bob Diamond: Barclays falsified Libor to protect bank during financial crisis
Barclays chief executive Bob Diamond has admitted for the first time that the bank made a conscious decision to falsify Libor rates in order to protect the bank at the height of the financial crisis.

[Blackpuddin]

munky said:

It doesn't matter if he did or didn't; according to speedy_thrills it's his job to know.

If every boss of a large company quit every time someone, somewhere in the organisation did something wrong, each one would only last a week in the job. It's utterly ridiculous and achieves nothing.

But this is endemic! How can the CEOs be absolved from blame?
Barclays won't be the only bank flushed out. They're just the first.

[munky]

RYH64E said:

munky said:

speedy_thrills said:

It doesn't matter if he knew or not, it's his job to know.

1) Logistically, how is he supposed to know what 146,000 people are doing?
2) How is he supposed to know what someone is doing, when they are covering it up with the aim of the boss not finding out?

As I understand it, it wasn't just rogue employees there was some kind of corporate sanctioned falsification of Libor rates, if true then he should have known about that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...

Telegraph said:

Bob Diamond: Barclays falsified Libor to protect bank during financial crisis
Barclays chief executive Bob Diamond has admitted for the first time that the bank made a conscious decision to falsify Libor rates in order to protect the bank at the height of the financial crisis.

As I said at length in the other thread, there were 2 separate "cases" of libor manipulation. One of them involved collusion between staff within Barclays, and between Barclays staff and those at 2 other banks. The aim was to create or increase profit, and therefore may be found to be fraudulent. This is the more serious case, but also the one that is very unlikely Bob knew about as the rogue staff hid their actions. Also as the FSA said it is unknown whether or not the rogue staff achieved their aim, but still they intended to. Since it is very unlikely indeed that Bob could have known about it, I don't see why he should resign.
The second case, which is more likely that Bob knew about, did not have a profit motive. It was to prevent a run on the bank and being bailed out by the taxpayer. Furthermore, libor during that period in time was complete guesswork since interbank lending had ceased. Any guess submitted to the BBA was as right, and as wrong, as any other guess. Should he resign for saving the taxpayer billions?