Rbs

[poolman]

The board of the RBS are threatening to resign if they are not allowed to pay bonuses to senior staff


DONT LET US ****IN HOLD YOU BACK :bye:

[Phil D. Rolls]

The board of the RBS are threatening to resign if they are not allowed to pay bonuses to senior staff


DONT LET US ****IN HOLD YOU BACK :bye:

They just don't get it. No doubt they'll subject us to another series of adverts telling us that they are really OK guys and that we can't live without them.

If Brown had any balls the lot of them would be nationalised. Sounds a bit too much like socialism though.

[Jack]

Its not just bonuses; its £1.5 BILLION bonuses!

[Jack]

I think its difficult for a lot of folk to think of such large numbers with any relevance. They’ve been banded about so often a billion here, a billion there and even trillions.

So while I know this is in $s here’s the idea

Here is a $100 note, fold it put it in your pocket.

[Jack]

£10,000, lets pretend they're £s now, is still small enough to slip into the inside pocket of your jacket.

[Jack]

£1m (£1,000,000) is still handy enough to carry around in a brief case.

[Jack]

£100m (£100,000,000) you'd need a pallet and a wee van to carry it about. unless, of course, its in the form of a footballer who could sit in a car.

[Jack]

£1b (£1,000,000,000) now we’re talking! That’s 10 pallets full of money and the bankers want half of that again!

[Jack]

£1t (£1,000,000,000,000) one trillion pounds. Remember the bankers lost lots of these! And yes that tiny figure with the red jersey is still in proportion to the first £100 note!

[Viva_Palmeiras]

And I'm a pallet maker - kerching! Quids in !!!

[Viva_Palmeiras]

FWIW I hate the greed associated with all of this. But if its to change and the change required is radical, it needs to be done multi-laterally.

The way I see it, the govt created a rod for their back when they said they'd tackle the issue:

The principle is honorable and fine in some sense however in reality money is a magnet for bankers. Unless there is a combined initiative there will be a brain-drain. So whats the point in weakening the RBS further creating further instability in the market?

The upshot, seems to be political posturing and brinkmanship. The reality is I think things will be watered down on both sides as compromise is reached and both save face.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

...in addition, when the govt took over the banks and effectively forced the replacement of the boards, those undertaking the stewardship should have been briefed on what the deal was.

They must have been told but faced with targets to hit to meet govt needs for repayment etc. the reality is they needed to incentivise the workforce to do this I imagine.

Was it Helena Kristianssen (sp) who said she wouldn't get out of bed for less than 10K I wonder what the bankers equivalent is?

[Toaods]

a few of the current board were put in place at the behest of the Government and tasked with keeping it afloat as a PLC.

It's like signing for Barcelona and then being told to play in your bare feet, so expect the Gov to find a way around all the fuss (probably already agreed :wink: )

[ano hibby]

Middle ground has to & will be found in a way that is politcally acceptable.

We the taxpayer own 84% of RBS. If RBS are at a serious competitive disadvantage by not being able to pay "market" salaries then they will lose people, lose market share, the shares will fall and taxpayers will lose money.

The solution will be offer said "bankers" shares, increase base salaries etc or more likely cunning schemes than that.

RBS are increasingly an anomaly as other global banks who are competing with RBS for talent (:faf:) have bought themselves out of government support and can pay what they want. However RBS & the UK economy is in such a mess that they cant afford to do this and wont be able to for many years.

[Green Mikey]

The problem is that the government has to restrict bonuses for the entire banking system not just RBS.

RBS are complaining because they are being penalised when other banks are paying out similar bonuses. Regulation has to apply to all banks not just the government owned ones because it creates a uneven playing field.

[Andy74]

You have to remember its a tiny percentage of people that were involved in any loss making activity and most if not all are gone so any thought that these are people who have failed is wrong.

Secondly, there are parts of the business were people are making very large profits. These people are very good at what they do and there is a market for them. No need to be jealous of that, they are talented and get paid a lot of money, just like actors or sportsmen that we seem to accept shouldn't be paid the same as you or me.

The issue is that there are still a large number of financial organisations who can and will pay these guys the going rate so yes, they could walk quite easily.

If they walk you lose the ability to make profits from those business and as a result the tax payer gets no return on the RBS investment and in future we don't benefit from the corporation tax a profitable RBS would get back to paying.

The position that the Board are in is that they will think there is a certain way to pay to make RBS profitable again and if they are blocked from doing so then they are failing in their basic duties as Directors to act in the best interest of the shareholders and stakeholders.

You also need to bear in mind that this is a new Board who are setting about sorting the mess out that they were previously in and are in no way responsible for getting into that position.

It's very simplisitc to say that bankers don't deserve bonuses and it would be a bad case of cutting off the nose to spite the face if the future profitability of the Bank was put at risk over some issue about people getting paid well for what they do. Again, it's a tiny percentage of high calibre people.

In keeping with new guidelines the bonuses would be deferred, not in cash and subject to claw back if long term objectives were not met.

We don't like people getting more money than we do but the press and some politicians are making sure that this is discussed way out of context and most people are immediately quite aggressively against anything related to bank bonuses without thinking through the real bigger picture.

[Woody1985]

You have to remember its a tiny percentage of people that were involved in any loss making activity and most if not all are gone so any thought that these are people who have failed is wrong.

Secondly, there are parts of the business were people are making very large profits. These people are very good at what they do and there is a market for them. No need to be jealous of that, they are talented and get paid a lot of money, just like actors or sportsmen that we seem to accept shouldn't be paid the same as you or me.

The issue is that there are still a large number of financial organisations who can and will pay these guys the going rate so yes, they could walk quite easily.

If they walk you lose the ability to make profits from those business and as a result the tax payer gets no return on the RBS investment and in future we don't benefit from the corporation tax a profitable RBS would get back to paying.

The position that the Board are in is that they will think there is a certain way to pay to make RBS profitable again and if they are blocked from doing so then they are failing in their basic duties as Directors to act in the best interest of the shareholders and stakeholders.

You also need to bear in mind that this is a new Board who are setting about sorting the mess out that they were previously in and are in no way responsible for getting into that position.

It's very simplisitc to say that bankers don't deserve bonuses and it would be a bad case of cutting off the nose to spite the face if the future profitability of the Bank was put at risk over some issue about people getting paid well for what they do. Again, it's a tiny percentage of high calibre people.

In keeping with new guidelines the bonuses would be deferred, not in cash and subject to claw back if long term objectives were not met.

We don't like people getting more money than we do but the press and some politicians are making sure that this is discussed way out of context and most people are immediately quite aggressively against anything related to bank bonuses without thinking through the real bigger picture.

Good post and explained well.

Now get back to work and get the taxpayer paid back. :greengrin

[GlesgaeHibby]

You have to remember its a tiny percentage of people that were involved in any loss making activity and most if not all are gone so any thought that these are people who have failed is wrong.

Secondly, there are parts of the business were people are making very large profits. These people are very good at what they do and there is a market for them. No need to be jealous of that, they are talented and get paid a lot of money, just like actors or sportsmen that we seem to accept shouldn't be paid the same as you or me.

The issue is that there are still a large number of financial organisations who can and will pay these guys the going rate so yes, they could walk quite easily.

If they walk you lose the ability to make profits from those business and as a result the tax payer gets no return on the RBS investment and in future we don't benefit from the corporation tax a profitable RBS would get back to paying.

The position that the Board are in is that they will think there is a certain way to pay to make RBS profitable again and if they are blocked from doing so then they are failing in their basic duties as Directors to act in the best interest of the shareholders and stakeholders.

You also need to bear in mind that this is a new Board who are setting about sorting the mess out that they were previously in and are in no way responsible for getting into that position.

It's very simplisitc to say that bankers don't deserve bonuses and it would be a bad case of cutting off the nose to spite the face if the future profitability of the Bank was put at risk over some issue about people getting paid well for what they do. Again, it's a tiny percentage of high calibre people.

In keeping with new guidelines the bonuses would be deferred, not in cash and subject to claw back if long term objectives were not met.

We don't like people getting more money than we do but the press and some politicians are making sure that this is discussed way out of context and most people are immediately quite aggressively against anything related to bank bonuses without thinking through the real bigger picture.

The bigger picture is that they wouldn't be in a job right now if it wasn't for the taxpayer bailing them out.

The reality is that WE, the taxpayers, own 83% of RBS, and it is our money that has saved the bank.

The way these barstewards go on about bonuses is that they assume they'll always get them, and that it's so tough for them if they don't get these bonuses. The reality is that there are people in this country just making enough to get by, and these tosspots are expecting hefty bonuses, whilst they are still to pay us back for saving their skins.

They get a salary FFS, and it's a bloody good salary at that.

The bigger picture is that the collapse of the banks has played a massive part in a long and hefty recession, which has seen the highest rates of unemployment in a long time.

Real people are suffering badly at the minute, and these tw@ts still want ridiculous bonus payouts :grr::grr:

Rant over:greengrin

[Woody1985]

The bigger picture is that they wouldn't be in a job right now if it wasn't for the taxpayer bailing them out.

The reality is that WE, the taxpayers, own 83% of RBS, and it is our money that has saved the bank.

The way these barstewards go on about bonuses is that they assume they'll always get them, and that it's so tough for them if they don't get these bonuses. The reality is that there are people in this country just making enough to get by, and these tosspots are expecting hefty bonuses, whilst they are still to pay us back for saving their skins.

They get a salary FFS, and it's a bloody good salary at that.

The bigger picture is that the collapse of the banks has played a massive part in a long and hefty recession, which has seen the highest rates of unemployment in a long time.

Real people are suffering badly at the minute, and these tw@ts still want ridiculous bonus payouts :grr::grr:

Rant over:greengrin

Where do you think the economy would be if RBS was allowed to fail?

How many do they employ worldwide, 100,000+ IIRC, and a fair chunk of that will be based in the UK.

The point they are making is that they do not have to work for RBS. They can work elsewhere for more money doing the same job.

Therefore, it's likely lesser qualified/experienced people will take over and potentially make the situation worse.

I know you can argue about the quality of people previously but we need to move on now and get past all the outrage.

1.5 billion in bonuses probably doesn't equate to that much per employee.

[Andy74]

The bigger picture is that they wouldn't be in a job right now if it wasn't for the taxpayer bailing them out.

The reality is that WE, the taxpayers, own 83% of RBS, and it is our money that has saved the bank.

The way these barstewards go on about bonuses is that they assume they'll always get them, and that it's so tough for them if they don't get these bonuses. The reality is that there are people in this country just making enough to get by, and these tosspots are expecting hefty bonuses, whilst they are still to pay us back for saving their skins.

They get a salary FFS, and it's a bloody good salary at that.

The bigger picture is that the collapse of the banks has played a massive part in a long and hefty recession, which has seen the highest rates of unemployment in a long time.

Real people are suffering badly at the minute, and these tw@ts still want ridiculous bonus payouts :grr::grr:

Rant over:greengrin


They'd be in a job elsewere no problem, it's the normal staff dealing with customers and doing run of the mill jobs that would have suffered had RBS gone.

Then there's all the small businesses that would have suffered even more and mayb even account holders. That would have impacted everyone far more than the bail out.

They do get paid well already ut a bonus is an expected part of the overall package and is paid for exceptional performance, which is being delivered. It's also under the constraints described above.

Again, the taxpayer needs to decide though, do they want the money back and a profit to boot or do they want to lose it all with potentially worse consequences.

If they do want it back they need to accept that the bank needs to be run on a commercial basis with a level playing field with its competitors.

Again, its a new board and executive and those who failed in the past are largely gone so the attitude towards the current 'bankers' id a bit misplaced.

Yes, others are struggling to get by but it would have been worse if the banks did collpase, for everyone.

Also, people will always struggle and there will always be high earners. They are talented or worked hard or both and are getting rewards for that like in every walk of life. Unless we are suggesting communism is the way forward that shouldn't be part of the issue.

[RyeSloan]

The bigger picture is that they wouldn't be in a job right now if it wasn't for the taxpayer bailing them out.

The reality is that WE, the taxpayers, own 83% of RBS, and it is our money that has saved the bank.

The way these barstewards go on about bonuses is that they assume they'll always get them, and that it's so tough for them if they don't get these bonuses. The reality is that there are people in this country just making enough to get by, and these tosspots are expecting hefty bonuses, whilst they are still to pay us back for saving their skins.

They get a salary FFS, and it's a bloody good salary at that.

The bigger picture is that the collapse of the banks has played a massive part in a long and hefty recession, which has seen the highest rates of unemployment in a long time.

Real people are suffering badly at the minute, and these tw@ts still want ridiculous bonus payouts :grr::grr:

Rant over:greengrin


I gather you didn't read Andy's post then. :confused:

[Andy74]

Good post and explained well.

Now get back to work and get the taxpayer paid back. :greengrin

Once I've ordered my Ferrari i'll get right back to it. Promise. :greengrin

[Woody1985]

Once I've ordered my Ferrari i'll get right back to it. Promise. :greengrin

:greengrin

Any chance you can influence my bank charge of £20 I paid in the last few days?! :tee hee:

I must admit, you are becomming a bunch of ***** over charges.

I got myself into some financial difficulties and refinanced 2 loans and my overdraft into one monthly amount.

Because of the way I was treated during the process (I missed one payment and went in arrears and was treated like some kind of fraudster) I decided to leave and move my account to A&L despite thinking the RBS service was better (I've since changed my mind on that and am impressed with A&L).

I had to pay RBS in the region of £800 one month to get it all sorted out. My current account balance was around £1 and then it turned out I was due interest of £3 on my overdraft prior to refinancing. I then incurred a £20 charge for going over my limit. I was ****ing raging!

I'll not be back to RBS because of the situations above and the fact that I now think A&L have a simplier process for operating accounts on-line i.e. no ****ty card reader.

That turned into a bit of a rant! :tee hee:

[Andy74]

:greengrin

Any chance you can influence my bank charge of £20 I paid in the last few days?! :tee hee:

I must admit, you are becomming a bunch of ***** over charges.

I got myself into some financial difficulties and refinanced 2 loans and my overdraft into one monthly amount.

Because of the way I was treated during the process (I missed one payment and went in arrears and was treated like some kind of fraudster) I decided to leave and move my account to A&L despite thinking the RBS service was better (I've since changed my mind on that and am impressed with A&L).

I had to pay RBS in the region of £800 one month to get it all sorted out. My current account balance was around £1 and then it turned out I was due interest of £3 on my overdraft prior to refinancing. I then incurred a £20 charge for going over my limit. I was ****ing raging!

I'll not be back to RBS because of the situations above and the fact that I now think A&L have a simplier process for operating accounts on-line i.e. no ****ty card reader.

That turned into a bit of a rant! :tee hee:

Must admit I don't know much about the charges side of things. The charging structure was changed a few weeks ago though, had you gone before then? :greengrin

[ArabHibee]

:greengrin

Any chance you can influence my bank charge of £20 I paid in the last few days?! :tee hee:

I must admit, you are becomming a bunch of ***** over charges.

I got myself into some financial difficulties and refinanced 2 loans and my overdraft into one monthly amount.

Because of the way I was treated during the process (I missed one payment and went in arrears and was treated like some kind of fraudster) I decided to leave and move my account to A&L despite thinking the RBS service was better (I've since changed my mind on that and am impressed with A&L).

I had to pay RBS in the region of £800 one month to get it all sorted out. My current account balance was around £1 and then it turned out I was due interest of £3 on my overdraft prior to refinancing. I then incurred a £20 charge for going over my limit. I was ****ing raging!

I'll not be back to RBS because of the situations above and the fact that I now think A&L have a simplier process for operating accounts on-line i.e. no ****ty card reader.

That turned into a bit of a rant! :tee hee:

Good luck with the A&L. Had many a nightmare with them for the 5 years I was with them. Their Customer Services is totally pants. Moved to the Nationwide. Very good and no complaints so far. :thumbsup:

[Phil D. Rolls]

a few of the current board were put in place at the behest of the Government and tasked with keeping it afloat as a PLC.

It's like signing for Barcelona and then being told to play in your bare feet, so expect the Gov to find a way around all the fuss (probably already agreed :wink: )

It's PLC gone mad!

What I don't get is that if the bonus system is such a good way of running a company, how come the bloated ********s needed us to bail them out?

[GlesgaeHibby]

They'd be in a job elsewere no problem, it's the normal staff dealing with customers and doing run of the mill jobs that would have suffered had RBS gone.

Then there's all the small businesses that would have suffered even more and mayb even account holders. That would have impacted everyone far more than the bail out.

They do get paid well already ut a bonus is an expected part of the overall package and is paid for exceptional performance, which is being delivered. It's also under the constraints described above.

Again, the taxpayer needs to decide though, do they want the money back and a profit to boot or do they want to lose it all with potentially worse consequences.

If they do want it back they need to accept that the bank needs to be run on a commercial basis with a level playing field with its competitors.

Again, its a new board and executive and those who failed in the past are largely gone so the attitude towards the current 'bankers' id a bit misplaced.

Yes, others are struggling to get by but it would have been worse if the banks did collpase, for everyone.

Also, people will always struggle and there will always be high earners. They are talented or worked hard or both and are getting rewards for that like in every walk of life. Unless we are suggesting communism is the way forward that shouldn't be part of the issue.

Your initial point was that it was only a few people at the top that messed up the whole system, and that is correct.

Look years back at Ferranti, that was a profitable company that went tits up because some stupid American bought the company over and went bust, taking the company with him.

The Government weren't there for a bail out then, were they? There have been plenty other instances like this, where one/a few person is responsible for the demise of a company/organisation, and the poor sods that are doing a great job daily lose their jobs.

Look at the equitable life, thousands lost their pensions when they went to the wall, yet Gordon Brown and the government weren't interested in helping them out.

The Banks, and all those that work for them, have been given a lifeline by the taxpayer, and as the taxpayers are now the shareholders in the Bank they should be held accountable to the taxpayers, through the government, and as such they should all feel glad they still have a job.

