10 years since the start of the financial crisis.
Discussion
loafer123 said:
The panels for banks are very small - they have to have substantial PI insurance and the ability to value all sectors around the country, and very few firms qualify.
We were quite familiar with the bank's panel. The firm we were being pushed towards had never been on the panel for the type of asset being valued.So said:
loafer123 said:
The panels for banks are very small - they have to have substantial PI insurance and the ability to value all sectors around the country, and very few firms qualify.
We were quite familiar with the bank's panel. The firm we were being pushed towards had never been on the panel for the type of asset being valued.sidicks said:
siovey said:
Ahh, 10 years ago I was still working for HBOS. Decent salary with a nice final salary pension scheme. It wasn't too long after that it all went t*ts up and pension etc is now f
d. Ah well.....
Eh, what’s the solvency position of the HBOS fund?d. Ah well.....
In fact, my wife was also made redundant from them at the same time...
loafer123 said:
So said:
loafer123 said:
The panels for banks are very small - they have to have substantial PI insurance and the ability to value all sectors around the country, and very few firms qualify.
We were quite familiar with the bank's panel. The firm we were being pushed towards had never been on the panel for the type of asset being valued.siovey said:
Its not their solvency that's the issue. Its the fact that my pension stopped when I was made redundant soon after the crash, and it is now way lower than it would have been had I stayed for my career like I was planning...
In fact, my wife was also made redundant from them at the same time...
So your pension earned to date was entirely unaffected? Ok.In fact, my wife was also made redundant from them at the same time...
So said:
loafer123 said:
So said:
loafer123 said:
The panels for banks are very small - they have to have substantial PI insurance and the ability to value all sectors around the country, and very few firms qualify.
We were quite familiar with the bank's panel. The firm we were being pushed towards had never been on the panel for the type of asset being valued.
James_B said:
El stovey said:
If you think there’s nothing immoral about that then fair enough.
It’s about the same level of immorality as selling someone a £30 paint protection for £500, or having a mate clock back in for you when you have a long lunch.About the same as moving LIBOR up by 1/100 of 1% when it favoured your book, or a supermarket selling the family pack at more per kg than the smaller ones, relying on people assuming bigger means cheaper.
It’s not how I’d ever choose to do things, but let’s not pretend it’s like nurses choosing to kill difficult pensioners with morphine or police fitting someone up for a serious crime.
They deliberately made viable business go bust to sell their assets for profit. They did this due to the situation they were in after almost a decade of bad management decisions, particularly over the take over of ABN These guys worked directly under Fred Goodwin.
The two main RBS executives involved, then lied to a Treasury select Committee and left RBS after more payouts and are now doing the same job and Santander.
1. They made viable business go bust
2. It was due to their own bad management decisions
3. They are now doing the same role for Santander.
This is not the same level of morality as overselling paint protection.
El stovey said:
“An RBS department, the global restructuring group (GRG), was the focus of allegations that it forced viable small businesses to the brink so that the bank could buy up their properties and make a profit.”
They deliberately made viable business go bust to sell their assets for profit. They did this due to the situation they were in after almost a decade of bad management decisions, particularly over the take over of ABN These guys worked directly under Fred Goodwin.
The two main RBS executives involved, then lied to a Treasury select Committee and left RBS after more payouts and are now doing the same job and Santander.
1. They made viable business go bust
2. It was due to their own bad management decisions
3. They are now doing the same role for Santander.
This is not the same level of morality as overselling paint protection.
The bit in bold is quite important!They deliberately made viable business go bust to sell their assets for profit. They did this due to the situation they were in after almost a decade of bad management decisions, particularly over the take over of ABN These guys worked directly under Fred Goodwin.
The two main RBS executives involved, then lied to a Treasury select Committee and left RBS after more payouts and are now doing the same job and Santander.
1. They made viable business go bust
2. It was due to their own bad management decisions
3. They are now doing the same role for Santander.
This is not the same level of morality as overselling paint protection.
sidicks said:
El stovey said:
“An RBS department, the global restructuring group (GRG), was the focus of allegations that it forced viable small businesses to the brink so that the bank could buy up their properties and make a profit.”
They deliberately made viable business go bust to sell their assets for profit. They did this due to the situation they were in after almost a decade of bad management decisions, particularly over the take over of ABN These guys worked directly under Fred Goodwin.
The two main RBS executives involved, then lied to a Treasury select Committee and left RBS after more payouts and are now doing the same job and Santander.
1. They made viable business go bust
2. It was due to their own bad management decisions
3. They are now doing the same role for Santander.
This is not the same level of morality as overselling paint protection.
The bit in bold is quite important!They deliberately made viable business go bust to sell their assets for profit. They did this due to the situation they were in after almost a decade of bad management decisions, particularly over the take over of ABN These guys worked directly under Fred Goodwin.
The two main RBS executives involved, then lied to a Treasury select Committee and left RBS after more payouts and are now doing the same job and Santander.
1. They made viable business go bust
2. It was due to their own bad management decisions
3. They are now doing the same role for Santander.
This is not the same level of morality as overselling paint protection.
RBS chairman Sir Philip Hampton had to apologise for the "lack of clarity" by his executives. They were described as being “wilfully obtuse” in the inquiry by the treasury select committee.
av185 said:
fesuvious said:
Those constantly wishing to 'blame the banks' need to remember that for every willing lender there was a willing borrower.
In 2003 I was working with a 23yr old who was maxing his earnings at @£14k. On this he had @£30-35k on credit cards, a brand new Renault Clio on finance and wore nothing but armani / boss etc etc.
We watched as heaps of Brits remortgaged their homes here and spanked the cash on property abroad.
We watched as people eagerly mopped up 100% / 110% mortages.
We watched as Estate Agents valued properties ever higher, setting new precedents for each area with every sale.
We watched as firms like Egg offered 50year mortgages.
In 2006 I remember a mum telling me that on her sons 18th B'day he had 'at least' 5 credit card mailing shots arrive through the letterbox.
Why are we not blaming the de-regulation that allowed all this? And those that chose to do it?
Why are we not rightly apportioning blame to all those for whom greed and the desire to wear fancy clothes or buy a posh pad, or drive funky cars on lease over-rode common sense?
Yes, banks sold iffy products, and they sold people products that those people could barely afford, but every single time it was the borrower who asked for it. They were not forced.
I'm thoroughly fed up with this pious bullst about the evil banks.
And, no, I'm not a banker, nor am I in finance.
Good post.In 2003 I was working with a 23yr old who was maxing his earnings at @£14k. On this he had @£30-35k on credit cards, a brand new Renault Clio on finance and wore nothing but armani / boss etc etc.
We watched as heaps of Brits remortgaged their homes here and spanked the cash on property abroad.
We watched as people eagerly mopped up 100% / 110% mortages.
We watched as Estate Agents valued properties ever higher, setting new precedents for each area with every sale.
We watched as firms like Egg offered 50year mortgages.
In 2006 I remember a mum telling me that on her sons 18th B'day he had 'at least' 5 credit card mailing shots arrive through the letterbox.
Why are we not blaming the de-regulation that allowed all this? And those that chose to do it?
Why are we not rightly apportioning blame to all those for whom greed and the desire to wear fancy clothes or buy a posh pad, or drive funky cars on lease over-rode common sense?
Yes, banks sold iffy products, and they sold people products that those people could barely afford, but every single time it was the borrower who asked for it. They were not forced.
I'm thoroughly fed up with this pious bulls
t about the evil banks.And, no, I'm not a banker, nor am I in finance.
Always find it amusing those borrowers who willingly took on more debt against their property (self certification mortgages anyone? 110%loans? ) which 'could only keep increasing in value' but then when the inevitable down valuing came throwing them into negative equity as the market weakened these same people were the ones who took no responsibility whatsoever for their reckless borrowing and solely blamed the lenders.
But then we have increasingly become a nation who won't take responsibility for their own actions haven't we?
If borrowers are happy lapping up the juicy profits from property rises in the good times they should equally take any losses on the chin during hard times too but oh no its the lenders fault.
Just a point regarding the unfortunate case of the bank appointing a valuer who apparently 'low balled' to force a sale of property. A valuer acting for a bank/institution has strict professional guidelines to adhere to and has to be able justify the valuation in extreme detail maybe in court at a future date.
Panel valuers acting on behalf of intitutions are carefully vetted not selected at random and it has always been the case and is perfectly normal to have a wide variation in opinion on property value between one valuer and another.
t about evil banks' is straight from the Trump play book. It's neither pious, bullst nor characterised as 'evil', what it was was sharp practise to make money - that's a banks' raison d'etre.. To characterise all borrowers as stupid, reckless and greedy is similarly Trumpesque - for sure there was lots of it but there were many (perhaps a majority) who were either desperate, saw opportunity or were simply naïve.
A regulated, trusted financial organisation says it's OK to do something and encourages borrowing vs. Joe Mug who takes things at face value... I know where I apportion the majority of the blame.