Loads of people do brilliant jobs for no extra bonus money. They enjoy the satisfaction that brings.

These bankers are just so disconnected from reality it is unbelievable, and the government/taxpayer should not be held ransom to them spitting the dummy out.

Whatever happened to prudence? Don't spend outwith your means etc.
A lot of these bankers are pushed to take big risks in order to secure big bonuses. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn't, but they are risking our finances whilst doing this, through greed.

These people should just be thankful that they have a job, and a job on a bloody good salary at that.

[ancient hibee]

I don't think this has been touched on-if it has apologies.The problem with the way that the bonus system operated was that there was no auditing to establish that the profits earned by individuals actually existed.There was no control by the board of individuals at the next level down.In the past the bonus was an across the board figure.If the company profit hit a trigger everyone would get the same percentage of salary as a bonus.Obviously some people benefitted without trying a leg but others who did not have the opportunity to show a profit on the work they did but were just as vital to the organisation did not lose out.Seems fairer to me.

[IWasThere2016]

I think the UK Govt., should have let one or two UK banks fail.

The funds invested in the banks would have been better used to incentivise borrowers to repay their debts - particularly those on loans/credit cards etc - thus correcting their personal balance sheets and returning cash into the banks.

This process of re-capitalisation would have been slower via this method and certainly slower than the Govt's intervention - but presently RBS are failing to lend in accordance with agreements set-up and conditional on the bail out.

The cash to banks would have been better used as tax cuts to encourage the consumer to spend (cash in our pockets would have mattered more and been used better than the VAT cut IMHO).

I do wonder if the Govt., should also looked at job creation before now via areas such as social housing, renewables/sustainability

The minimum should have been a mix of the above and the bank bail-out.

The current approach is too narrow IMHO.

I see US unemployment is falling and growth is predicted for 2010 .. whereas in the UK ..

Interestingly, the US allowed some banks to fail ..

Next up has to be Public Services cuts and to address PS spending and the country's debts.

Finally, I fail to see how the loss of jobs in banking would have been any more of an issue than those lost in Woolies, Corus, BA, Borders etc etc etc.

[GlesgaeHibby]

I think the UK Govt., should have let one or two UK banks fail.

The funds invested in the banks would have been better used to incentivise borrowers to repay their debts - particularly those on loans/credit cards etc - thus correcting their personal balance sheets and returning cash into the banks.

This process of re-capitalisation would have been slower via this method and certainly slower than the Govt's intervention - but presently RBS are failing to lend in accordance with agreements set-up and conditional on the bail out.

The cash to banks would have been better used as tax cuts to encourage the consumer to spend (cash in our pockets would have mattered more and been used better than the VAT cut IMHO).

I do wonder if the Govt., should also looked at job creation before now via areas such as social housing, renewables/sustainability

The minimum should have been a mix of the above and the bank bail-out.

The current approach is too narrow IMHO.

I see US unemployment is falling and growth is predicted for 2010 .. whereas in the UK ..

Interestingly, the US allowed some banks to fail ..

Next up has to be Public Services cuts and to address PS spending and the country's debts.

Finally, I fail to see how the loss of jobs in banking would have been any more of an issue than those lost in Woolies, Corus, BA, Borders etc etc etc.

Public service cuts are likely. I believe we are likely to see centralised council services in the near future to cut costs. Council tax/benefits instead of being administered by each local authority is likely to be moved to a regional centre to cut costs (perhaps a return to the old lothian region).

[Big Ed]

Public service cuts are likely. I believe we are likely to see centralised council services in the near future to cut costs. Council tax/benefits instead of being administered by each local authority is likely to be moved to a regional centre to cut costs (perhaps a return to the old lothian region).

Well, if we are talking about Public Service cuts, may I propose that we empty out the Management Consultants who are currently filling their boots in institutions like the NHS and the Police Service and while we are at it, telling those charlatans that pose as Corporate Psychologists that we don't need courses, where we split into teams to put ideas on newsprint sheets, to tell our firemen how to point a hose at a fire.

[Dashing Bob S]

Those barstewards should be thrown in jail, not pampered and indulged further by the government.

[Mibbes Aye]

It's PLC gone mad! :tee hee:


What I don't get is that if the bonus system is such a good way of running a company, how come the bloated ********s needed us to bail them out?

:agree:

It's hard not to see an element of having your cake and eating it here. The economy boomed for a period unrestrained, and we were supposed to be grateful for the trickledown effect of rampant capitalism. Never mind the equality gap widening.

Then the bubble burst and the state had to pick up the pieces. Not allowed to complain though, as that's stifling the free market's ability to generate growth and nothing's more important than that :rolleyes:.

If the markets were truly unfettered, the piss-poor management of some of the companies we've been talking about would have led to them being dead in the water and the 'invisible hand' would have ensured that someone else stepped in. Instead they've had the safety net of the government stepping in to underwrite their incompetence.

And that's the sore point. If we're playing by the rules of a free market, fair enough. The rules are clear and while some of us might not like them at least they spell out that you're playing with risk and you can be a winner or a loser.

What we've seen is supposed entrepeneurialists making profit and then when the risk kicks in they're minimising the damage for themselves, while everyone else pays the price.

That's just a scam.

[J-C]

What other company would you see get into such a mess, almost to the brink of disappearance and instead of the management losing there jobs because of their ineptitude, staff lose them and they in return get a big bonus. Tell the lot of them to sod off, I'm sure there's a lot of people in the company champing at the bit for a chance of promotion for half the wages and bunuses.

[ancienthibby]

They'd be in a job elsewere no problem, it's the normal staff dealing with customers and doing run of the mill jobs that would have suffered had RBS gone.

Then there's all the small businesses that would have suffered even more and mayb even account holders. That would have impacted everyone far more than the bail out.

They do get paid well already ut a bonus is an expected part of the overall package and is paid for exceptional performance, which is being delivered. It's also under the constraints described above.

Again, the taxpayer needs to decide though, do they want the money back and a profit to boot or do they want to lose it all with potentially worse consequences.

If they do want it back they need to accept that the bank needs to be run on a commercial basis with a level playing field with its competitors.

Again, its a new board and executive and those who failed in the past are largely gone so the attitude towards the current 'bankers' id a bit misplaced.

Yes, others are struggling to get by but it would have been worse if the banks did collpase, for everyone.

Also, people will always struggle and there will always be high earners. They are talented or worked hard or both and are getting rewards for that like in every walk of life. Unless we are suggesting communism is the way forward that shouldn't be part of the issue.

What utter drivel!!

You have used these boards in the past to be a complete, unavowed apologist for the totally shamed (though clearly not in his own view) 'Fred the Shred' and now you come on advocating the worthwhileness of his other money-sucking colleagues to continue doing exactly what they did to get the Bank into such trouble that brought them to their financial knees before the Government!!!

Steady as they go then, Andy??

Unbelievable!!

[Andy74]

What utter drivel!!

You have used these boards in the past to be a complete, unavowed apologist for the totally shamed (though clearly not in his own view) 'Fred the Shred' and now you come on advocating the worthwhileness of his other money-sucking colleagues to continue doing exactly what they did to get the Bank into such trouble that brought them to their financial knees before the Government!!!

Steady as they go then, Andy??

Unbelievable!!

I don't think you are really reading what I am saying.

[steakbake]

I think there is a huge danger that in a way to deflect attention from the economic situation, the government makes our financial services industry totally unappealing to international grade talent. It's all very well revelling like armchair marxists at the apparent collapse of capitalism (it hasn't collapsed by the way), but the bottom line is that vast sections of the economy need to be free from government control in order for the whole of it to work. To limit bonuses might get Labour a few points in the polls, but it comes at a risk of limiting the desireability of UK and Scottish financial institutions even further.

It's a facile argument to ask where the bankers talents were before they got us in to this situation. The fact of the matter is if our banking sector gets slaughtered on the alter of public opinion, we're only shooting ourselves in the foot given that a fair whack of our economy relies on having a competitive and attractive financial system.

I'm glad that there hasn't so far, been a crackdown on metaphors.

[Woody1985]

I don't think you are rally reading what I am saying.

Are you LiverpoolHibs in disguise? :greengrin

[ancienthibby]

I think there is a huge danger that in a way to deflect attention from the economic situation, the government makes our financial services industry totally unappealing to international grade talent. It's all very well revelling like armchair marxists at the apparent collapse of capitalism (it hasn't collapsed by the way), but the bottom line is that vast sections of the economy need to be free from government control in order for the whole of it to work. To limit bonuses might get Labour a few points in the polls, but it comes at a risk of limiting the desireability of UK and Scottish financial institutions even further.

It's a facile argument to ask where the bankers talents were before they got us in to this situation. The fact of the matter is if our banking sector gets slaughtered on the alter of public opinion, we're only shooting ourselves in the foot given that a fair whack of our economy relies on having a competitive and attractive financial system.

I'm glad that there hasn't so far, been a crackdown on metaphors.

There is much in your post to agree with BS, but you do not apply your thinking to the specific case, i.e. the RBS.

For the record, RBS is now a UK government institution, funded by the UK taxpayer - without which support it would no longer exist since the capitalist system was unable/unwilling to support it!

But the government bailout happened with billions of pounds sterling poured into an otherwise bankrupt financial institution.

What is 'sticking in the craw' of UK taxpayers is that their precious funds are now, seemingly, being used to fund bonuses to 'bankers' who seemingly continue to to the same things that first got the bank in all this deep doo-doo.

RBS overall is still declaring massive losses. It has no money of its own.

And now it wants to use taxpayers monies to fund bonuses to certain employees to continue doing what they did before!!

If that is what top banking talent are employed to do then we can well do without them - let them leave in droves if they so wish!!

[J-C]

What annoys me is we have 2 grand banking institutes in Scotland and both have been taken to financial ruin by boards who all they had in mind was greed for themselves and their respective boards and shareholders. If this had happened in any other business sector, the board and any other higher hierarchy would've been booted out long ago.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I think, rather than paying them bonuses, they should be forced to do their jobs with rifles trained on them. Anyone failing to come up with the goods would have their contract terminated in a way that no tribunal could overturn.

IMO, compromise won't get us anywhere.

[Betty Boop]

What about having a maximum wage in this country?

[Phil D. Rolls]

What about having a maximum wage in this country?

Coupled with an armed guard to stop them leaving the country, I think it could be a winner!

[Betty Boop]

Coupled with an armed guard to stop them leaving the country, I think it could be a winner!

:greengrin

[Betty Boop]

Tax rate of 50% on those earning over £150,000, and 50% on bonuses of over £25,000, in Darling's pre-budget speech. A further 2.5 billion for military operations in Afghanistan. More "efficiency" savings to be made. :rolleyes:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Tax rate of 50% on those earning over £150,000, and 50% on bonuses of over £25,000, in Darling's pre-budget speech. A further 2.5 billion for military operations in Afghanistan. More "efficiency" savings to be made. :rolleyes:

They just can't bring themselves to say "NHS" can they? Like the idea of taxing the rich, although I know some people say it doesn't make us competitive. Can I just reiterate my new policy of a machine gun at the door of every bank?

[Betty Boop]

They just can't bring themselves to say "NHS" can they? Like the idea of taxing the rich, although I know some people say it doesn't make us competitive. Can I just reiterate my new policy of a machine gun at the door of every bank?

Bingo tax reduced from 25% to 20%! :greengrin

[Godsahibby]

There is much in your post to agree with BS, but you do not apply your thinking to the specific case, i.e. the RBS.

For the record, RBS is now a UK government institution, funded by the UK taxpayer - without which support it would no longer exist since the capitalist system was unable/unwilling to support it!

But the government bailout happened with billions of pounds sterling poured into an otherwise bankrupt financial institution.

What is 'sticking in the craw' of UK taxpayers is that their precious funds are now, seemingly, being used to fund bonuses to 'bankers' who seemingly continue to to the same things that first got the bank in all this deep doo-doo.

RBS overall is still declaring massive losses. It has no money of its own.

And now it wants to use taxpayers monies to fund bonuses to certain employees to continue doing what they did before!!

If that is what top banking talent are employed to do then we can well do without them - let them leave in droves if they so wish!!

RBS and Lloyds are both in an industry where tallented people are rewarded, while I agree we cannot go back to how things were, there still needs to be something in place to retain these staff.

It is yours and my money in these companies and how are we ever going to get it back if the bank's cannot compete with many of the other financial institutions out there if these staff are leaving?

[RyeSloan]

Interesting that todays revised figures put the estimated public loss from bank bailouts reducing from £50bn to £10bn.....not quite the headline grabbing figures banded about by the media for the last year or so.....and considering just how critical a sound banking environment is to everyone and their dog then could this even be considered good value for money???

[Andy74]

Interesting that todays revised figures put the estimated public loss from bank bailouts reducing from £50bn to £10bn.....not quite the headline grabbing figures banded about by the media for the last year or so.....and considering just how critical a sound banking environment is to everyone and their dog then could this even be considered good value for money???

Once the banks recover, in terms of the actual investment it will be more than vaue for money. In 3 to 5 yrs the banks will be profitable again. Most of the buinesses actually are very profitable but are being brought down by write downs and bad credit from other parts of the business, caused by a very small number.

The UK taxpayer will then hopefully have a tidy profit to show for it.

The thing is though the UK taxpayer may also mess this up for themsleves if they continue with the bashing of something that they own and should be benefitting from.

The banks now need to be allowed to be run as commercial organisations. They are essentially under new management and the public kickings are doing more harm than good.

[ancienthibby]

Once the banks recover, in terms of the actual investment it will be more than vaue for money. In 3 to 5 yrs the banks will be profitable again. Most of the buinesses actually are very profitable but are being brought down by write downs and bad credit from other parts of the business, caused by a very small number.

The UK taxpayer will then hopefully have a tidy profit to show for it.

The thing is though the UK taxpayer may also mess this up for themsleves if they continue with the bashing of something that they own and should be benefitting from.

The banks now need to be allowed to be run as commercial organisations. They are essentially under new management and the public kickings are doing more harm than good.

You just don't get it, do you Andy??

'Your' bankers playing field has been kicked into touch! The taxpayer now owns the RBS and the Government has (in my view) been totally lenient in how it has attempted to persuade the bank to follow a different line.

The days of making money through speculative investments, failed risk management techniques, and purely speculative derivates should be long gone. That's the message from the UK government and the RBS's new shareholders - the UK taxpayers. The bank, to date, has been completely reluctant to take this message on. So it should expect further penal restrictions from the UK goverment and its shareholders.

So what if 1,000 or 10,000 RBS bankers go elsewhere? There are many within the Bank that could step up and do a fine 'standard' banking job and even more former bankers on the dole queue who could step in at lower levels.

Your banking model has been totally discredited.

Take it on the chin and move on!!

[Phil D. Rolls]

Bingo tax reduced from 25% to 20%! :greengrin

Bingo tax down = more money for other "essentials = bingo wings up!
They just don't think things through. Have I mentioned my plan to arm the staff of Farmfoods to ensure that people get their five a day?
It's the only language they'll understand.:grr:

[Andy74]

You just don't get it, do you Andy??

'Your' bankers playing field has been kicked into touch! The taxpayer now owns the RBS and the Government has (in my view) been totally lenient in how it has attempted to persuade the bank to follow a different line.

The days of making money through speculative investments, failed risk management techniques, and purely speculative derivates should be long gone. That's the message from the UK government and the RBS's new shareholders - the UK taxpayers. The bank, to date, has been completely reluctant to take this message on. So it should expect further penal restrictions from the UK goverment and its shareholders.

So what if 1,000 or 10,000 RBS bankers go elsewhere? There are many within the Bank that could step up and do a fine 'standard' banking job and even more former bankers on the dole queue who could step in at lower levels.

Your banking model has been totally discredited.

Take it on the chin and move on!!


Sorry, but actually you are not getting it. I know quite clearly how the bank has changed and who is making money, how and who isn't thanks.

The model has changed and the bank is moving on. Some, like you aren't though.

[ancienthibby]

Sorry, but actually you are not getting it. I know quite clearly how the bank has changed and who is making money, how and who isn't thanks.

The model has changed and the bank is moving on. Some, like you aren't though.

Stop being such a spoiled wee wean ('it's ma ba') and grow up! Your vision of banking has lost - let's be clear - billions and billions and billions - and you think things can continue as they were??

[Andy74]

Stop being such a spoiled wee wean ('it's ma ba') and grow up! Your vision of banking has lost - let's be clear - billions and billions and billions - and you think things can continue as they were??

Are you listening? The bank has changed completley, new strategy, new management, new board, new risk processes, new everything.

Only a very small amount of people in certain activities were involved in the losses. The rest of the new business needs to be allowed to get on with it. It has changed and you seem to be suggesting that the old people and the old model are still in place.

What exactly are you talking about with needing to grow up and acted like a wean. Read my posts which have been nothing but the sort. :confused:

Tell me, if your local was losing money and was taken over by new management with a totally different model which was aimed at turning it around would you still be barking away about the previous manager and criticising everything the guy was trying to do to return it to profit, just as a result of what has happened before?

Seems like it.

Time to move on as the bank has.

[J-C]

Are you listening? The bank has changed completley, new strategy, new management, new board, new risk processes, new everything.

Only a very small amount of people in certain activities were involved in the losses. The rest of the new business needs to be allowed to get on with it. It has changed and you seem to be suggesting that the old people and the old model are still in place.

What exactly are you talking about with needing to grow up and acted like a wean. Read my posts which have been nothing but the sort. :confused:

Tell me, if your local was losing money and was taken over by new management with a totally different model which was aimed at turning it around would you still be barking away about the previous manager and criticising everything the guy was trying to do to return it to profit, just as a result of what has happened before?

Seems like it.

Time to move on as the bank has.


Andy I couldn't care less if the board and all the stategies are new, the facts of the matter is we are in **** upto our knees because of the greed of the banks nand until they get there own house in order and become strong again without asking for govrnment hand outs, bonuses should be a huge no no!
Was is not just the other week that the government had to give them another few million to tide them over, that to me isn't getting the bank back to where is was, until they themselves stop borrowing, bonuses and the like should never be anywhere near another banker.

[Woody1985]

Are you listening? The bank has changed completley, new strategy, new management, new board, new risk processes, new everything.

Only a very small amount of people in certain activities were involved in the losses. The rest of the new business needs to be allowed to get on with it. It has changed and you seem to be suggesting that the old people and the old model are still in place.

What exactly are you talking about with needing to grow up and acted like a wean. Read my posts which have been nothing but the sort. :confused:

Tell me, if your local was losing money and was taken over by new management with a totally different model which was aimed at turning it around would you still be barking away about the previous manager and criticising everything the guy was trying to do to return it to profit, just as a result of what has happened before?

Seems like it.

Time to move on as the bank has.

If what Andy has said is accurate, and I have no reason to think it's not, then some of you are making fools of yourself.

He has provided a clear example with the local boozer example.

Restricting bonuses on people who IMO appear to be doing a great job under the circumastance and IMO will return to private in the next few years.

To pay them the going rate, and bonuses, based on their achievements is the right thing to do.

My post refers to RBS btw, I'm not as familiar with Lloyds.

It seems like most of you wanted the banks to fail, the implications of RBS and +100,000 people going out of work are massive.

Andy, on that point, would people have been chased by debt collectors for the outstanding amounts due on their mortgages? If so, no one would be able to pay them off, it would bring the country to a halt.

[Andy74]

If what Andy has said is accurate, and I have no reason to think it's not, then some of you are making fools of yourself.

He has provided a clear example with the local boozer example.

Restricting bonuses on people who IMO appear to be doing a great job under the circumastance and IMO will return to private in the next few years.

To pay them the going rate, and bonuses, based on their achievements is the right thing to do.

My post refers to RBS btw, I'm not as familiar with Lloyds.

It seems like most of you wanted the banks to fail, the implications of RBS and +100,000 people going out of work are massive.

Andy, on that point, would people have been chased by debt collectors for the outstanding amounts due on their mortgages? If so, no one would be able to pay them off, it would bring the country to a halt.


You actually make a good point at the end which few people ever click with.

Most people in the country are in debt to the bank, mortgages and credit cards generally outweigh the amounts which people are in credit for.

I don't know what the mecahics would have been but if the banks failed few people would have come out of it on top. Yet many think the bank owe them something because of the public shareholding?

In terms of the areas where people make serious money in the banks you are talking about exec level for all divisions and then people within the investment bank.

The divisions have been and are are all generally well run, profitable businesses. They are high calibre people paid a high level of basic wage.

The investment bank is where the big figure bonuses are and this is because these people work with those incentives and rewards. This is where some bad practices and some complicated products have been entered into over the years but these have been ended. It is still very profitable done properly and in the right areas and this is where most people will be well rewarded, or they will walk, quite easily.

This area supports utilitly companies, corporates, govts, nations etc in raising funds. Things vital for us all to enjoy products and services. It's not the casino style instruments that people think of.

I do understand the difficulty people feel in seeing a compaay that has made losses and is now really funded publically with people making serious money but when you own something you surely want it to perform?

The new guys running the bank are being seriously hampered by the political and public hostility and its wrongly aimed and it is counter productive to tax payers getting a return.

And hey, I've lost more than most of people who could comment on here in a number of ways! I'm one of the ordinary punters who have always carried on doing a good job in areas totally unconnected with the losses and have more right than most to be hacked off what has happened, as well as being a tax payer on top.

[Woody1985]

You actually make a good point at the end which few people ever click with.

Most people in the country are in debt to the bank, mortgages and credit cards generally outweigh the amounts which people are in credit for.

I don't know what the mecahics would have been but if the banks failed few people would have come out of it on top. Yet many think the bank owe them something because of the public shareholding?

In terms of the areas where people make serious money in the banks you are talking about exec level for all divisions and then people within the investment bank.

The divisions have been and are are all generally well run, profitable businesses. They are high calibre people paid a high level of basic wage.

1. The investment bank is where the big figure bonuses are and this is because these people work with those incentives and rewards. This is where some bad practices and some complicated products have been entered into over the years but these have been ended. It is still very profitable done properly and in the right areas and this is where most people will be well rewarded, or they will walk, quite easily.

This area supports utilitly companies, corporates, govts, nations etc in raising funds. Things vital for us all to enjoy products and services. It's not the casino style instruments that people think of.

2. I do understand the difficulty people feel in seeing a compaay that has made losses and is now really funded publically with people making serious money but when you own something you surely want it to perform?

3. The new guys running the bank are being seriously hampered by the political and public hostility and its wrongly aimed and it is counter productive to tax payers getting a return.

4. And hey, I've lost more than most of people who could comment on here in a number of ways! I'm one of the ordinary punters who have always carried on doing a good job in areas totally unconnected with the losses and have more right than most to be hacked off what has happened, as well as being a tax payer on top.


1. How the hell do you get into investment banking? I think I'm correct in saying that they are the day traders? I've looked into a bit of trading but am amatuerish at best, however, the companies I identified have all improved greatly in the last few months, some partly due to recovery and confident and others unrelated i.e. chinese and brazilian companies etc but it would be good to find out how you can get into those jobs.

As I understand, if you don't perform immediately you are pretty much out the door after a few days, week or so.

2. Nail on the head. People are pissed off that guys/gals are making millions in what is effectively a failed company. Hopefully the taxpayer will make a wedge when they are passed back to private hands. Unfortunately, I suspect the government will still keep taxes higher that we will have to endure due to the current mess.

3. :agree:

4. Were you invested in your companies share scheme? I've read of people who effectively had their entire pension pot, made up of RBS shares, practically reduced to 0.

[Andy74]

1. How the hell do you get into investment banking? I think I'm correct in saying that they are the day traders? I've looked into a bit of trading but am amatuerish at best, however, the companies I identified have all improved greatly in the last few months, some partly due to recovery and confident and others unrelated i.e. chinese and brazilian companies etc but it would be good to find out how you can get into those jobs.

As I understand, if you don't perform immediately you are pretty much out the door after a few days, week or so.

2. Nail on the head. People are pissed off that guys/gals are making millions in what is effectively a failed company. Hopefully the taxpayer will make a wedge when they are passed back to private hands. Unfortunately, I suspect the government will still keep taxes higher that we will have to endure due to the current mess.

3. :agree:

4. Were you invested in your companies share scheme? I've read of people who effectively had their entire pension pot, made up of RBS shares, practically reduced to 0.

1. Trading like that isn't really done like before. not here anyway. The investment bank is more being involved in fundraising of major projects, bond issues, foregin exchange dealing for corporates etc. You need to be bloody good and these guys are in huge demand. The taxpayer is better off with these guys in their employ rather than heading off to the competition or out the country.

2. The Govt should get their investment back in about 3 yrs. It's not really long term ownership which is why the UKFI needs to be treated like a shareholder not an owner. They actually understand the issues and the commerical aspect of what the bank needs to do far more than the noise you get from the politicians and therefater the public!

3. It is a concern that the new guys are being criticised and hounded despite being in the door five minutes and having nothing at all to do with the previous regime. Only 2 board members remain from 17 and the entire executive committee have been replaced.

4. Oh yes, shares, pension cuts, salary, bonus, the lot. Frustrating when a few have caused the issue for the rest wha are still doing good work with good results. So, I've more cause than most to criticise but genuinely I think tyo have any chance of being back to profit we need to keep and pay the guys getting the unpalatable amounts, even if I get nowt right now.

You do have to accept you are working for a company who effectively went bust, albeit caused by a few people only, but it is also frustrating to hear some of the vitriol that is dorected to everyone associated with the bank, particulalry when people actually have very little know;edge of the situation other than all the political nonsense which is never in context.

[RyeSloan]

You do have to accept you are working for a company who effectively went bust, albeit caused by a few people only, but it is also frustrating to hear some of the vitriol that is dorected to everyone associated with the bank, particulalry when people actually have very little know;edge of the situation other than all the political nonsense which is never in context.

Too true....I deal with RBS Trustees on a regular basis and some of the stories they have told me about how the public treat them when they mention that they work for RBS make you cringe. Of course anyone with even an ounce of knowledge about the industry and it's troubles knows it was a million miles from the very exciting world of trustee services but sadly the politicians and the media have failed (and quite possiblly deliberately misled) to put any context into the crisis and have simply blamed 'banks' and 'bankers' in their entireity

[ancient hibee]

Paddy Ashdown was spot on last night on Question Time when asked about the new "bonus tax"and what it could be spent on he said"nothing because nothing will be collected-it's gesture politics".

[Bishop Hibee]

The current financial system is broken.

The trillions of pounds spent by governments world wide to prop up this corrupt system would have eradicated world poverty for 50 years. That's right, you read it correctly, ERADICATED WORLD POVERTY FOR 50 YEARS.

Read about it here:

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/applications/blogs/pressoffice/?p=4080

I think this whole charade proves that those in the developed world really don't give a toss about the developing world and will do anything to keep the poor in line.

As for our banks, I wish those that failed were allowed to go belly up like our manufacturing industry was when it became 'unsustainable'.

**** the free market!

[Woody1985]

The current financial system is broken.

The trillions of pounds spent by governments world wide to prop up this corrupt system would have eradicated world poverty for 50 years. That's right, you read it correctly, ERADICATED WORLD POVERTY FOR 50 YEARS.

Read about it here:

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/applications/blogs/pressoffice/?p=4080

I think this whole charade proves that those in the developed world really don't give a toss about the developing world and will do anything to keep the poor in line.

As for our banks, I wish those that failed were allowed to go belly up like our manufacturing industry was when it became 'unsustainable'.

**** the free market!

You could also argue that not proping them up would cause more poverty due to the millions of jobs that would have been lost, plunging people into more debt and homelessness.

Also, erradicating world poverty is not seen as a big issues for world powers, IMO, due to points raised on here in the past. If it was erradicated and every nation became developed, people would live longer, require more food, water, diminish resources quicker etc. We're just lucky we were born here because I don't see it ever changing that much.

[ancient hibee]

How can you eliminate poverty if you don't have banks to lend money to the companies to buy the equipment to dig wells or provide farm eqipment or dir roads.These sort of stupid statistics by charities like Oxfam make me despair.

[lapsedhibee]

The new guys running the bank are being seriously hampered by the political and public hostility and its wrongly aimed and it is counter productive to tax payers getting a return.

Awwww.

Those bank staff who're whinging about public hostility might count themselves lucky that their employer still exists, and consequently STFU. Thatch and chums allowed many similar companies to go down not so long ago, companies which were run no worse than RBS, HBOS, etc.

I have rarely oozed with as much cringe as when watching the chairmen and chief execs of those two firms smugging and smarming their way through a commons committee question and answer session. It's not surprising that their organisations are not now flavour of the month, whether the individuals are gone or not. You gave an analogy of a pub handover. Here's another: Glasgow Huns FC. Will we all love them when a new manager and chairman are appointed? Er, naw.

[tanfield]

[QUOTE=lapsedhibee;2271556]Awwww.

Those bank staff who're whinging about public hostility might count themselves lucky that their employer still exists, and consequently STFU. Thatch and chums allowed many similar companies to go down not so long ago, companies which were run no worse than RBS, HBOS, etc.

Cheers. I feel a lot better now:rolleyes:

[johnbc70]

Some people seem to want the bank to fail, but do they really understand the consequences of that? I am not sure how many RBS employees there are in Edinburgh but lets say 5,000. That is 5,000 people out of work, therefore if you drive a taxi they won't be getting in that as they will get the cheaper bus, they won't be buying that take-away from the shop you own, they won't be getting that new bathrooom or kitchen they wanted so if your a fitter then that job from Mr Smith down the road who worked in the local branch has been cancelled as he cannot afford it now. He might not even get that season ticket for Easter Road, as yes its too expensive when your on the dole and lost your pension and savings you bulit up in shares over the years.

Not to forget all the companies that RBS now has a stake in that would also go bust if the bank went bust. Alot of companies have turned debt into equity so RBS now actually owns some considerable assets in a number of UK companies such as house builder Taylor Wimpey - so if you do work for Taylor Wimpey then that contract just got cancelled as they went bust as well.

I am no expert, but some people need to see the bigger picture sometimes and yes the government has shelled out massive sums of money to bail out "the bankers" but let the new guys turn it around and then when the government makes a profit I bet you will all be on here saying what a great piece of business it was.

[lapsedhibee]

Cheers. I feel a lot better now:rolleyes:

You're welcome. It is after all part of government and taxpayers' responsibility to make sure that bank staff are not merely employed, but also that they feel good about themselves. :agree:

[lapsedhibee]

Some people seem to want the bank to fail, but do they really understand the consequences of that? I am not sure how many RBS employees there are in Edinburgh but lets say 5,000. That is 5,000 people out of work, therefore if you drive a taxi they won't be getting in that as they will get the cheaper bus, they won't be buying that take-away from the shop you own, they won't be getting that new bathrooom or kitchen they wanted so if your a fitter then that job from Mr Smith down the road who worked in the local branch has been cancelled as he cannot afford it now. He might not even get that season ticket for Easter Road, as yes its too expensive when your on the dole and lost your pension and savings you bulit up in shares over the years.

Not to forget all the companies that RBS now has a stake in that would also go bust if the bank went bust. Alot of companies have turned debt into equity so RBS now actually owns some considerable assets in a number of UK companies such as house builder Taylor Wimpey - so if you do work for Taylor Wimpey then that contract just got cancelled as they went bust as well.

I am no expert, but some people need to see the bigger picture sometimes and yes the government has shelled out massive sums of money to bail out "the bankers" but let the new guys turn it around and then when the government makes a profit I bet you will all be on here saying what a great piece of business it was.

All these same arguments applied to all the other industries that were, er, 'streamlined' in the 1980s. Businesses go bust, people retrain, the economy moves on. Consequences of major banks failing would have been far-reaching indeed, but aw this special pleading for the financial services industry is bizarre.

[Woody1985]

Awwww.

Those bank staff who're whinging about public hostility might count themselves lucky that their employer still exists, and consequently STFU. Thatch and chums allowed many similar companies to go down not so long ago, companies which were run no worse than RBS, HBOS, etc.

I have rarely oozed with as much cringe as when watching the chairmen and chief execs of those two firms smugging and smarming their way through a commons committee question and answer session. It's not surprising that their organisations are not now flavour of the month, whether the individuals are gone or not. You gave an analogy of a pub handover. Here's another: Glasgow Huns FC. Will we all love them when a new manager and chairman are appointed? Er, naw.

As has been pointed out a fair number of times on here, it's not their fault. It was a select few making big decisions that ****ed them up. Therefore, it might be an idea to take your own advice on this one.

[Bishop Hibee]

How can you eliminate poverty if you don't have banks to lend money to the companies to buy the equipment to dig wells or provide farm eqipment or dir roads.These sort of stupid statistics by charities like Oxfam make me despair.

Do you really think that the trillions used to prop up the financial system will be returned to the taxpayer? No chance. They won't repay the loans. The bad debt will be written off to our cost. There is no lend about it and those who know better than us will tell us it was the only way and continue to take billions in bonuses while others starve.

---------- Post added at 10:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 PM ----------


Some people seem to want the bank to fail

RBS did fail.

[lapsedhibee]

As has been pointed out a fair number of times on here, it's not their fault. It was a select few making big decisions that ****ed them up. Therefore, it might be an idea to take your own advice on this one.

Who said it was their fault? Was it an individual shipbuilder's fault when shipbuilding was no longer economic? An individual miner's fault? etc etc etc? All these people had to adjust to economic reality. Care to explain why bank staff should be exempt from this reality? :dunno: Who dreamt up the notion that if a bank worker is not at fault he/she should have a job for the foreseeable future? :confused:

[Mibbes Aye]

As has been pointed out a fair number of times on here, it's not their fault. It was a select few making big decisions that ****ed them up. Therefore, it might be an idea to take your own advice on this one.

Seems there's a lack of individual responsibility there.

If you choose to apply for a job with a bank, you're choosing to work for an organisation whose premise is based on making money from other people's money. Nothing inherently wrong with that (given that we live in a free market-ish economy), but the rules of the market are that if someone can do it better and more efficiently, then they will and should be allowed to. Which means if your firm isn't up to scratch then you lose your job (and bonuses and other perks)

Except in this case a "Get out of jail free" card has been handed out. Banks have benefitted from the opportunity to make money in a free market regime. Their employees have benefitted from that. When it all went pear-shaped, they have been afforded a level of protection unwarranted in some eyes by comparison to previous industries, on the basis that they are crucial to the wellbeing of the economy.

But you can't have it both ways. Either the free market works, in which case RBS and the suchlike should have been given no support and the market would have self-corrected; or the free market doesn't really work, in which case there's been a bit of a con all along, and banks have been allowed to make money on the basis of managing and carrying risk, when in fact they weren't.

[Woody1985]

Who said it was their fault? Was it an individual shipbuilder's fault when shipbuilding was no longer economic? An individual miner's fault? etc etc etc? All these people had to adjust to economic reality. Care to explain why bank staff should be exempt from this reality? :dunno: Who dreamt up the notion that if a bank worker is not at fault he/she should have a job for the foreseeable future? :confused:

You're saying that the should shut up and accept the hostility towards them. Sounds like it's okay for you or like minded people to abuse them for someone elses error. Therefore, it's not their fault, direct your anger elsewhere.

No one is saying that they should keep their jobs comparable with others. The banking industry is fundamental to the way our economy and country works and thrives/bombs (rightly or wrongly). Not everyone needs a ship... Re miners, don't want to get dragged in on that one as I don't have much knowledge on the MT (which I assume where your anger stems from) but I will say there are alternative fuels and therefore not dependant on coal miners. If you can come up with an alternative to banks underpinning the economy, go ahead.

[Woody1985]

Seems there's a lack of individual responsibility there.

If you choose to apply for a job with a bank, you're choosing to work for an organisation whose premise is based on making money from other people's money. Nothing inherently wrong with that (given that we live in a free market-ish economy), but the rules of the market are that if someone can do it better and more efficiently, then they will and should be allowed to. Which means if your firm isn't up to scratch then you lose your job (and bonuses and other perks)

Except in this case a "Get out of jail free" card has been handed out. Banks have benefitted from the opportunity to make money in a free market regime. Their employees have benefitted from that. When it all went pear-shaped, they have been afforded a level of protection unwarranted in some eyes by comparison to previous industries, on the basis that they are crucial to the wellbeing of the economy.

But you can't have it both ways. Either the free market works, in which case RBS and the suchlike should have been given no support and the market would have self-corrected; or the free market doesn't really work, in which case there's been a bit of a con all along, and banks have been allowed to make money on the basis of managing and carrying risk, when in fact they weren't.

Whoopee doo! They landed on their feet due to their chosen industry. They kept their jobs but they will lose the value of their shares, pensions etc. Previous industries are not comparable IMO for the reasons I've given above.

Again, I understand your point in principle but as I said above to LH, come up with a better solution and attempt to have it implemented. What would your proposal be?

If we let all of the banks fail that would have gone out the box, how do you propose that the remaining banks fund all of the new business they would be taking on? They'd have to provide loans / mortgages to pay the banks that had gone out of business. Given that the banks all lend money to each other, who would they lend money from? Internaltional markets? No, because they are all ****ed. Securitisation? No, cos no one is going to give their money to the remaining banks as there is no confidence in the market. The government! Probably the only option left...

If life was as simple as some would like it then it would be a whole lot easier. That's life!

[Big Ed]

You could also argue that not proping them up would cause more poverty due to the millions of jobs that would have been lost, plunging people into more debt and homelessness.

Also, erradicating world poverty is not seen as a big issues for world powers, IMO, due to points raised on here in the past. If it was erradicated and every nation became developed, people would live longer, require more food, water, diminish resources quicker etc. We're just lucky we were born here because I don't see it ever changing that much.

Firstly, you could have argued that not proping up the Miners, Steel Workers and Shipbuilders plunged people into poverty etc.
Secondly, what you are suggesting is that because Third World Poverty is not seen as a big issue, people will be allowed to starve to death. That level of appalling contempt for fellow human beings is nauseating.

[lapsedhibee]

You're saying that the should shut up and accept the hostility towards them. Sounds like it's okay for you or like minded people to abuse them for someone elses error. Therefore, it's not their fault, direct your anger elsewhere.
Verbal hostility quite acceptable, but it wouldn't be for 'someone else's error' (a concept you seem obsessed with), but for continuing to believe and state out loud that their job/employer/industry is so fundamentally essential to the wellbeing of the nation that it should be subsidised for the indefinite future.


No one is saying that they should keep their jobs comparable with others. The banking industry is fundamental to the way our economy and country works and thrives/bombs (rightly or wrongly). Not everyone needs a ship... Re miners, don't want to get dragged in on that one as I don't have much knowledge on the MT (which I assume where your anger stems from) but I will say there are alternative fuels and therefore not dependant on coal miners. If you can come up with an alternative to banks underpinning the economy, go ahead.
Credit unions, some form of money under mattresses, barter systems - all good. A choice of eleventeen thousand different types of mortgage, two brazilion different current accounts, etc, not so much. :wink:

[Woody1985]

Firstly, you could have argued that not proping up the Miners, Steel Workers and Shipbuilders plunged people into poverty etc.

Secondly, what you are suggesting is that because Third World Poverty is not seen as a big issue, people will be allowed to starve to death. That level of appalling contempt for fellow human beings is nauseating.

I agree with you in relation to the other industries. We're so reliant on the banks now that we're stuck with it so we need to work with it.

Not my view mate, but I agree that it is nauseating. The governments are the one with the power. They're doing this right before your eyes so rather than moaning at me on a messageboard about a view that not mine go and do something about it. Thought not.

[Big Ed]

I agree with you in relation to the other industries. We're so reliant on the banks now that we're stuck with it so we need to work with it.

Not my view mate, but I agree that it is nauseating. The governments are the one with the power. They're doing this right before your eyes so rather than moaning at me on a messageboard about a view that not mine go and do something about it. Thought not.

How I choose to vent my spleen is a matter for me and my conscience thanks very much. Mate.
There are tons of things that the governments are doing before my eyes; one of them is subsidising a banking industry that they allowed to behave as if they reigned over a feudal empire, backing them to the tune of billions of pounds when it went breasts northward, only to have them ask for further billions to pay their bonuses.
You seem to think that that is alright, though.
Mate.

[J-C]

Getting back to the plot, surely the whole point of paying bonuses is when an employee has reached an excellence in his job that the employer deems good enought o give him a wee bit extra on top of his wage packet. Now we have a new hierarchy in chaege at RBS and as yet they haven't proved themselves to be any better or any worse than their predecessor's but as far as most people with 2 eyeball's can see, they haven't done anything noteworthy as yet to be given bonuses.

I don't think anyone wants the banks to fail, they just want to see them being run properly without the greed at the top level putting peoples money, jobs and security at risk.

[johnbc70]

The difficulty the board have is that they have a legal responsibility as directors to do the best they can for ALL shareholders. Therefore if they cannot do their job, then they need to resign as they would be breaking the law and liable for prosecution.

Its like being made the manager of Chelsea and being told you need to be successful and win things, but the chairman (the government) say we are not giving you any transfer budget and we are putting in a wage cap, so your best players will go to Man Utd, Man City, Arsenal etc as they pay better wages than we can.

If it is your job and legal responsibility to run the company what would you do? Pay £1BN in bonuses for a £6BN profit (which is what that part of the bank makes) or not pay the bonuses and make a much smaller profit (which ultimatley means it will take longer for the bank to repay the government)

I totally respect everyones views as this is a complete and total mess that RBS got itself into and its a disgrace that the people responsible have not been criminally charged and their huge pensions taken away.

[Woody1985]

Verbal hostility quite acceptable, but it wouldn't be for 'someone else's error' (a concept you seem obsessed with), but for continuing to believe and state out loud that their job/employer/industry is so fundamentally essential to the wellbeing of the nation that it should be subsidised for the indefinite future.


Credit unions, some form of money under mattresses, barter systems - all good. A choice of eleventeen thousand different types of mortgage, two brazilion different current accounts, etc, not so much. :wink:

An accurate concept. The person on the cash desk when you enter the buildings, the people on the phones who help with your accounts, the IT people who create and maintain websites etc. It's all their fault right enough.

Alllllriiiiiiighhhtyyyy then.

[Woody1985]

How I choose to vent my spleen is a matter for me and my conscience thanks very much. Mate.
There are tons of things that the governments are doing before my eyes; one of them is subsidising a banking industry that they allowed to behave as if they reigned over a feudal empire, backing them to the tune of billions of pounds when it went breasts northward, only to have them ask for further billions to pay their bonuses.
You seem to think that that is alright, though.
Mate.

Good for you. Doing at on a messageboard without even understanding what was written is probably the best method for you. Mate.

You could always piss off to another country.

Those who will receive bonuses will be the ordinary worker as well as the few at the top, the ones who get the headlines are the few at the top but all of them suffer. It would be apparent that the oridinary workers have been performing to the company requirements for a number of years, regardless of the strategic decision taken by the management.

We're never going to agree so this is a futile exercise. See you. Mate

[lapsedhibee]

An accurate concept. The person on the cash desk when you enter the buildings, the people on the phones who help with your accounts, the IT people who create and maintain websites etc. It's all their fault right enough.

Alllllriiiiiiighhhtyyyy then.

I'll try once more, just for luck. An individual bank worker should not be subsidised for life simply because he/she did not personally cause the global economic crisis. That any clearer? :dunno:

[Woody1985]

I'll try once more, just for luck. An individual bank worker should not be subsidised for life simply because he/she did not personally cause the global economic crisis. That any clearer? :dunno:

See my whooopee doo! post from last night.

The government don't give a **** about the individual worker. They have stepped in to limit the damage to the country as a whole.

You sound like you've got a chip on your shoulder and you want them to suffer, presumably because you had to through some other industries that went tits up. If so, then you might want to accept that life just isn't fair sometimes and move on.

[lapsedhibee]

See my whooopee doo! post from last night.

The government don't give a **** about the individual worker. They have stepped in to limit the damage to the country as a whole.

You sound like you've got a chip on your shoulder and you want them to suffer, presumably because you had to through some other industries that went tits up. If so, then you might want to accept that life just isn't fair sometimes and move on.

Yes, your analysis is completely correct. Anyone who is critical of the special treatment given to banks used to be a miner. :agree:

We used to mine for rivets, which we then sold on to the shipyards. I've never really got over it.

[Big Ed]

Good for you. Doing at on a messageboard without even understanding what was written is probably the best method for you. Mate.

You could always piss off to another country.

Those who will receive bonuses will be the ordinary worker as well as the few at the top, the ones who get the headlines are the few at the top but all of them suffer. It would be apparent that the oridinary workers have been performing to the company requirements for a number of years, regardless of the strategic decision taken by the management.

We're never going to agree so this is a futile exercise. See you. Mate



What is good for me? What are you on about?
I completely understand the argument; the fact that ordinary people who work for RBS are not responsible for the decisions that led to the worst financial meltdown in British history. They may have made their own specific targets and therefore feel that they are entitled to a bonus that they would have been promised if said targets had been reached.
I disagree with that. Is that allowed?
The only reason that RBS exists is because it had a cash hand out from the UK Government which exceeds the GDP of most of the world’s nations. If it wasn’t for that government intervention, there would be no RBS, meaning that there would be no employment for these people, never mind bonuses.
I have taken into account the points raised by the likes of Andy74 and SiMar and I can see where they are coming from, but I still think that it is wrong to pay any bonuses to anyone working for that company.
Thanks for your frank advice with regards me moving abroad, and for the avoidance of doubt you are most definitely not my. Mate.

[Woody1985]

What is good for me? What are you on about?
I completely understand the argument; the fact that ordinary people who work for RBS are not responsible for the decisions that led to the worst financial meltdown in British history. They may have made their own specific targets and therefore feel that they are entitled to a bonus that they would have been promised if said targets had been reached.
I disagree with that. Is that allowed?
The only reason that RBS exists is because it had a cash hand out from the UK Government which exceeds the GDP of most of the world’s nations. If it wasn’t for that government intervention, there would be no RBS, meaning that there would be no employment for these people, never mind bonuses.
I have taken into account the points raised by the likes of Andy74 and SiMar and I can see where they are coming from, but I still think that it is wrong to pay any bonuses to anyone working for that company.
Thanks for your frank advice with regards me moving abroad, and for the avoidance of doubt you are most definitely not my. Mate.

The method you choose to vent your spleen, that's good for you.

Of course it's allowed, my opinion is that your opinion is wrong. :greengrin

Thank **** for that.

---------- Post added at 11:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 AM ----------


Yes, your analysis is completely correct. Anyone who is critical of the special treatment given to banks used to be a miner. :agree:

We used to mine for rivets, which we then sold on to the shipyards. I've never really got over it.

Well you want them to go tits up and all be out of work for a reason. We all know the way the banks were handled but it would seem you don't grasp the concept of putting +100,000 people out of work.

Also, there have already been massive job losses at Lloyds if that makes you feel better.

[lapsedhibee]

The method you choose to vent your spleen, that's good for you.

Of course it's allowed, my opinion is that your opinion is wrong. :greengrin

Thank **** for that.

---------- Post added at 11:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 AM ----------



Well you want them to go tits up and all be out of work for a reason. We all know the way the banks were handled but it would seem you don't grasp the concept of putting +100,000 people out of work.

Also, there have already been massive job losses at Lloyds if that makes you feel better.

Massive job losses at a bank and yet the country has not collapsed? How can this be, in the light of the absolutely essential role that all bank workers play in the health of the nation? :confused:

[Woody1985]

Massive job losses at a bank and yet the country has not collapsed? How can this be, in the light of the absolutely essential role that all bank workers play in the health of the nation? :confused:

When I said massive, I was referring to the 15,000 already gone from Lloyds.

The figure would be over 10/20 times that if RBS, Lloyds/HBOS, Northern Rock etc were allowed to go to the wall. You'd also not have the banks services because these people don't work.

I've mentioned previously on here that the banks borrow money from each other to fund their mortgages etc etc. If all of these people were out of work and the banks weren't there you'd be left with a couple of banks. These banks then couldn't fund all of the customers from the other banks.

If you're happy for the banks to go bust and them all to lose their jobs how do you propose people buy their homes? What happens to all the businesses that are reliant on those workers. There's a much, much bigger picture than saying '**** them cos they work for a bank, why should they get special treatment'.

It would seem we're going round in circles now so I think we should just leave it at that. We might actually agree on something!

[IWasThere2016]

If what Andy has said is accurate, and I have no reason to think it's not, then some of you are making fools of yourself.

He has provided a clear example with the local boozer example.

Restricting bonuses on people who IMO appear to be doing a great job under the circumastance and IMO will return to private in the next few years.

To pay them the going rate, and bonuses, based on their achievements is the right thing to do.

My post refers to RBS btw, I'm not as familiar with Lloyds.

It seems like most of you wanted the banks to fail, the implications of RBS and +100,000 people going out of work are massive.

Andy, on that point, would people have been chased by debt collectors for the outstanding amounts due on their mortgages? If so, no one would be able to pay them off, it would bring the country to a halt.

How much public money was used to support this boozer? Did the new mgt take bonuses before it was profitable? Is the boozer failing to delivery affordable pints (debt) to small/medium customers?

I think Andy's view may be what it is because he works for RBS or in Finance perhaps?

[ArabHibee]

Have a go at this game:

http://www.funnygames.co.uk/whack-a-banker.htm

Might make you feel better! :greengrin

[ancienthibby]

Are you listening? The bank has changed completley, new strategy, new management, new board, new risk processes, new everything.

Only a very small amount of people in certain activities were involved in the losses. The rest of the new business needs to be allowed to get on with it. It has changed and you seem to be suggesting that the old people and the old model are still in place.

What exactly are you talking about with needing to grow up and acted like a wean. Read my posts which have been nothing but the sort. :confused:

Tell me, if your local was losing money and was taken over by new management with a totally different model which was aimed at turning it around would you still be barking away about the previous manager and criticising everything the guy was trying to do to return it to profit, just as a result of what has happened before?

Seems like it.

Time to move on as the bank has.

You write as someone who has just come out from an employers' 'get the staff worked up' meeting and in this and all your later posts you just demonstrate just how far out of touch you RBS bankers (should that be rankers, ******s??) are!!

How interesting to read that, in a new poll, cleaners are considered of more worth than bankers and that a new gallery game where participants can clobber mock-up bankers is the most popular!!

Will you never learn??

I listened last week to an RBS customer speaking on Radio Scotland and saying that his previous facility which had been priced at 3 over Base was now being priced at 11 over Base, along with £XXXX's of arrangement fees before even a penny was drawn down. He declined. Is it any wonder?? Meanwhile you continue along in your deluded little world.

You claim everything in the RBS is NEW - yet you forget two very important aspects.

First, you never mention that you have NEW shareholders - that being us the taxpayers - and the message from this and the majority of shareholders is this - your attitude to new bonuses needs to be completely jettisoned.

And second, despite your waffle, the old culture in the RBS remains. We now have a bank claiming to make profits in one division, yet losing money hand over fist overall, so what does this say about the other divisions that continue to lose money. Just what gargantuan losses are recorded there to allow the Bank to post losses overall?? And you want bonuses to be paid??

And here's a third, - RBS HAS NO MONEY TO PAY ANY BONUSES!! It is only funded by my (taxpayers') money and because of all these huge hidden losses, it must draw on taxpayers' capital to pay any wretched bonuses.

[Mibbes Aye]

Whoopee doo! They landed on their feet due to their chosen industry. They kept their jobs but they will lose the value of their shares, pensions etc. Previous industries are not comparable IMO for the reasons I've given above.

Again, I understand your point in principle but as I said above to LH, come up with a better solution and attempt to have it implemented. What would your proposal be?

If we let all of the banks fail that would have gone out the box, how do you propose that the remaining banks fund all of the new business they would be taking on? They'd have to provide loans / mortgages to pay the banks that had gone out of business. Given that the banks all lend money to each other, who would they lend money from? Internaltional markets? No, because they are all ****ed. Securitisation? No, cos no one is going to give their money to the remaining banks as there is no confidence in the market. The government! Probably the only option left...

If life was as simple as some would like it then it would be a whole lot easier. That's life!

I think you've captured the point there - if the system worked the way it was sold to people, then we wouldn't be in this mess. But the system didn't work, the market didn't self-correct, the 'invisible hand' stuck two fingers up and we had to fall back on massive state intervention to try and prevent utter calamity. And when the billions of pounds of cuts are made to public services over the coming years as a consequence, let's hope people remember what the causes were.

But to get back to your point, the system didn't work. It was dysfunctional. The proponents of the system (who didn't really sing too loudly about it being dysfunctional before it all went wrong - did they know or couldn't they see it? If anyone should have known it was them, which begs the question of whether it was deception or incompetence on their part), those proponents now seem to be saying, "Hey, it's okay, we've sorted it. We've got appropriate governance now and we've got these new, robust processes".

Except they were either duplicitous or incompetent with regard to how things were set up last time, so you can see why there's a bit of a credibility gap there, a bit of a lack of trust.

We've really got to think a bit wider than relying on a discredited discourse. The 'new' system isn't really any different is it? Merely some cosmetic changes to tackle symptoms rather than cause.

Communism and fascism were incredibly powerful and popular 20th century ideologies that have come to be seen as much-discredited. The ethos that led to this crisis - an almost-private corporatism that has seemed to grow out of the neo-liberalist agenda over the last four decades isn't much different IMO, and it's what led us into this mess. Why should the state (which means all of us, in this context) carry the can for the mistakes of ideologues, just to risk letting them do it again?

You ask what alternatives there might be. As we've seen already, there's a bit of a stitch-up in that we were caught in a system where those making the most money have been shown to be doing it at little risk to themselves. Extricating ourselves from that is a far from painless process. I don't pretend to have answers but I struggle to think we can't do better than to improve upon a system that is dysfunctional by its own benchmarks and despite only being prevalent in this country for two hundred years, has led to at least three massive and potentially catastrophic economic downturns.

[Woody1985]

I think you've captured the point there - if the system worked the way it was sold to people, then we wouldn't be in this mess. But the system didn't work, the market didn't self-correct, the 'invisible hand' stuck two fingers up and we had to fall back on massive state intervention to try and prevent utter calamity. And when the billions of pounds of cuts are made to public services over the coming years as a consequence, let's hope people remember what the causes were.

But to get back to your point, the system didn't work. It was dysfunctional. The proponents of the system (who didn't really sing too loudly about it being dysfunctional before it all went wrong - did they know or couldn't they see it? If anyone should have known it was them, which begs the question of whether it was deception or incompetence on their part), those proponents now seem to be saying, "Hey, it's okay, we've sorted it. We've got appropriate governance now and we've got these new, robust processes".

Except they were either duplicitous or incompetent with regard to how things were set up last time, so you can see why there's a bit of a credibility gap there, a bit of a lack of trust.

We've really got to think a bit wider than relying on a discredited discourse. The 'new' system isn't really any different is it? Merely some cosmetic changes to tackle symptoms rather than cause.

Communism and fascism were incredibly powerful and popular 20th century ideologies that have come to be seen as much-discredited. The ethos that led to this crisis - an almost-private corporatism that has seemed to grow out of the neo-liberalist agenda over the last four decades isn't much different IMO, and it's what led us into this mess. Why should the state (which means all of us, in this context) carry the can for the mistakes of ideologues, just to risk letting them do it again?

You ask what alternatives there might be. As we've seen already, there's a bit of a stitch-up in that we were caught in a system where those making the most money have been shown to be doing it at little risk to themselves. Extricating ourselves from that is a far from painless process. I don't pretend to have answers but I struggle to think we can't do better than to improve upon a system that is dysfunctional by its own benchmarks and despite only being prevalent in this country for two hundred years, has led to at least three massive and potentially catastrophic economic downturns.

Would the current system work more effectively with (a lot) more constraints on it or would that stifle it?

Personally, I can't see the system changing all that much, if it does change then as long on we keep good control over it.

I'm not sure what you think of this, I don't have a clear idea in my own head yet as I'm no expert...

Massive companies (and smaller ones aswell) continually strive to increase their SP by increasing profits/turnover each year.

It gets to the point where to keep them happy you have to increase it by a fair amount on the year before.

Should a private company get to a certain stage could we step in and say 'right, that's enough, you can maintain current profit levels or increase them by streamlining processes and coming up with new innovations'. Perhaps you could place a restriction such as a %5 increase is the maximum and any of the additional profit goes towards community investment but with the aim to be around the 5% mark.

I know that could be very restrictive but with companies of RBS's size they are so powerful and devestating as we've all seen. The pressure to continue to grow means that mistakes will be made and that the bad side will get very bad. I think this would mitigate the risk a lot more because it would stop people trying to push things to the limit or take risky decisions.

I'm not sure how you could influence something like this and no doubt it would breach numberous laws that would be challenged by ever top lawyer in the world!

[IWasThere2016]

Aye aye - all very good - but did the pub use public money? :greengrin

[Woody1985]

How much public money was used to support this boozer? Did the new mgt take bonuses before it was profitable? Is the boozer failing to delivery affordable pints (debt) to small/medium customers?

I think Andy's view may be what it is because he works for RBS or in Finance perhaps?

Quite a lot, it was a super boozer! :greengrin

Yes, a lot of the staff had it contracted.

Some of the staff in the kitchen had devised new menus and plans and made it profitable and put in a lot of hard work to improve standards whilst others are still trying to generate success in their area (business units).

Yes, they did fail, I can't think of an analogy for this part!

I agree that the banks are lending less than they should at the moment, I think they are taking the complete opposite approach from pre crash in trying to deflect critcism and show they are being prudent. There needs to be a balance somewhere in the middle.

Yes, his view is because of that (only through information I gathered from here, I don't know Andy). You might also argue that his view is based on information related to his day to day job and therefore more informed.

There are probably people stating that all bankers are a bunch of ******s without having the first clue about what goes on in a financial institution.

I think I've made my points on this subject, it would appear I am unable to influence anyones view, receive suggestions on an alternative system etc etc etc so adios. :greengrin

[RyeSloan]

I don't pretend to have answers but I struggle to think we can't do better than to improve upon a system that is dysfunctional by its own benchmarks and despite only being prevalent in this country for two hundred years, has led to at least three massive and potentially catastrophic economic downturns.

True but how much wealth and prosperity has that same system provided in the same period?

The reason you don't have answers is that although the system is flawed (although you could say that the downturns are simply that system self correcting) it is significantly less flawed than your afore mentioned Communism and fascism.....

I see a hell of a lot of banker bashing (:rolleyes:) but very little suggestion of creditable alternatives to the fundamental idea of (non casino style) banking as the bedrock of our future economy. It would be interesting to see some.

[lapsedhibee]

I see a hell of a lot of banker bashing (:rolleyes:) but very little suggestion of creditable alternatives to the fundamental idea of (non casino style) banking as the bedrock of our future economy. It would be interesting to see some.

Banking the bedrock of our economy? Hardly. Enterprise, productivity, efficiency, innovation, hard work, education, training, upskilling, perhaps. Sponsoring an eggchasing tournament, not so much.

[Woody1985]

Banking the bedrock of our economy? Hardly. Enterprise, productivity, efficiency, innovation, hard work, education, training, upskilling, perhaps. Sponsoring an eggchasing tournament, not so much.

Close down your current account and pay off your mortgage, if you have one.

See how long you can get by....

[Green Mikey]

Banking the bedrock of our economy? Hardly. Enterprise, productivity, efficiency, innovation, hard work, education, training, upskilling, perhaps. Sponsoring an eggchasing tournament, not so much.

The banking industry was the primary catalyst of economic growth in the UK prior to the credit crunch. The characteristics that you have listed benefit the economy if there is an industry or company in which they can be applied.


What industry do you think should/will take the place of banking in the future?

[lapsedhibee]

Close down your current account and pay off your mortgage, if you have one.

See how long you can get by....


The banking industry was the primary catalyst of economic growth in the UK prior to the credit crunch. The characteristics that you have listed benefit the economy if there is an industry or company in which they can be applied.

What industry do you think should/will take the place of banking in the future?

The primary catalyst of economic growth?
An industry to take the place of banking?

Banking isn't an industry in any real, lasting or worthwhile sense. It's a service. For proper industry (rivets, wagons of coal, rag and bone men on horse drawn carriages, etc).

Thatch, Blair and Brown liked to think that a country could run on services only, without manufacturing etc. Perhaps we're now about to see how that belief's going to turn out.

You banking peeps that see your 'industry' as somehow absolutely fundamental to the wellbeing of this or any other society must have been through one hell of an induction course when you joined up.

Why is doing without a current account so hard for you to visualise? See they bits of paper with the Queen's picture on? They did us ok for the hundreds of years before all these ridiculous banking 'products' were dreamed up.

You might as well say dentistry is the bedrock of the economy.

[Phil D. Rolls]

To those criticising people for talking about banking without any knowledge of how it works, I would like to ask this question.

How come none of the RBS board had passed their banking exams? It seems to me that Fred and his mates were nothing better than patsies.

[ancient hibee]

The primary catalyst of economic growth?
An industry to take the place of banking?

Banking isn't an industry in any real, lasting or worthwhile sense. It's a service. For proper industry (rivets, wagons of coal, rag and bone men on horse drawn carriages, etc).

Thatch, Blair and Brown liked to think that a country could run on services only, without manufacturing etc. Perhaps we're now about to see how that belief's going to turn out.

You banking peeps that see your 'industry' as somehow absolutely fundamental to the wellbeing of this or any other society must have been through one hell of an induction course when you joined up.

Why is doing without a current account so hard for you to visualise? See they bits of paper with the Queen's picture on? They did us ok for the hundreds of years before all these ridiculous banking 'products' were dreamed up.

You might as well say dentistry is the bedrock of the economy.
Didn't banks supply these"bits of paper"?

[RyeSloan]

The primary catalyst of economic growth?
An industry to take the place of banking?

Banking isn't an industry in any real, lasting or worthwhile sense. It's a service. For proper industry (rivets, wagons of coal, rag and bone men on horse drawn carriages, etc).

Thatch, Blair and Brown liked to think that a country could run on services only, without manufacturing etc. Perhaps we're now about to see how that belief's going to turn out.

You banking peeps that see your 'industry' as somehow absolutely fundamental to the wellbeing of this or any other society must have been through one hell of an induction course when you joined up.

Why is doing without a current account so hard for you to visualise? See they bits of paper with the Queen's picture on? They did us ok for the hundreds of years before all these ridiculous banking 'products' were dreamed up.

You might as well say dentistry is the bedrock of the economy.

Fact is though that large transactions were rarely completed with cash...there is an interesting piece on the BBC today that highlights the use of cheques 'hundreds of years' ago.

No one is questioning that the derivative and morgage backed products were clearly a step too far and that some of the actions from the banks were odious but what you seem to be denying, and what some are trying to point out to you, is that traditional banking services ARE essential if you are to have any sort of progressive economy what so ever.

You love affair with wagons of coal, rag and bone men on horse drawn carriages is all very romantic but is hardly progressive is it, unless you consider this is where the world should have stopped.

Also you state that Enterprise, productivity, efficiency, innovation, hard work, education, training, upskilling are the keys to a succesful economy....you are of course correct but without a banking system to help create and support businesses that allow these to prosper there would be very little of that about....why else do you think the whole world moved to save the banking system from collapse, because it was required or because Fred the Shred was a Sir??

As for the Dentistry being comparable to Banking in terms of importance to the workings of a modern economy....:bye:

[Green Mikey]

The primary catalyst of economic growth?

It was the catalyst of growth, cheap and available credit allowed for unprecendented growth. How can you pass comment on the credit crunch when you seem to have little understanding of how it occured?


An industry to take the place of banking?

Banking isn't an industry in any real, lasting or worthwhile sense. It's a service. For proper industry (rivets, wagons of coal, rag and bone men on horse drawn carriages, etc).

Thatch, Blair and Brown liked to think that a country could run on services only, without manufacturing etc. Perhaps we're now about to see how that belief's going to turn out.

Do you really think that we should all go back down the pits?

It would be impossible for Britain to return to your definition of 'proper' industry. Emerging economies manufacture and extract raw materials at a fraction of the cost of developed economies. The cost of subsidising the re-introduction industries and their products would be prohibitively large.



You banking peeps

I think this quote sums up your views on this subject...tabloid fueled rage at 'bankers' yet little understanding of what actually happened and even less of idea of what should happen in the future.

[IWasThere2016]

To those criticising people for talking about banking without any knowledge of how it works, I would like to ask this question.

How come none of the RBS board had passed their banking exams? It seems to me that Fred and his mates were nothing better than patsies.

Seems to me RBS failed because of one factor - greed. Too many fingers into many pies.

I stick by my statement earlier that 1 or 2 banks failing and going under mightn't have been a bad thing. It might have been all the incentive others needed to up their game(s).

[Sumner]

RBS should have been allowed to go to the wall, and it still should.

Otherwise start paying the tax-payer back. Banks have in the US,
but Gordon Brown is too embroiled in this, and too lame to get tough.

[johnbc70]

People also conveniently forget that for years RBS was by far the biggest taxpayer in the UK, paying for many hospitals, schools etc. through corporation tax. Hopefully in years to come it will be paying tax again on profits it makes.

Many of you will have RBS shares in your pension pots, if you have a FTSE tracker fund it will have Lloyds, RBS, Barclays, HSBC etc in it, so the worse these companies do the worse your pension will perform. For years these companies paid massive dividends that again helped fund many people's pension pots.

Time to move on - the government will only sell its stake when it makes a profit so the taxpayer will get their money back and more and Labour will be saying what a great deal it was.

[Mibbes Aye]

True but how much wealth and prosperity has that same system provided in the same period?

For whom exactly? Are you suggesting the banking system has driven economic growth for the last two hundred years?


The reason you don't have answers is that although the system is flawed (although you could say that the downturns are simply that system self correcting) it is significantly less flawed than your afore mentioned Communism and fascism.....

I see a hell of a lot of banker bashing (:rolleyes:) but very little suggestion of creditable alternatives to the fundamental idea of (non casino style) banking as the bedrock of our future economy. It would be interesting to see some.

I suppose I'm not content to put up with something that has shown itself to be deeply flawed, just because "it's less flawed than some other very flawed things". That would be lame. Also not sure why you would think banking is the bedrock of our future economy - what will our future economy look like? At present, the state has had to step in and essentially underwrite the economy because the banking system was unable to (again). It would seem a stronger argument to suggest that since our banking system can't be relied upon to stimulate economic growth without risking catastrophe, then only government can....unless you have an alternative? TBH I don't totally buy the 'government as saviour' argument myself but it's more credible than the banking one at this time.....

But as for alternatives - instinctively I suppose my leanings, economically and politically are to a co-operativist model. The problem with that model is that it assumes people are willing to work together for everyone's benefit, rather than pursuing narrow self-interest. I'm not quite naive enough to believe that to be the case. To see that model implemented to the extent necessary for it to have hegemony would be a change to society on a scale unparalleled since the Industrial Revolution. Difficult to see it happening therefore and a more dystopian future is surely more likely.

[lapsedhibee]

Didn't banks supply these"bits of paper"?
Yes. My claim was only that an economy could work without current accounts, not that it could work without money.


No one is questioning that the derivative and morgage backed products were clearly a step too far and that some of the actions from the banks were odious but what you seem to be denying, and what some are trying to point out to you, is that traditional banking services ARE essential if you are to have any sort of progressive economy what so ever.It's not just derivative, mortgage backed etc 'products' that are ridiculous. It's also basic deposit accounts where the rules for calculating interest are like a scene out of a Marx Bros movie. x rate if you have no more than y withdrawals during z time, and a bonus w on the anniversary of the party of the first part shall be known as the party of the first part ...
This is not a 'traditional' banking service, it's confusion marketing.


Also you state that Enterprise, productivity, efficiency, innovation, hard work, education, training, upskilling are the keys to a succesful economy....you are of course correct but without a banking system to help create and support businesses that allow these to prosper there would be very little of that about

A banking system that creates businesses? Where does this happen? :dunno:


....why else do you think the whole world moved to save the banking system from collapse, because it was required or because Fred the Shred was a Sir??
Neither. Parliament didn't allow all UK banks to collapse, and the financial system to collapse and start again, as if from scratch, because parliament is full of people who have much to lose by such a levelling. Ditto all other western governments.


It was the catalyst of growth, cheap and available credit allowed for unprecendented growth.
Depends where you start and stop the graphs. Too early to say what the long term effect of all that nonsense over the last 20 years will be.

How can you pass comment on the credit crunch when you seem to have little understanding of how it occured?
Do you think only people currently working in banking, or the vast numbers of other people with vested interests in propping up what would thirty years ago have been called 'lame ducks', should be the only people who comment? It's not that hard to understand - when the wind blows, houses of cards fall down.



Do you really think that we should all go back down the pits?
No.

It would be impossible for Britain to return to your definition of 'proper' industry. Emerging economies manufacture and extract raw materials at a fraction of the cost of developed economies. The cost of subsidising the re-introduction industries and their products would be prohibitively large.

Remains to be seen how comparatively large the subsidy of the failed banking system proves to be.


I stick by my statement earlier that 1 or 2 banks failing and going under mightn't have been a bad thing. It might have been all the incentive others needed to up their game(s).
:agree:

RBS should have been allowed to go to the wall, and it still should.

:agree:

[RyeSloan]

Interesting polar views here...:greengrin





It's not just derivative, mortgage backed etc 'products' that are ridiculous. It's also basic deposit accounts where the rules for calculating interest are like a scene out of a Marx Bros movie. x rate if you have no more than y withdrawals during z time, and a bonus w on the anniversary of the party of the first part shall be known as the party of the first part ...
This is not a 'traditional' banking service, it's confusion marketing.

There is plenty basic deposit accounts as well, you are not forced to use a deposit account with restrictions but you seem to show a lack of understanding on the use of money by simply calling any advancement on a basic account confusion marketing.



A banking system that creates businesses? Where does this happen? :dunno:

Again if you don't understand the criticality of banking facilities for running any sort of business or indeed the way they allow others money to be used to create wealth/business then it is no wonder you find such a statement strange.



Neither. Parliament didn't allow all UK banks to collapse, and the financial system to collapse and start again, as if from scratch, because parliament is full of people who have much to lose by such a levelling. Ditto all other western governments.

OK so all Western goverments and the UK parliament had too much to lose. That's the point isn't is. The finacial system underpins the whole way the world lives and works, a collapse would have been catrostophic for all not just a few parliamentarians.



Depends where you start and stop the graphs. Too early to say what the long term effect of all that nonsense over the last 20 years will be.

It doesn'r really though as what I've been trying to say is that a financial system (aka banks) is critical for any signfiicant economic advancement. The fact that those same banks went way too far in trying to to grow themselves at the same time does not take away from the fact that they are fundamentally still required.

[RyeSloan]

For whom exactly? Are you suggesting the banking system has driven economic growth for the last two hundred years?

That's exactly what I am saying.

Without it something like the industrial revolution simply wouldn't have happened...the growth of America would not exsit if it wasn't for finance being raised elsewhere and put to use on building the railroads, plantations etc. All of these advancements and investments required a financial system, without it there would have been no growth to speak of.




I suppose I'm not content to put up with something that has shown itself to be deeply flawed, just because "it's less flawed than some other very flawed things". That would be lame. Also not sure why you would think banking is the bedrock of our future economy - what will our future economy look like? At present, the state has had to step in and essentially underwrite the economy because the banking system was unable to (again). It would seem a stronger argument to suggest that since our banking system can't be relied upon to stimulate economic growth without risking catastrophe, then only government can....unless you have an alternative? TBH I don't totally buy the 'government as saviour' argument myself but it's more credible than the banking one at this time.....

But as for alternatives - instinctively I suppose my leanings, economically and politically are to a co-operativist model. The problem with that model is that it assumes people are willing to work together for everyone's benefit, rather than pursuing narrow self-interest. I'm not quite naive enough to believe that to be the case. To see that model implemented to the extent necessary for it to have hegemony would be a change to society on a scale unparalleled since the Industrial Revolution. Difficult to see it happening therefore and a more dystopian future is surely more likely.

Fair do's for having a pop at painting an alternative. Strange however that you call it 'lame' to put up with something that is flawed but not as flawed as anything else that has been tried (yet something that has clearly had vast benefits to the world at the same time) yet submit a vague alternative that requires an almost unparralleled change to the world that would need the removal of one of humans most basic instincts.

I'm no lover of mega banks or even of the huge bonuses that some hedge fund managers and investment bankers get or the fact that some were complicit in creating a huge credit bubble. However that doesn't stop me seeing that the creation of wealth and the raising of living standards around the world will be done with the free flow of capital and the removals of barriers of trade not by central control, whoever that may be!

[lapsedhibee]

That's exactly what I am saying.

Without it something like the industrial revolution simply wouldn't have happened...the growth of America would not exsit if it wasn't for finance being raised elsewhere and put to use on building the railroads, plantations etc. All of these advancements and investments required a financial system, without it there would have been no growth to speak of.


Aye, RBS created the Industrial Revolution, discovered Penicillin, eradicated smallpox, etc. We should continue to pour money into it because it's our best chance of overcoming climate change too.

All the existing banks in the western world could fail tomorrow and by next week there'd be an alternative system starting to grow up for the purpose of reallocating resources from where they're in surplus to where they're in shortage. The idea that the current overblown self-interested arrangements are the only valid way of doing this is not only absurd but also, given that no-one trying to do any sort of business can squeeze extra money out of existing banks at the moment, patently false.

PS What is an advancement? Is this financialspeak for advance?

[RyeSloan]

Aye, RBS created the Industrial Revolution, discovered Penicillin, eradicated smallpox, etc. We should continue to pour money into it because it's our best chance of overcoming climate change too.

All the existing banks in the western world could fail tomorrow and by next week there'd be an alternative system starting to grow up for the purpose of reallocating resources from where they're in surplus to where they're in shortage. The idea that the current overblown self-interested arrangements are the only valid way of doing this is not only absurd but also, given that no-one trying to do any sort of business can squeeze extra money out of existing banks at the moment, patently false.

PS What is an advancement? Is this financialspeak for advance?

Where did I say RBS created anything? I simply stated that a financial system was critical for economic advancement. I see you would rather pontificate than actually put a credible arguement to the contrary.

Cool, you think every bank in the world could fail tomorrow and everything would be rosy next week....fair enough. Stange that every country in the world disagreed with you and I'm sure you would be very welcome in Iceland with the assesment that allowing your banks to fail is the path to follow.

As for advancement, no financial speak required...rather simply it means an act of moving forward. Simples.

[lapsedhibee]

Cool, you think every bank in the world could fail tomorrow and everything would be rosy next week....fair enough. Stange that every country in the world disagreed with you and I'm sure you would be very welcome in Iceland with the assesment that allowing your banks to fail is the path to follow.

By "every country in the world disagreed with me", I presume you mean that ministers of the G20 (or whatever number it is this week), none of whom had the faintest clue what to do about the global situation, all agreed to do the same thing, prop up failed and failing banks, on the grounds that if everyone else makes exactly the same mistake as you do, a minister who does something stupid doesn't look quite so foolish. This is I believe the theory of safety in numbers. Far too early to say whether or not that'll be seen in the long term as having been a sensible course of action. It's clear so far only that the full implications of these decisions have not yet been spelled out to voters. Mibbe be a bit clearer after the next election.

Oh, and thanks for saving the world for us all, obviously. :wink:

[Green Mikey]

By "every country in the world disagreed with me", I presume you mean that ministers of the G20 (or whatever number it is this week), none of whom had the faintest clue what to do about the global situation, all agreed to do the same thing, prop up failed and failing banks, on the grounds that if everyone else makes exactly the same mistake as you do, a minister who does something stupid doesn't look quite so foolish. This is I believe the theory of safety in numbers. Far too early to say whether or not that'll be seen in the long term as having been a sensible course of action. It's clear so far only that the full implications of these decisions have not yet been spelled out to voters. Mibbe be a bit clearer after the next election.

Oh, and thanks for saving the world for us all, obviously. :wink:

What would you're course of action been correct...allow all the banks to collapse (500 years of banking would easily be replaced in a fortnight) and revert to 'proper' industry?

It astounds me that you still hold the view that anyone who doesn't agree with you or works for a bank is complicit in the credit crunch. In most cases it is the ordinary employees of banks that are getting doubly shafted. Firstly as tax payers and then as employees that may lose jobs or income.

[Woody1985]

Guys, you be aswell finding the nearest wall and doing this... :brickwall :brickwall :brickwall

Perhaps we could do that to knock down all the banks and start over again, we could build the world economy on pharmaceutical companies selling headache tables. Sound like a plan?

By my estimate I think we could recover the economy in around a forthnight.

[RyeSloan]

By "every country in the world disagreed with me", I presume you mean that ministers of the G20 (or whatever number it is this week), none of whom had the faintest clue what to do about the global situation, all agreed to do the same thing, prop up failed and failing banks, on the grounds that if everyone else makes exactly the same mistake as you do, a minister who does something stupid doesn't look quite so foolish. This is I believe the theory of safety in numbers. Far too early to say whether or not that'll be seen in the long term as having been a sensible course of action. It's clear so far only that the full implications of these decisions have not yet been spelled out to voters. Mibbe be a bit clearer after the next election.

Oh, and thanks for saving the world for us all, obviously. :wink:

More waffle....you are clearly incapable of putting together a coherant alternative to the world having a stable financial system.

As I have said the full implications of your 'let them all fail' approach is shown in Iceland, and this is only small scale....magnify that up to a total failure of UK, Europe and the US banks and then tell me it's "Far too early to say whether or not that'll be seen in the long term as having been a sensible course of action"....there was no credible alternative, as you yourself have proven by failing to provide any apart from "next week there'd be an alternative system " or having us all back down the mines!

[lapsedhibee]

More waffle....you are clearly incapable of putting together a coherant alternative to the world having a stable financial system.

As I have said the full implications of your 'let them all fail' approach is shown in Iceland, and this is only small scale....magnify that up to a total failure of UK, Europe and the US banks and then tell me it's "Far too early to say whether or not that'll be seen in the long term as having been a sensible course of action"....there was no credible alternative, as you yourself have proven by failing to provide any apart from "next week there'd be an alternative system " or having us all back down the mines!

You are making some sort of assumption here that Iceland has collapsed. Has it? And that every other country is now somehow immune from collapse because of this apparently wise decision to indefinitely subsidise the current financial 'system' - to which I say again, it's too early to say. If Iceland's banks have collapsed without Iceland's society having collapsed, would that not drive some sort of wedge into the argument, common on here, that healthy banks = healthy society?

Asking someone to put forward a "coherant" alternative to the Fred Goodwin show is like saying you shouldn't get rid of smallpox unless you've got something to put in its place. And cutting his pension pot from - what was it - 14m to 7m doesn't strike me as terribly radical. Let's assume for the moment, however, that he's a sideshow. What would you say have been the genuinely radical specific changes to the western world's banking system recently that will guarantee it to be, in your words, a "stable financial system" (which it clearly hasn't been up to now)?

[lapsedhibee]

What would you're course of action been correct...allow all the banks to collapse (500 years of banking would easily be replaced in a fortnight) and revert to 'proper' industry?
Thousands of years of believing that the sun revolved around the earth came to an end fairly quickly, and then people believed that the earth revolved round the sun. Not everyone caught on straight away of course. Astronomical and astrological mapmakers resisted out of self-interest. 500 years of believing that the world revolves around the existing banking industry could also come to an end. I don't say this could happen in a fortnight, but many many things would be possible if enough resources were thrown at them. What's your estimate of the total resources that have so far been chucked at propping up the existing failed banking system? I can't keep up with the numbers.


It astounds me that you still hold the view that anyone who doesn't agree with you or works for a bank is complicit in the credit crunch.

I don't hold that view, though I do object to the frequent argument that just because someone didn't personally cause the credit crunch he/she should be somehow immune from its consequences. This is just a non sequitur.


In most cases it is the ordinary employees of banks that are getting doubly shafted. Firstly as tax payers and then as employees that may lose jobs or income.
Obviously tough on them, but so what? People go in and out of work and jobs all the time. Arthur Scargill used to go on in the same vein, how it was a disgrace that decades-old mining communities would be devastated by pit closures, that a strong mining industry was essential to Britain's wellbeing, etc etc etc. The government then, rightly or wrongly, held its nerve. This government didn't.

[Green Mikey]

You are making some sort of assumption here that Iceland has collapsed. Has it? And that every other country is now somehow immune from collapse because of this apparently wise decision to indefinitely subsidise the current financial 'system' - to which I say again, it's too early to say. If Iceland's banks have collapsed without Iceland's society having collapsed, would that not drive some sort of wedge into the argument, common on here, that healthy banks = healthy society?


A little bit of information on Iceland. It'll take longer than a fortnight to sort this mess out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7851853.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Icelandic_financial_crisis#Withi n_Iceland


Asking someone to put forward a "coherant" alternative to the Fred Goodwin show is like saying you shouldn't get rid of smallpox unless you've got something to put in its place. And cutting his pension pot from - what was it - 14m to 7m doesn't strike me as terribly radical. Let's assume for the moment, however, that he's a sideshow. What would you say have been the genuinely radical specific changes to the western world's banking system recently that will guarantee it to be, in your words, a "stable financial system" (which it clearly hasn't been up to now)?

Goodwin is a sideshow, the tabloid media needed a villain and he fitted the bill. The credit crunch is more than one man and his pension.

The financial system has has long periods of stability. It pre-dates the industrial revolution and therefore has been around longer than your 'proper' industry. It has become a fundamental part of our society therefore it stands to reason that if it was to be removed there would have to be alternative to takes it place. You said that this alternative would be found within a fortnight but you have yet to tell anyone what it would be.

[lapsedhibee]

You said that this alternative would be found within a fortnight but you have yet to tell anyone what it would be.

No, I didn't. I said that an alternative would have started in that time. Thank goodness bankers and their apologists are more careful with other people's money than they are with other people's words:


by next week there'd be an alternative system starting to grow up for the purpose of reallocating resources

A bit of old anti-socialist banter goes:

Socialist: Society would be fairer if you collected up all the wealth in the state/country/world and divvied it up with everyone getting an equal share.

Anti-socialist: You could do that but if you did it at lunchtime, by teatime there'd already be stinkingly rich people and cripplingly poor people.

The argument is that economic activity is a basic human force. I'm merely agreeing with that to the extent that if one particular economic housekeeping arrangement broke down irretrievably, of necessity another one would evolve. There would still be a need to handle money. But in a new world order there might not be (for example) interest payments - and that would (I guess) entail a much smaller 'financial system' than currently exists.

If you took Blair, Brown, Goodwin, etc, seriously you would believe that the global financial arrangements of the late 20th and early 21st centuries were the pinnacle of some sort of glorious evolution of banking. An alternative view might be that the conditions then obtaining were an obvious loadypish or a bubble itching to burst. The fact that you can still hear people expressing the hope that house prices, and lending in general, will recover to 2007 levels - in other words, hoping to recreate those bubbles - is not such a good sign imo.

The BBC link you have provided about Iceland tells me that the society there has not collapsed, though the existing banks have been allowed to fail. I am not sure why you have linked it, but will not be entirely surprised to read a similar story about the UK in a couple of years' time, with runaway inflation rates etc etc etc. Too early to say yet. The UK government has contributed so staggeringly much to prop up failed and failing banks that they may well have managed to stave off the 'really bad news', like that of Iceland, till 2011, 2012, something like that. Too early to say.

[Green Mikey]

No, I didn't. I said that an alternative would have started in that time. Thank goodness bankers and their apologists are more careful with other people's money than they are with other people's words:


by next week there'd be an alternative system starting to grow up for the purpose of reallocating resources

[/QUOTE]You said that this alternative would be found within a fortnight but you have yet to tell anyone what it would be.[/QUOTE]

What a load of balls. Somebody would have to find the alternative before it started to grow.



A bit of old anti-socialist banter goes:

Socialist: Society would be fairer if you collected up all the wealth in the state/country/world and divvied it up with everyone getting an equal share.

Anti-socialist: You could do that but if you did it at lunchtime, by teatime there'd already be stinkingly rich people and cripplingly poor people.

The argument is that economic activity is a basic human force. I'm merely agreeing with that to the extent that if one particular economic housekeeping arrangement broke down irretrievably, of necessity another one would evolve. There would still be a need to handle money. But in a new world order there might not be (for example) interest payments - and that would (I guess) entail a much smaller 'financial system' than currently exists.

OK, you don't have an alternative to the banking system just some guesses.


The BBC link you have provided about Iceland tells me that the society there has not collapsed, though the existing banks have been allowed to fail. I am not sure why you have linked it, but will not be entirely surprised to read a similar story about the UK in a couple of years' time, with runaway inflation rates etc etc etc. Too early to say yet. The UK government has contributed so staggeringly much to prop up failed and failing banks that they may well have managed to stave off the 'really bad news', like that of Iceland, till 2011, 2012, something like that. Too early to say.

I never said that society in Iceland had collapsed, maybe you should be more careful with other people's words.

You said that banks should be allowed to collapse and that an unfound alternative would start to grow in its place within a week. The banks in Iceland collapsed yet what your alternative has not started to grow yet.

[lapsedhibee]

OK, you don't have an alternative to the banking system just some guesses.

Some people seem to be fixated with the idea that the financial system they have grown up with is either the only possible arrangement or the best possible arrangement. I don't share their absolute certainty that they are correct.


You said that banks should be allowed to collapse
RBS could be allowed to collapse. No problem at all with that.

The banks in Iceland collapsed yet what your alternative has not started to grow yet.
The original banks in Iceland were allowed to fail. Something better will result - even if it's only better-run versions of similar banks, which would imo be a wasted opportunity. At the very, very least the experience of failure might have taught employees of those organisations some humility. This would be a very, very small benefit but nevertheless a benefit. Recent threats by RBS directors that they would flounce out if they didn't get their way about bonuses indicate that no such improvement in the attitudes of highheidyins in this country's financial 'system' has taken place. Pity. Maybe the reporting of that incident was all a scurrilous tabloid vendetta though.

I heard from a relative today that NHS spending on capital projects in Scotland will be cut by 50% for the foreseeable future. And PFI is back on the government agenda, after being rejected because of previous fingerburning. Don't know any details or how precise that figure is, but I guess so long as I have an increasing number of mortgage products and continuously varying types of bank account to choose from, I shouldn't worry about the economy.

[LeithWalkHibby]

Are the banks responsible for the historic low interest rates? If so, I and thousands of other lifetime tracker mortgage holders would like to thank them from the bottom of our wallets...

[Betty Boop]

Will the interest rates be going up any time soon? I don't see the point of having savings in the bank, you would be as well keeping your money under the mattress! :grr:

[Green Mikey]

Some people seem to be fixated with the idea that the financial system they have grown up with is either the only possible arrangement or the best possible arrangement. I don't share their absolute certainty that they are correct.

Some people are fixated on the idea that the financial system is wrong yet strangely have no idea of what shoyuld replace them.



RBS could be allowed to collapse. No problem at all with that.

Why do you want tens of thousands of people to lose their jobs?



The original banks in Iceland were allowed to fail. Something better will result - even if it's only better-run versions of similar banks, which would imo be a wasted opportunity. At the very, very least the experience of failure might have taught employees of those organisations some humility. This would be a very, very small benefit but nevertheless a benefit. Recent threats by RBS directors that they would flounce out if they didn't get their way about bonuses indicate that no such improvement in the attitudes of highheidyins in this country's financial 'system' has taken place. Pity. Maybe the reporting of that incident was all a scurrilous tabloid vendetta though.

I heard from a relative today that NHS spending on capital projects in Scotland will be cut by 50% for the foreseeable future. And PFI is back on the government agenda, after being rejected because of previous fingerburning. Don't know any details or how precise that figure is, but I guess so long as I have an increasing number of mortgage products and continuously varying types of bank account to choose from, I shouldn't worry about the economy.

Your assertion that all bank employees need taught a lesson of some kind is completely idiotic. Your almost unfathomably small understanding of the credit crunch astounds me. Do you really believe that all bank employees were complicit in the credit crunch need taught humility?

[lapsedhibee]

Some people are fixated on the idea that the financial system is wrong yet strangely have no idea of what shoyuld replace them.
Ok I agree with you. There's nothing wrong with the financial system in the UK. All apparent problems, such as the billions and billions of pounds of public subsidy to banks, are a result of tabloid scare stories and the actions of a few rogues such as Fred The Shred.



Why do you want tens of thousands of people to lose their jobs?

Agree. All current employees of RBS should have jobs for life. And then after that, whatever pensions they feel appropriate.



Your assertion that all bank employees need taught a lesson of some kind is completely idiotic. Your almost unfathomably small understanding of the credit crunch astounds me.

Agree. Bank workers are the only people who really understand what the current situation is. Best to leave everything to them. In particular, best to ease off on regulation rather than increase it, as too heavy a touch will prevent banks flourishing, and lead the world into more glorious economic revolutions like the Industrial Revolution.


Do you really believe that all bank employees were complicit in the credit crunch need taught humility?
Yes - I've been at pains all along to say that individual bank clerks, and the ones that work in the George St branch of HBoS on Tuesday afternoons in particular, are the main culprits. Putting the lassie there with the ginger hair in stocks and providing rotten fruit to hurl at her is the least that Andy Hornby could have done before he scarpered. Glad you've picked up on my main point there. :thumbsup:

[Green Mikey]

Ok I agree with you. There's nothing wrong with the financial system in the UK. All apparent problems, such as the billions and billions of pounds of public subsidy to banks, are a result of tabloid scare stories and the actions of a few rogues such as Fred The Shred.

I didn't say that there was nothing wrong with the banking system. I asked you to provide details of the alternative to the current system that you have previously claimed would start to grow within a week if the current system was dissolved.



Agree. All current employees of RBS should have jobs for life. And then after that, whatever pensions they feel appropriate.

Yet again I never said that all employees should have jobs for life, You are putting words into my mouth then flippantly answering your fabricated versions of my posts.

I asked why you sowant RBS to fail and put many people out of a job?


Agree. Bank workers are the only people who really understand what the current situation is. Best to leave everything to them. In particular, best to ease off on regulation rather than increase it, as too heavy a touch will prevent banks flourishing, and lead the world into more glorious economic revolutions like the Industrial Revolution.

Again I didn't say that only bank workers understood the credit crunch. I said that YOU don't seem to understand it.

What was wrong with the industrial revolution?



Yes - I've been at pains all along to say that individual bank clerks, and the ones that work in the George St branch of HBoS on Tuesday afternoons in particular, are the main culprits. Putting the lassie there with the ginger hair in stocks and providing rotten fruit to hurl at her is the least that Andy Hornby could have done before he scarpered. Glad you've picked up on my main point there. :thumbsup:

Was this a joke? You have been making sweeping generalisations regarding bank employees on this thread. When you said that employees of Icelandic banks might learn humility were you including the tellers?

[Woody1985]

Ok I agree with you. There's nothing wrong with the financial system in the UK. All apparent problems, such as the billions and billions of pounds of public subsidy to banks, are a result of tabloid scare stories and the actions of a few rogues such as Fred The Shred.

What you should be more concerned about here is that when the UK government get all their money back will they reduce the taxes that they will have to increase in the mean time. Will they ****.



Agree. All current employees of RBS should have jobs for life. And then after that, whatever pensions they feel appropriate.

No one is saying that, however bank workers are essential to the economy whether you like it or not, which you don't so tough titty.



Agree. Bank workers are the only people who really understand what the current situation is. Best to leave everything to them. In particular, best to ease off on regulation rather than increase it, as too heavy a touch will prevent banks flourishing, and lead the world into more glorious economic revolutions like the Industrial Revolution.

Most would seem to have a hell of a better understanding than you.

Regulation should be increased, I don't think anyone has said anything to the contrary.



Yes - I've been at pains all along to say that individual bank clerks, and the ones that work in the George St branch of HBoS on Tuesday afternoons in particular, are the main culprits. Putting the lassie there with the ginger hair in stocks and providing rotten fruit to hurl at her is the least that Andy Hornby could have done before he scarpered. Glad you've picked up on my main point there. :thumbsup:

:rolleyes:

[lapsedhibee]

I asked why you sowant RBS to fail and put many people out of a job?

It's not a question of whether I want RBS to fail. RBS DID FAIL. And is now being kept alive by the artificial support system of taxpayers' money. You think this is fine. I don't. Probs have to leave it there as you seem determined not to understand the point in any terms other than "Why have you got it in for the poor innocent tellers?"

[Woody1985]

It's not a question of whether I want RBS to fail. RBS DID FAIL. And is now being kept alive by the artificial support system of taxpayers' money. You think this is fine. I don't. Probs have to leave it there as you seem determined not to understand the point in any terms other than "Why have you got it in for the poor innocent tellers?"


Hello.. Hello.. Hello..

Is anyone.. one.. one..

In there.. ere.. ere..

We know that they failed and they are being propped up for many of the reasons given in this thread. We're still waiting for your alternative.

[lapsedhibee]

What you should be more concerned about here is that when the UK government get all their money back will they reduce the taxes that they will have to increase in the mean time.
If.

---------- Post added at 12:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 PM ----------


Hello.. Hello.. Hello..

Is anyone.. one.. one..

In there.. ere.. ere..

We know that they failed and they are being propped up for many of the reasons given in this thread. We're still waiting for your alternative.

You really, really believe that the Royal Bank of Scotland is indispensible, don't you? You actually believe that! :dizzy:

[lapsedhibee]

Are the banks responsible for the historic low interest rates? If so, I and thousands of other lifetime tracker mortgage holders would like to thank them from the bottom of our wallets...

There is an alternative view which is that the availability of cheap mortgages contributes to house price inflation, which in turn puts house purchase out of the reach of first time buyers, so it's not all good. I am unable to put this view forward, however, since it's a few years now since I worked for a bank and am therefore not bright enough to understand it. :boo hoo:

[Woody1985]

If.

---------- Post added at 12:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 PM ----------

You really, really believe that the Royal Bank of Scotland is indispensible, don't you? You actually believe that! :dizzy:

Funnilly enough I don't, I think that being one of the massive players it would have a major impact on our economy. We would have recovered in time with the remaining banks but IMO it would have taken a hell of a lot longer to get out of the recession than it is currently.

You appear to have no concept of how banking works and the impact that reducing that industry to nothing.

I had promised myself I wasn't coming back in on this thread but I couldn't resist with some of the drivel posted.

The point you made about a new solution would be started within weeks (but not found :confused:) sums up the arguements you have made.

Personally, I can understand the basic principles of what you are saying i.e. the business failed = lose their jobs. Whilst i would normally agree but due to the fundamental requirements we all have for their services it's not practicle.

You have not taken on board, and I'm willing to bet not even looked into, any of the points made to you on this thread and therefore the 'discussion' is pointless.

[lapsedhibee]

The point you made about a new solution would be started within weeks (but not found :confused:) sums up the arguements you have made.

What is that question supposed to mean, "What would you replace the banking industry with?" It's a completely straw question.

In a logical sense, it's like asking "What would you replace fox-hunting with?" If fox-hunting is banned, people will get their jollies/control vermin [delete according to taste] some other way.

If the banking industry in its current configuration collapsed, there would be a god awful mess and many people (including elected politicians, and me, and RBS staff) would suffer in the short term. As soon as it collapsed, however, other processes would begin which fulfilled the genuine needs of economic activity, which imo is an essential human need. Who knows whether such a new arrangement would be better or worse than what exists at the moment. I am not even arguing that the current system is so bad that it should be deliberately destroyed - I am arguing that having already failed, efforts to keep it artificially alive should be measured, and not limitless.

The god awful mess of a banking collapse would not in the short term prove very comfortable. Another mess which would prove even less comfortable, and which is here described as a possible consequence of the cost of keeping RBS (etc) afloat, is social unrest (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/6819470/Moodys-warns-of-social-unrest-as-sovereign-debt-spirals.html). Maybe tabloid scaremongering - too early to say. You don't need to know very much about history to realise it's at least a possibility.

[Woody1985]

What is that question supposed to mean, "What would you replace the banking industry with?" It's a completely straw question.

In a logical sense, it's like asking "What would you replace fox-hunting with?" If fox-hunting is banned, people will get their jollies/control vermin [delete according to taste] some other way.

If the banking industry in its current configuration collapsed, there would be a god awful mess and many people (including elected politicians, and me, and RBS staff) would suffer in the short term. As soon as it collapsed, however, other processes would begin which fulfilled the genuine needs of economic activity, which imo is an essential human need. Who knows whether such a new arrangement would be better or worse than what exists at the moment. I am not even arguing that the current system is so bad that it should be deliberately destroyed - I am arguing that having already failed, efforts to keep it artificially alive should be measured, and not limitless.

The god awful mess of a banking collapse would not in the short term prove very comfortable. Another mess which would prove even less comfortable, and which is here described as a possible consequence of the cost of keeping RBS (etc) afloat, is social unrest (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/6819470/Moodys-warns-of-social-unrest-as-sovereign-debt-spirals.html). Maybe tabloid scaremongering - too early to say. You don't need to know very much about history to realise it's at least a possibility.

I agree that people adapt to the situation they are in if they have no alternative.

The foxhunting example provided isn't comparable though, there's too much at stake to just 'get our kicks (financial requirements)' elsewhere. It would appear that in terms of finance we don't have too many, if any, alternatives.

If foxhunting is banned I could choose to go and kill another million animals. Unfortunately, there aren't another million financial solutions.

What do you class as short term when it comes to a banking industry collapse/being made redundant? Is it short term in times of our lifetime, short term business plan, short term in relation to the existence of the banking industry?

Why would you choose for tens of millions in this country to suffer when there is an alternative i.e. proping it up, getting a return (not happened yet but it will IMHO) and hope (work towards) a more stable system for all in future?

Banking has proved in the past that it can deliver. Tighter regulation, control and auditing would hopefully avoid this again.

If people are serious about changing the way we deal with finances as a whole and people want that solution then start up a business offering those services and provide it how you see fit. Just make sure you have your own capital to kick it off though...

[Andy74]

What is that question supposed to mean, "What would you replace the banking industry with?" It's a completely straw question.

In a logical sense, it's like asking "What would you replace fox-hunting with?" If fox-hunting is banned, people will get their jollies/control vermin [delete according to taste] some other way.

If the banking industry in its current configuration collapsed, there would be a god awful mess and many people (including elected politicians, and me, and RBS staff) would suffer in the short term. As soon as it collapsed, however, other processes would begin which fulfilled the genuine needs of economic activity, which imo is an essential human need. Who knows whether such a new arrangement would be better or worse than what exists at the moment. I am not even arguing that the current system is so bad that it should be deliberately destroyed - I am arguing that having already failed, efforts to keep it artificially alive should be measured, and not limitless.

The god awful mess of a banking collapse would not in the short term prove very comfortable. Another mess which would prove even less comfortable, and which is here described as a possible consequence of the cost of keeping RBS (etc) afloat, is social unrest (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/6819470/Moodys-warns-of-social-unrest-as-sovereign-debt-spirals.html). Maybe tabloid scaremongering - too early to say. You don't need to know very much about history to realise it's at least a possibility.

RBS collpasing would have bankrupted the UK. At the moment, yes it is being supported although it will be back on its own two feet in about 3 to 5 yrs, probably with a return of the tax payers cash.

It's the best outcome of the two.

[lapsedhibee]

The foxhunting example provided isn't comparable though, there's too much at stake to just 'get our kicks (financial requirements)' elsewhere. It would appear that in terms of finance we don't have too many, if any, alternatives.
Necessity. Invention. Mother.


What do you class as short term when it comes to a banking industry collapse/being made redundant? Is it short term in times of our lifetime, short term business plan, short term in relation to the existence of the banking industry?

Don't know the answer to that. If the present banking industry is considered 500 years old (which I dispute - I don't think that the banking which was on the go in the Industrial Revolution was anything like the banking of the 1990s/2000s) then a substitute model would emerge in a relatively short space of time. Individual redundancy is always sore. Many people made redundant from the mature industries of the 1980s never worked again. Surely large numbers of people suddenly thrown out of work with their current (say,RBS) employment would be teeming with ideas and skills relevant to the task, though? Free of the burden of incompetent senior management of course.


Why would you choose for tens of millions in this country to suffer when there is an alternative i.e. proping it up, getting a return (not happened yet but it will IMHO) and hope (work towards) a more stable system for all in future?

I think there's a fairly good chance that tens of millions in this country will suffer anyway - I already know of one long-planned NHS facility for damaged people which has been cancelled because the government no longer has the resources. I suspect that's the tip of an iceberg. Whether there are serious social consequences when all this has worked through remains to be seen.


Banking has proved in the past that it can deliver. Tighter regulation, control and auditing would hopefully avoid this again.

I heard somewhere that in financial matters past performance is not always a good guide to future performance.


If people are serious about changing the way we deal with finances as a whole and people want that solution then start up a business offering those services and provide it how you see fit. Just make sure you have your own capital to kick it off though...
Understand from the press and anecdotally that existing banks are not currently providing this kind of funding facility. Understand from the media that the government is not too chuffed about it as that's what the handouts were supposed to be used for. To start up that kind of business I would get funding privately though, not pay an existing bank some daft "arrangement fee". Won't be doing it just at the moment as already fully stretched with the pegs, but wouldn't object to a portion of my taxes being diverted into research into alternative financial arrangements. I would hope, in fact, that some of it already is going towards studying credit unions and the like (trivial at the moment, but interesting to see where that sort of thing could go if it became mainstream thinking). Maybe all alternative systems would eventually morph into something indistinguishable from the existing arrangements, maybe we already live in the best of all possible worlds - or maybe not.

[lapsedhibee]

RBS collpasing would have bankrupted the UK. At the moment, yes it is being supported although it will be back on its own two feet in about 3 to 5 yrs, probably with a return of the tax payers cash.

Only maybe then. So it might turn out to be a grant rather than a loan.
Never been bankrupt myself, but have known people do it and come out the other side. I imagine that Iceland will too.

[IWasThere2016]

Interesting piece in The Times yesterday .. says if bonuses had been 20% less the banks may not have needed bailed out ..

All points to greed and more greed to me :grr:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article6960958.ece

[Woody1985]

Necessity. Invention. Mother.

Don't know the answer to that. If the present banking industry is considered 500 years old (which I dispute - I don't think that the banking which was on the go in the Industrial Revolution was anything like the banking of the 1990s/2000s) then a substitute model would emerge in a relatively short space of time. Individual redundancy is always sore. Many people made redundant from the mature industries of the 1980s never worked again. Surely large numbers of people suddenly thrown out of work with their current (say,RBS) employment would be teeming with ideas and skills relevant to the task, though? Free of the burden of incompetent senior management of course.

It would take something special to be taken onto the world scale which isn't going to/wouldn't happen, IMO.

There's no doubting that there could potentially be some innovations and sectors created but would they appeal to the masses and be used by the world.



I think there's a fairly good chance that tens of millions in this country will suffer anyway - I already know of one long-planned NHS facility for damaged people which has been cancelled because the government no longer has the resources. I suspect that's the tip of an iceberg. Whether there are serious social consequences when all this has worked through remains to be seen.


You could argue that NHS spending has had such a massive budget due to the contributions made during the times that the bank was booming and is therefore a correction....

There is no doubt that a lot of people will suffer whilst we get through this but it could be much worse.



I heard somewhere that in financial matters past performance is not always a good guide to future performance.

I heard that people should learn from past mistakes to work on better solutions to prevent them from happening again.

Studying previous markets and fluctuations is actually quite a good way of helping determine what may happen again.




Understand from the press and anecdotally that existing banks are not currently providing this kind of funding facility. Understand from the media that the government is not too chuffed about it as that's what the handouts were supposed to be used for. To start up that kind of business I would get funding privately though, not pay an existing bank some daft "arrangement fee". Won't be doing it just at the moment as already fully stretched with the pegs, but wouldn't object to a portion of my taxes being diverted into research into alternative financial arrangements. I would hope, in fact, that some of it already is going towards studying credit unions and the like (trivial at the moment, but interesting to see where that sort of thing could go if it became mainstream thinking). Maybe all alternative systems would eventually morph into something indistinguishable from the existing arrangements, maybe we already live in the best of all possible worlds - or maybe not.

This in part, IMO, is due to the negative pressure put on the pressure by the banks to be squeaky clean until the can get back to a normal (whatever that may be) state.

You make a good point, we could invest in new new financial models to see how they could pan out.

What I would say is that the government should have stockpiled billions from the profits made from the good times and money flowing in from the banks which could have gone to helping them when errors were made.

Without sounding patronising(hopefully!), it would seem the discussion is a bit more sensible from both side now(I know I can be an arse and quite forceful with my points). :greengrin

[ancienthibby]

RBS collpasing would have bankrupted the UK. At the moment, yes it is being supported although it will be back on its own two feet in about 3 to 5 yrs, probably with a return of the tax payers cash.

It's the best outcome of the two.

:faf::faf::faf::faf::faf::faf::faf::faf::faf::faf:

[Green Mikey]

:faf::faf::faf::faf::faf::faf::faf::faf::faf::faf:

Why is Andy74's statement so funny? Do you have an alternative stategy or prediction regarding the bail out of RBS etc?

[IWasThere2016]

Why is Andy74's statement so funny? Do you have an alternative stategy or prediction regarding the bail out of RBS etc?

Maybe the sweeping statement made in the first place should be justified :cool2:

[Arch Stanton]

Maybe the sweeping statement made in the first place should be justified :cool2:

Is it so sweeping though? If it was perceieved that money was no longer safe in banks then the result would be panic wouldn't it?

And if queues started forming round the block to get withdraw money, wouldn't you be joining them?

It seems pretty obvious to me that financial institutions would collapse in domino fashion and we would all be left in the sh*t.

[IWasThere2016]

Is it so sweeping though? If it was perceieved that money was no longer safe in banks then the result would be panic wouldn't it?

And if queues started forming round the block to get withdraw money, wouldn't you be joining them?

It seems pretty obvious to me that financial institutions would collapse in domino fashion and we would all be left in the sh*t.

One bank in the thousands worldwide and there would be panic?

Why did this no happen when those in the US went tits up?

[Green Mikey]

One bank in the thousands worldwide and there would be panic?

Why did this no happen when those in the US went tits up?

When Lehmans Brothers collapsed there was a extreme worsening of the economic situation around the world. This incident provided some of the rationale for supporting all major banks in both the US and UK.

RBS is one of the biggest banks in the world, that is why there has been so much inportance placed on it's situation.

[Mibbes Aye]

That's exactly what I am saying.

Without it something like the industrial revolution simply wouldn't have happened...the growth of America would not exsit if it wasn't for finance being raised elsewhere and put to use on building the railroads, plantations etc. All of these advancements and investments required a financial system, without it there would have been no growth to speak of.


I agree growth requires a financial system. That's a lot different from saying the Western banking system is responsible for economic growth though - it facilitates growth, would be more accurate. In other societies at other times, different tools have been used for the same purpose. In some respects the system you're talking about can be very effective. It has obvious faults of course in that it doesn't work according to its theoretical basis. It also creates massive inequalities, which in one respect it shouldn't be criticised for because it's inherent to how it works.

I'm not sure that citing the growth of America is necessarily the best example. Despite its image as a bastion of free trade the US has never shied away from protectionism when it suits and it was a central plank of Republican policy from the first administration through until the 1950s. Perhaps a more relevant example of economic progression would be post-war Europe, a period of huge growth that included the market but was built on massive state spending.



Fair do's for having a pop at painting an alternative. Strange however that you call it 'lame' to put up with something that is flawed but not as flawed as anything else that has been tried (yet something that has clearly had vast benefits to the world at the same time) yet submit a vague alternative that requires an almost unparralleled change to the world that would need the removal of one of humans most basic instincts.

I'm no lover of mega banks or even of the huge bonuses that some hedge fund managers and investment bankers get or the fact that some were complicit in creating a huge credit bubble. However that doesn't stop me seeing that the creation of wealth and the raising of living standards around the world will be done with the free flow of capital and the removals of barriers of trade not by central control, whoever that may be!

I think the difference is that not everyone views the creation of wealth as being the pinnacle of human achievement. Nor does everyone have a narrow view of prosperity which seems to base it solely on money or material consumption. Nor does everyone subscribe to the belief that it's okay to have massive inequality as a consequence of what is essentially greed, painted as choice or a 'free market'. Nor does everyone admire a system which has shown that it enjoys the rights without the responsibilities.

I think we are limited by the narrowness of our vision sometimes - we are arguing about the merits of a model that developed around its times, but that doesn't make it fit for purpose for the challenges that face our planet over the decades and centuries ahead and people shouldn't be afraid to consider better alternatives just becase it requires a bit of a mental leap.

[Andy74]

Maybe the sweeping statement made in the first place should be justified :cool2:

Not least because RBS had a balance sheet many times the size of the UK GDP and it would have taken the finances of the entire UK down. It would have bankrupted UK as sovereign entity.

[IWasThere2016]

Not least because RBS had a balance sheet many times the size of the UK GDP and it would have taken the finances of the entire UK down. It would have bankrupted UK as sovereign entity.

And our other banks are not > RBS?

[IWasThere2016]

Interesting piece in The Times yesterday .. says if bonuses had been 20% less the banks may not have needed bailed out ..

All points to greed and more greed to me :grr:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article6960958.ece

I'm loving how this has been ignored by the RBS et al apologists :cool2:

[Arch Stanton]

One bank in the thousands worldwide and there would be panic?

Why did this no happen when those in the US went tits up?

When did this discussion change to be about worldwide panic - I must have missed that.

When Northern Rock had it's comparatively little hiccup it made major headlines in this country, or did you miss seeing that?

As for the US, the banks that were allowed to fail were not High Street retail banks - the impact on US society was pretty much zero - no relevance whatsoever to RBS (major Point of Sale acquirer, major cash processor, major cheque clearer, major BACS interface for British businesses).

Furthermore, there was hardly any point in them being rescued since the US authorities would have had to subsequently prosecute them out of business for their role in passing off sub-prime debt as 'good'.

[IWasThere2016]

When did this discussion change to be about worldwide panic - I must have missed that.

When Northern Rock had it's comparatively little hiccup it made major headlines in this country, or did you miss seeing that?

As for the US, the banks that were allowed to fail were not High Street retail banks - the impact on US society was pretty much zero - no relevance whatsoever to RBS (major Point of Sale acquirer, major cash processor, major cheque clearer, major BACS interface for British businesses).

Furthermore, there was hardly any point in them being rescued since the US authorities would have had to subsequently prosecute them out of business for their role in passing off sub-prime debt as 'good'.

You were first to mention panic ..

[IWasThere2016]

When did this discussion change to be about worldwide panic - I must have missed that.

When Northern Rock had it's comparatively little hiccup it made major headlines in this country, or did you miss seeing that?

As for the US, the banks that were allowed to fail were not High Street retail banks - the impact on US society was pretty much zero - no relevance whatsoever to RBS (major Point of Sale acquirer, major cash processor, major cheque clearer, major BACS interface for British businesses).
Furthermore, there was hardly any point in them being rescued since the US authorities would have had to subsequently prosecute them out of business for their role in passing off sub-prime debt as 'good'.

I bank with RBS - in business and pleasure - and I am aware of their size.

Would takeover or merger not have been an option if they had over-traded and left themselves exposed. My reading is the problems were caused by too many fingers in too many pies - particularly overseas - as the Board (and shareholders) craved more and more return.

[Arch Stanton]

I bank with RBS - in business and pleasure - and I am aware of their size.

Would takeover or merger not have been an option if they had over-traded and left themselves exposed. My reading is the problems were caused by too many fingers in too many pies - particularly overseas - as the Board (and shareholders) craved more and more return.

When it was realised late on the Friday that RBS no longer complied with Bank of England liquidity requirements it meant that it could not legally open it's doors, or continue with any transaction processing or banking operations, on the Monday. The fact is, if the government had not stepped in, the country would have been very quickly bankrupt - that is the only point I was commenting on.

[IWasThere2016]

When it was realised late on the Friday that RBS no longer complied with Bank of England liquidity requirements it meant that it could not legally open it's doors, or continue with any transaction processing or banking operations, on the Monday. The fact is, if the government had not stepped in, the country would have been very quickly bankrupt - that is the only point I was commenting on.

So RBS' liquidity or lack of would have meant the UK was soon to be bankrupt? I cannot agree with that.

If the BoE had re-capitalised all banks - save RBS - what would have happened?

I re-iterate earlier comments - RBS is loss-making, it is using taxpayers monies to pay bonuses whilst failing to release funds for debt. I cannot see how anyone can see this as satisfactory or in the country's best interests.

Finally why is it I can get 3x the return on fixed-term deposits from the Irish Banks than I can get from ever so valued and valuable RBS?

[Arch Stanton]

So RBS' liquidity or lack of would have meant the UK was soon to be bankrupt? I cannot agree with that.

If the BoE had re-capitalised all banks - save RBS - what would have happened?

I re-iterate earlier comments - RBS is loss-making, it is using taxpayers monies to pay bonuses whilst failing to release funds for debt. I cannot see how anyone can see this as satisfactory or in the country's best interests.

Finally why is it I can get 3x the return on fixed-term deposits from the Irish Banks than I can get from ever so valued and valuable RBS?

You may not agree that the country would have gone bankrupt but you are making precious little attempt to come to terms with what would actually have transpired had the government not stepped in (i.e. I seem to be wasting my time commenting on this it seems).

If you could invest your fixed terms deposits on better terms then more fool you - I am not in the business of bumming up RBS I'm afraid.

[IWasThere2016]

You may not agree that the country would have gone bankrupt but you are making precious little attempt to come to terms with what would actually have transpired had the government not stepped in (i.e. I seem to be wasting my time commenting on this it seems).

If you could invest your fixed terms deposits on better terms then more fool you - I am not in the business of bumming up RBS I'm afraid.

I'm not offering an alternative. I have not tried to.

The banking system needed to be saved - but it could've been done so without such a narrow approach - and I don't see why the Govt supported a failing RBS.

The were other banks able to take it over/ replace it .. It was after all worth far less than it had been in a long long time.

As for getting better terms elsewhere :wink: RBS seem to be encouraging their custom to go elsewhere.

[Woody1985]

I'm loving how this has been ignored by the RBS et al apologists :cool2:

It's easy to chop up the figures anyway you like in hindsight.

Yes, there are lessons to be learned here but at the time the banks were making plenty and were awarded bonuses accordingly.

How much of that 75 billion quid went into the tax payers coffers and to support other businesses by being spent by the staff?

[Woody1985]

I'm not offering an alternative. I have not tried to.

The banking system needed to be saved - but it could've been done so without such a narrow approach - and I don't see why the Govt supported a failing RBS.

The were other banks able to take it over/ replace it .. It was after all worth far less than it had been in a long long time.

As for getting better terms elsewhere :wink: RBS seem to be encouraging their custom to go elsewhere.

I'm not saying they are doing this as I'm not sure. However, I would say that businesses tend to do this a lot if there is low returns on particular products and change their focus on more high return areas.

If that is what they are doing then that is wrong, depending on the areas this is happening, as they have been supported to provide a service and maintain/create some level of stability.

Again, this could come down to public pressure for them to make profit and be seen to be responsible. I know that their loan rates for less than 5k are 22.9 and one of the worst on the market just now.

[IWasThere2016]

It's easy to chop up the figures anyway you like in hindsight.

Yes, there are lessons to be learned here but at the time the banks were making plenty and were awarded bonuses accordingly.

How much of that 75 billion quid went into the tax payers coffers and to support other businesses by being spent by the staff?

You do know that many of the big bonus earners set-up offshore Trusts and paid the sums in tax-free and then issued loans (again tax-free) to themselves. These loans are never re-paid :cool2:

---------- Post added at 10:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 AM ----------


I'm not saying they are doing this as I'm not sure. However, I would say that businesses tend to do this a lot if there is low returns on particular products and change their focus on more high return areas.

If that is what they are doing then that is wrong, depending on the areas this is happening, as they have been supported to provide a service and maintain/create some level of stability.

Again, this could come down to public pressure for them to make profit and be seen to be responsible. I know that their loan rates for less than 5k are 22.9 and one of the worst on the market just now.

My comment re custom was sarcastic :wink: but there could be further cost-cutting/merger etc to sort the latter issue out

[Woody1985]

You do know that many of the big bonus earners set-up offshore Trusts and paid the sums in tax-free and then issued loans (again tax-free) to themselves. These loans are never re-paid :cool2:

---------- Post added at 10:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 AM ----------



My comment re custom was sarcastic :wink: but there could be further cost-cutting/merger etc to sort the latter issue out

Yes, but what percentage of the bonuses go to those top earners? A lot of the anger is directed at the previous (and current) top earners, which is fair enough, but the largest proportion would surely be for regular staff who won't have the luxury of shoving their 1/2k bonus in some offshore account because they need it to live.

[Arch Stanton]

I'm not offering an alternative. I have not tried to.

The banking system needed to be saved - but it could've been done so without such a narrow approach - and I don't see why the Govt supported a failing RBS.

The were other banks able to take it over/ replace it .. It was after all worth far less than it had been in a long long time.

As for getting better terms elsewhere :wink: RBS seem to be encouraging their custom to go elsewhere.

If the grossly overpaid RBS executive had faced up to the oncoming wreck sooner then maybe something better could have been worked out - they were supposed to be the very best at what they do and there must have been plenty warning signals. But they didn't and the government did well to get a deal worked out so quickly. While you may have been prepared to risk letting the market sort things out and I am definitely glad you were not in charge of things - nothing personal mind you. :greengrin

And it isn't as if the government wouldn't have preferred such a solution since they managed to get HBoS hived off.

[ancienthibby]

Yes, but what percentage of the bonuses go to those top earners? A lot of the anger is directed at the previous (and current) top earners, which is fair enough, but the largest proportion would surely be for regular staff who won't have the luxury of shoving their 1/2k bonus in some offshore account because they need it to live.

I would wager that this would be around at least 90% of all the value paid out!! Ordinary workers in the banks are not the issue and the public has made it clear that this is so.

But finally things seem to be changing.

I see that President Sarkozy is to introduce limits on bonuses for bankers in France. Alongside that, Deutsche Bank has announced that the cost of such bonuses will be held within the bank (in other words, top bonuses will be funded by others not getting any!)

Goldman Sachs is now apparently reconsidering its bonus policy overall and some high-level bonuses may well be axed.

Finally, some wise man from the BofE has suggested that capital ratios for the UK Banks needs to be overhauled and, as a result, the Banks would not be able to pay such bonuses due to the level of capital and cash reserves having to be maintained. :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Finally we are getting somewhere and the long-suffering bank customer may just yet see the wearying grins of all these RBS apologists wiped away!!:devil::devil:

[Woody1985]

I would wager that this would be around at least 90% of all the value paid out!! Ordinary workers in the banks are not the issue and the public has made it clear that this is so.

But finally things seem to be changing.

I see that President Sarkozy is to introduce limits on bonuses for bankers in France. Alongside that, Deutsche Bank has announced that the cost of such bonuses will be held within the bank (in other words, top bonuses will be funded by others not getting any!)

Goldman Sachs is now apparently reconsidering its bonus policy overall and some high-level bonuses may well be axed.

Finally, some wise man from the BofE has suggested that capital ratios for the UK Banks needs to be overhauled and, as a result, the Banks would not be able to pay such bonuses due to the level of capital and cash reserves having to be maintained. :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Finally we are getting somewhere and the long-suffering bank customer may just yet see the wearying grins of all these RBS apologists wiped away!!:devil::devil:

I hope your percentage is tongue firmly in cheek!

Bonus caps will only work if everyone follows suit and it looks like that may be the way that it is going.

The funny thing is, with my defence of RBS and it's requirement for the country, I no longer bank with them after they treated me like **** after missing one loan payment (sub prime mother****er! :LOL: ). You'd think I ****ing fled the country with Sir Fred's pension so moved to A&L!

[IWasThere2016]

I'm not saying they are doing this as I'm not sure. However, I would say that businesses tend to do this a lot if there is low returns on particular products and change their focus on more high return areas.

If that is what they are doing then that is wrong, depending on the areas this is happening, as they have been supported to provide a service and maintain/create some level of stability.

Again, this could come down to public pressure for them to make profit and be seen to be responsible. I know that their loan rates for less than 5k are 22.9 and one of the worst on the market just now.

That's base at 4580% mark-up .. totals cants! :grr:


If the grossly overpaid RBS executive had faced up to the oncoming wreck sooner then maybe something better could have been worked out - they were supposed to be the very best at what they do and there must have been plenty warning signals. But they didn't and the government did well to get a deal worked out so quickly. While you may have been prepared to risk letting the market sort things out and I am definitely glad you were not in charge of things - nothing personal mind you. :greengrin

And it isn't as if the government wouldn't have preferred such a solution since they managed to get HBoS hived off.

Likewise for you - as you're clearly nae better than we've got! :wink:

[RyeSloan]

I agree growth requires a financial system. That's a lot different from saying the Western banking system is responsible for economic growth though - it facilitates growth, would be more accurate. In other societies at other times, different tools have been used for the same purpose. In some respects the system you're talking about can be very effective. It has obvious faults of course in that it doesn't work according to its theoretical basis. It also creates massive inequalities, which in one respect it shouldn't be criticised for because it's inherent to how it works.

I'm not sure that citing the growth of America is necessarily the best example. Despite its image as a bastion of free trade the US has never shied away from protectionism when it suits and it was a central plank of Republican policy from the first administration through until the 1950s. Perhaps a more relevant example of economic progression would be post-war Europe, a period of huge growth that included the market but was built on massive state spending.




I think the difference is that not everyone views the creation of wealth as being the pinnacle of human achievement. Nor does everyone have a narrow view of prosperity which seems to base it solely on money or material consumption. Nor does everyone subscribe to the belief that it's okay to have massive inequality as a consequence of what is essentially greed, painted as choice or a 'free market'. Nor does everyone admire a system which has shown that it enjoys the rights without the responsibilities.

I think we are limited by the narrowness of our vision sometimes - we are arguing about the merits of a model that developed around its times, but that doesn't make it fit for purpose for the challenges that face our planet over the decades and centuries ahead and people shouldn't be afraid to consider better alternatives just becase it requires a bit of a mental leap.

Thanks for the post and apologies for taking so long to do it the service of a reply.

Unless there is something like an Oil State massive state spending is not and never will be a route to the increased wealth and prosperity of a nation, the reason I mentioned the buidling of America is that it was financed from overseas money and some inventive financial products were created to do so (some of those like Investment Trusts are actually what a lot of Edinburgh financial sector was originally built on). The point here was that a financial system that could evolve and create new products was essential to the building of the worlds largest power even back in it's formative days so is no less relevant now in that role.

I agree though that all countries probably benfit from a mix of approaches and am in no way supporting a total free market, in fact it's the lack of sensible and credible legislation and regulation that is at the heart of this credit crunch in the first place.

As for not seeing the "creation of wealth as being the pinnacle of human achievement" I am tended to agree with you but from where I am sitting the creation of wealth for a nation and individuals has by far and away been the most effective method we have found of lifting peoples living and health standards significantly. I have no problem with considering alternatives (there have been plenty tried and failed so far) and would go as far to say that I would welcome something that could continue to raise peoples living standards, let them live longer in a more equitable world and work less but sadly given the paucity of credible alternate models to do this don't think I will be agreeing that the world doesn't need a strong financial system any time soon!

[Mibbes Aye]

Thanks for the post and apologies for taking so long to do it the service of a reply.

Unless there is something like an Oil State massive state spending is not and never will be a route to the increased wealth and prosperity of a nation, the reason I mentioned the buidling of America is that it was financed from overseas money and some inventive financial products were created to do so (some of those like Investment Trusts are actually what a lot of Edinburgh financial sector was originally built on). The point here was that a financial system that could evolve and create new products was essential to the building of the worlds largest power even back in it's formative days so is no less relevant now in that role.

I agree though that all countries probably benfit from a mix of approaches and am in no way supporting a total free market, in fact it's the lack of sensible and credible legislation and regulation that is at the heart of this credit crunch in the first place.

As for not seeing the "creation of wealth as being the pinnacle of human achievement" I am tended to agree with you but from where I am sitting the creation of wealth for a nation and individuals has by far and away been the most effective method we have found of lifting peoples living and health standards significantly. I have no problem with considering alternatives (there have been plenty tried and failed so far) and would go as far to say that I would welcome something that could continue to raise peoples living standards, let them live longer in a more equitable world and work less but sadly given the paucity of credible alternate models to do this don't think I will be agreeing that the world doesn't need a strong financial system any time soon!

Let's hope we can find one then :greengrin