I'm not anti-bankers - at the time I was against the 'strip them of their bonuses' etc that was going on, but the sub-prime case and the SME shenanigans were clearly sharp business practise designed to sweep up the gullible and naïve.
If the itinerant builder tells the old lady her roof needs re-doing when it doesn't and he can do it for a good price, is the old lady to blame when she's left bereft of savings and ends up under the same roof she started out with...?
andy_s said:
Classing the criticism of the banks as 'pious bullst about evil banks' is straight from the Trump play book. It's neither pious, bullst nor characterised as 'evil', what it was was sharp practise to make money - that's a banks' raison d'etre..
To characterise all borrowers as stupid, reckless and greedy is similarly Trumpesque - for sure there was lots of it but there were many (perhaps a majority) who were either desperate, saw opportunity or were simply naïve.
A regulated, trusted financial organisation says it's OK to do something and encourages borrowing vs. Joe Mug who takes things at face value... I know where I apportion the majority of the blame.
I'm not anti-bankers - at the time I was against the 'strip them of their bonuses' etc that was going on, but the sub-prime case and the SME shenanigans were clearly sharp business practise designed to sweep up the gullible and naïve.
If the itinerant builder tells the old lady her roof needs re-doing when it doesn't and he can do it for a good price, is the old lady to blame when she's left bereft of savings and ends up under the same roof she started out with...?
Where Clinton forced banks to lend to substandard risks? Why is that the banks’ fault?t about evil banks' is straight from the Trump play book. It's neither pious, bullst nor characterised as 'evil', what it was was sharp practise to make money - that's a banks' raison d'etre.. To characterise all borrowers as stupid, reckless and greedy is similarly Trumpesque - for sure there was lots of it but there were many (perhaps a majority) who were either desperate, saw opportunity or were simply naïve.
A regulated, trusted financial organisation says it's OK to do something and encourages borrowing vs. Joe Mug who takes things at face value... I know where I apportion the majority of the blame.
I'm not anti-bankers - at the time I was against the 'strip them of their bonuses' etc that was going on, but the sub-prime case and the SME shenanigans were clearly sharp business practise designed to sweep up the gullible and naïve.
If the itinerant builder tells the old lady her roof needs re-doing when it doesn't and he can do it for a good price, is the old lady to blame when she's left bereft of savings and ends up under the same roof she started out with...?
sidicks said:
andy_s said:
Classing the criticism of the banks as 'pious bullst about evil banks' is straight from the Trump play book. It's neither pious, bullst nor characterised as 'evil', what it was was sharp practise to make money - that's a banks' raison d'etre..
To characterise all borrowers as stupid, reckless and greedy is similarly Trumpesque - for sure there was lots of it but there were many (perhaps a majority) who were either desperate, saw opportunity or were simply naïve.
A regulated, trusted financial organisation says it's OK to do something and encourages borrowing vs. Joe Mug who takes things at face value... I know where I apportion the majority of the blame.
I'm not anti-bankers - at the time I was against the 'strip them of their bonuses' etc that was going on, but the sub-prime case and the SME shenanigans were clearly sharp business practise designed to sweep up the gullible and naïve.
If the itinerant builder tells the old lady her roof needs re-doing when it doesn't and he can do it for a good price, is the old lady to blame when she's left bereft of savings and ends up under the same roof she started out with...?
Where Clinton forced banks to lend to substandard risks? Why is that the banks’ fault?t about evil banks' is straight from the Trump play book. It's neither pious, bullst nor characterised as 'evil', what it was was sharp practise to make money - that's a banks' raison d'etre.. To characterise all borrowers as stupid, reckless and greedy is similarly Trumpesque - for sure there was lots of it but there were many (perhaps a majority) who were either desperate, saw opportunity or were simply naïve.
A regulated, trusted financial organisation says it's OK to do something and encourages borrowing vs. Joe Mug who takes things at face value... I know where I apportion the majority of the blame.
I'm not anti-bankers - at the time I was against the 'strip them of their bonuses' etc that was going on, but the sub-prime case and the SME shenanigans were clearly sharp business practise designed to sweep up the gullible and naïve.
If the itinerant builder tells the old lady her roof needs re-doing when it doesn't and he can do it for a good price, is the old lady to blame when she's left bereft of savings and ends up under the same roof she started out with...?
Countdown said:
sidicks said:
Where Clinton forced banks to lend to substandard risks? Why is that the banks’ fault?
How did US finance policy force UK banks to behave in the way they did?sidicks said:
Countdown said:
sidicks said:
Where Clinton forced banks to lend to substandard risks? Why is that the banks’ fault?
How did US finance policy force UK banks to behave in the way they did?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff