Jump to content

Reviewing our values.


buelligan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Who funds this 'left leaning' - according to 5LIVE- think tank? I would love to know.

I am a banker so maybe I am biased, but please god tell me what politician are worth compared with bankers? How biased is it...

It is government that spent during the good times, and have no money for the bad times. The banks have cost a massive £10 billion, but Labour are borrowing an extremely enormous £800+ billion to cover the economic problems. Government of course blames the bankers as they are an easy target (of our own making), but that report is utter tosh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Foundation has used a new form of job evaluation to calculate the

total contribution various jobs make to society, including for the

first time the impact on communities and environment"

As all jobs should be calculated.

For me Nurses are worth millions of times more than anybody in the Financial sector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weird isn't it, in my first career I cared for cancer patients, in my second I moved to banking.  The latter job was far more demanding and much less rewarding.  I'm the same person but in the first role I was referred to as an 'angel' in the second I am tantamount to the devil in disguise.  Both roles are equally important and needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"For me Nurses are worth millions of times more than anybody in the Financial sector."

I agree, but then I agree that most nurses are worth more than just about any other profession.

A friend and banker colleague, who has just found out he has
Acute lymphoblastic leukemia understands this better than you and me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="baypond"]Who funds this 'left leaning' - according to 5LIVE- think tank? I would love to know.
I am a banker so maybe I am biased, but please god tell me what politician are worth compared with bankers? How biased is it...
It is government that spent during the good times, and have no money for the bad times. The banks have cost a massive £10 billion, but Labour are borrowing an extremely enormous £800+ billion to cover the economic problems. Government of course blames the bankers as they are an easy target (of our own making), but that report is utter tosh.
[/quote]

Oh goody!

A banker.

Praps you can explain summat to me Mr Banker.

In the 1960s, all the old blokes I used to work with had paid into their pensions (Called it Superanuation or whatever in them days): and when they retired, I kept in topuch with many as I respected them and they were nice blokes.

And they all seemed to enjoy a reasonable life and werent huting for cash.

And then Thatcher annoucned the big bang or whatever: and then we saw the city grow and grow and all these young geezers were earning bundles and driving Ferraris and Porsches and thousand quid suits and we were told all these new clever things they did had taken away the risks and would make us all well off.

And since all this cleverness, our investments are worth doodly squat; our pensions are useless: everyone talks about black holes in pensions; and were told how crucial the city is to Britain: and how much money it earns for the country; and my quid is now worth about one euro and a bit instead of 1.5 euros when we bought our place in France; insurance policies for mortgages left home buyers desperate when they should have paid up their mortgage and had a nice chunk left over.

Companies say they can't pay enough into their pensions funds: but the bosses are all earning fortunes and their pay and bonuses have gone up like a guy forks rocket.

The stock market is almost back to where it was: yet my isas are worse than if I had put my dough in the post office.

And the bankers tell dear old Gordy and darling if he taxes them too hard they'll leave the country, cos they have to pay top dollar for the talent.

And despite ruining the country's finances they still demand mega bonuses: for screwing up big time.

But it was all going to be so good our worries were over.

All this clever rocket science and trading things none of us simple blokes could ever understand.

Well, thats what we were told.

So simple question: why are our investments so useless then?

In March 2003 the FTSE 100 was 3,491: now its around 5,190.

Well, by my dodgy arithmetic that's a rise of 48%: so why are all our pensions in such a mess and why are my isas still so useless?

But at the same time Goldman Sucks are paying zillions in bonuses cos apparently they've never had it so good.

None of this makes any sens to poor old me mate: I'm an engineer, not a rocket scientist!

Praps you could most kindly explain?

I'm sure loads of others would like to know.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Mickie,

I'm not a rocket scientist either, nor am I an investment manager. I don't know why the returns on my retirement investments are also so low either, except that the Labour party have taxed dividends which has dramatically eroded long term performance potential for funds invested.

I can't make a defence for bankers pay and bonuses. The one honest statement made by politicians is that if they hadn't bailed out the banks, we wouldn't have jobs, and for that we should be grateful. I certainly am. The issue is that banks are still public, and like all companies operate in a competetive environment. Employees are paid on supply and demand. If you are a trader that has a strong track record then that trader has a value to the bank in which it works, and others in the market.

However, not all you read in the press is truly representative of what happened. So here are a few things that I get frustrated about.

Government decides what is legal and what is not. Government sets out a regulatory framework under which all companies must operate. These include things like health and safety, minimumm wage and things like banking law. Governments want economies to grow so that everyone can have a job, earn some cash, and afford more than just eat. Government loves the good times, because good times means they stay in Government for longer. However, to perpetuate the good times, they encourage/allow poor practice to continue long after it should because to stop them would harm the economy. The sort of things I am talking about are equity withdrawls, self certification, multiples of earnings for mortgages far higher than the 4X allowed when I first got a mortgage. Why did they allow banks to do all this? Because it helped the economy grow. Both the Clinton administration inthe USA and Labour government here encouraged lending on less robust criteria because they felt it was important for everyone to be able to own their own home. So, in a competetive environment, banks looked at more and more complex ways of trying to compete and make money out of lending to less and less creditworthy people. The regulatory environment allowed it, and the banks made a huge mistake in compromising their lending standards.

Of the total losses in banks, only about 10% was due to complex derivatives, the vast majority of losses were on mortgages, credit cards, and comercial lending ie the traditional sort of banking far removed from gizzilionaire traders. The number of traders caught up in these complex derivatives (CDOs) was probably about 2% of the trading population. The vast amount of other types of traders continue to contribute to banks repair and profitability.

Politicians are really covering up their own failings by pointing the finger solely at bankers.It is great spin. It is Labour policy of spending in the good times, and now having to spend in the bad times that is causing the pain. They complain that bankers are not lending, but complain that it was banks making bad lending decisions that caused the crisis. They complain that Sarkosy is trying to ruin UK banking, but then tell everyone that they are going to make the UK less reliant on the finance sector. Gordon Brown said no more boom and bust, and yet set in place policies that have brought about just that.

You know that of the £80 billion or so that UK banks lost in 2009, and that cost UK tax payers so much money, that more than half the loss was on RBS buying ABN (a dutch bank). No traders involved, just one RBSchairman. Politician will have you belive that it was 20,000 greedy bankers that lost this money. What about their mess in dealing with Northern Rock. Regulatory failing again, no greedy bankers, just regulation that allowed a building society to lend 20 year money, and fund it buy borring frombanks on a 1 day at a time basis.

Bankers deserve to take their medicine, but I just wish someone would recognise that it is politics that is corrupting the UK, not banks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The New Economics Foundation (who wrote the report) are a charity.  I imagine their funding comes from individuals, private companies and grants - as with most charities.  But feel free to google them Teggers!

I find it interesting that those who disagree with this report are (or have been) working in the employment sectors less favourably reviewed.  They do not put forward reasons why they disagree with the conclusions drawn (other than to say that it is all the Government's fault).  If they really believe it is "all the Government's fault",  I would ask;  how, then do they justify paying bankers as we do?   If bankers are truly just putty in the hands of politicians why are we paying them at all?  Why not get rid of these middle-men and simply pay the politicians to feck it up?  

As a pure aside, IIRC Baypond, ludicrous personal borrowing, ridiculous mortgage loans and the problems with endowments, jiggery-pokery with pension funds and all the other greedy seeds we are now reaping the fruit of, were planted long before this current shower started raining on us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="baypond"]

Bankers deserve to take their medicine, but I just wish someone would recognise that it is politics that is corrupting the UK, not banks.

[/quote]

Years ago NuLab ignored all the signs of overspending - by the public, and they did the same with the public purse as the 'good feel' factor kept them in power.

They failed to give any encouragement to manufacturing,   favouring the finance sector above all others.  No doubt Gordon Broon was even proud of the Royal Bank of Scotland as one of the world's largest banks.

The outcome was predictable.

Tegwini

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="baypond"]Hi Mickie,

I'm not a rocket scientist either, nor am I an investment manager. I don't know why the returns on my retirement investments are also so low either, except that the Labour party have taxed dividends which has dramatically eroded long term performance potential for funds invested.
I can't make a defence for bankers pay and bonuses. The one honest statement made by politicians is that if they hadn't bailed out the banks, we wouldn't have jobs, and for that we should be grateful. I certainly am. The issue is that banks are still public, and like all companies operate in a competetive environment. Employees are paid on supply and demand. If you are a trader that has a strong track record then that trader has a value to the bank in which it works, and others in the market.
However, not all you read in the press is truly representative of what happened. So here are a few things that I get frustrated about.

Government decides what is legal and what is not. Government sets out a regulatory framework under which all companies must operate. These include things like health and safety, minimumm wage and things like banking law. Governments want economies to grow so that everyone can have a job, earn some cash, and afford more than just eat. Government loves the good times, because good times means they stay in Government for longer. However, to perpetuate the good times, they encourage/allow poor practice to continue long after it should because to stop them would harm the economy. The sort of things I am talking about are equity withdrawls, self certification, multiples of earnings for mortgages far higher than the 4X allowed when I first got a mortgage. Why did they allow banks to do all this? Because it helped the economy grow. Both the Clinton administration inthe USA and Labour government here encouraged lending on less robust criteria because they felt it was important for everyone to be able to own their own home. So, in a competetive environment, banks looked at more and more complex ways of trying to compete and make money out of lending to less and less creditworthy people. The regulatory environment allowed it, and the banks made a huge mistake in compromising their lending standards.

Of the total losses in banks, only about 10% was due to complex derivatives, the vast majority of losses were on mortgages, credit cards, and comercial lending ie the traditional sort of banking far removed from gizzilionaire traders. The number of traders caught up in these complex derivatives (CDOs) was probably about 2% of the trading population. The vast amount of other types of traders continue to contribute to banks repair and profitability.

Politicians are really covering up their own failings by pointing the finger solely at bankers.It is great spin. It is Labour policy of spending in the good times, and now having to spend in the bad times that is causing the pain. They complain that bankers are not lending, but complain that it was banks making bad lending decisions that caused the crisis. They complain that Sarkosy is trying to ruin UK banking, but then tell everyone that they are going to make the UK less reliant on the finance sector. Gordon Brown said no more boom and bust, and yet set in place policies that have brought about just that.
You know that of the £80 billion or so that UK banks lost in 2009, and that cost UK tax payers so much money, that more than half the loss was on RBS buying ABN (a dutch bank). No traders involved, just one RBSchairman. Politician will have you belive that it was 20,000 greedy bankers that lost this money. What about their mess in dealing with Northern Rock. Regulatory failing again, no greedy bankers, just regulation that allowed a building society to lend 20 year money, and fund it buy borring frombanks on a 1 day at a time basis.

Bankers deserve to take their medicine, but I just wish someone would recognise that it is politics that is corrupting the UK, not banks.



[/quote]

Thanks Mr Baybond but it doesn't really answer all the quesions.

Im going to break up your answer in bits:

 [quote]I don't know why the returns on my retirement investments are also so low either, except that the Labour party have taxed dividends which has dramatically eroded long term performance potential for funds invested.[/quote]

I think that the tax thing is summat of a big excuse!

So do these peeps.

http://www.opalliance.org.uk/decline.htm#5billion

So the process started in Lamonts time then.

Do these hedge fund thingies we hear so much about also have tax problems? Don't seem to: and they seem to make bundles. So surely they are cleverer than all the blokes managing our investments and pensions?

So personally, as the stock market has gone right again I can only believe its the geezers in charge of our cash are useless at what they do these days!

So so much for this rewarding the top talent rubbish then!

From interest I asked our company accountant who is a mate too: he tells me this ACT thing wasnt brought in until 1973 (He looked it up for me). So before that all the pension funds were likae everything else.

And as I said at the beginning of my thing, the old boys who retired back in the late 60s seemed to hav e good pensions and lived comfortably. So if pensions worked then why don't they work now?

I'll tell you what I think: and thats these geezers in the old city use our savings to make bundles and all swan off with huge bonuses  but its our cash value which suffers!

[quote]I can't make a defence for bankers pay and bonuses. The one honest statement made by politicians is that if they hadn't bailed out the banks, we wouldn't have jobs, and for that we should be grateful. I certainly am.[/quote]

Hang on: Northern Rock werent a big lender to business: neither was rbs; apart from Natwest. Lloyds perhaps.

So wouldn't it have been far cheaper and better for the government to have let northern rock go belly up (the shareholders all lost their dough after all anyway). extract Natwest from rbs and save that; and take over Lloyds-TSB?

And take over 100% of the bits left after they had been wound up or whatever its called; and poke taxpayers cash into the thing then?

And then start lending to business? Im a little businessman; my engineering co can't get much help from the banks

Please correct me if Im wrong here: I thought the problem and the credit crunch was caused by banks borrowing bundles from overseas and lending it on dodgy mortgages to peeps who can't afford them?

So how could this have meant none of us would have jobs? The people working in the failed banks wouldnt ha ve jobs sure: tough.

Everyone else who loses there jobs cos the bosses are idiots doesn't have governemnt riding to their rescue.

The foreign lenders would have lost their dough: tough again; thats the risk of lending cash surely?

I think the government rode to the rescuse of their mates in the city: we all now owe its said 45 grand each; man woman and kids.

What for extactly?

[quote] The issue is that banks are still public, and like all companies operate in a competetive environment. Employees are paid on supply and demand. If you are a trader that has a strong track record then that trader has a value to the bank in which it works, and others in the market.
However, not all you read in the press is truly representative of what happened. So here are a few things that I get frustrated about.[/quote]

What has all this trading to do with our money?

Your bank takes your money and pays you nothing: and if you want to borrow some charges you a bundle!

I think the banks gambled with our dosh: and they still are.

[quote]Government decides what is legal and what is not. Government sets out a regulatory framework under which all companies must operate. These include things like health and safety, minimumm wage and things like banking law. Governments want economies to grow so that everyone can have a job, earn some cash, and afford more than just eat. Government loves the good times, because good times means they stay in Government for longer. However, to perpetuate the good times, they encourage/allow poor practice to continue long after it should because to stop them would harm the economy. The sort of things I am talking about are equity withdrawls, self certification, multiples of earnings for mortgages far higher than the 4X allowed when I first got a mortgage. Why did they allow banks to do all this? Because it helped the economy grow. Both the Clinton administration inthe USA and Labour government here encouraged lending on less robust criteria because they felt it was important for everyone to be able to own their own home. So, in a competetive environment, banks looked at more and more complex ways of trying to compete and make money out of lending to less and less creditworthy people. The regulatory environment allowed it, and the banks made a huge mistake in compromising their lending standards.[/quote]

Surely no one held a gun to the banks heads and insisted they lend silly amounts on mortgages did they?

This is like all those damned MPs, saying that they did nothing wrong with their expenses cos the regulations allowed it!

Like the geezer with the clock tower: heard him on the radio other day: that's exactly what he said too!

[quote]Of the total losses in banks, only about 10% was due to complex derivatives, the vast majority of losses were on mortgages, credit cards, and comercial lending ie the traditional sort of banking far removed from gizzilionaire traders. The number of traders caught up in these complex derivatives (CDOs) was probably about 2% of the trading population. The vast amount of other types of traders continue to contribute to banks repair and profitability. [/quote]

Whenever I wanted loans for the business, the banks put me through the wringer! Wanted security, my house deeds the works.

So what you are really saying is the banks were incompetent! Yet they all earn zillions. And we're told how they must compete for talent and pay bundles.

Some talent mate! I could do far better.

[quote]Politicians are really covering up their own failings by pointing the finger solely at bankers.It is great spin. It is Labour policy of spending in the good times, and now having to spend in the bad times that is causing the pain. They complain that bankers are not lending, but complain that it was banks making bad lending decisions that caused the crisis. They complain that Sarkosy is trying to ruin UK banking, but then tell everyone that they are going to make the UK less reliant on the finance sector. Gordon Brown said no more boom and bust, and yet set in place policies that have brought about just that.
You know that of the £80 billion or so that UK banks lost in 2009, and that cost UK tax payers so much money, that more than half the loss was on RBS buying ABN (a dutch bank). No traders involved, just one RBSchairman. Politician will have you belive that it was 20,000 greedy bankers that lost this money. What about their mess in dealing with Northern Rock. Regulatory failing again, no greedy bankers, just regulation that allowed a building society to lend 20 year money, and fund it buy borring frombanks on a 1 day at a time basis.

Bankers deserve to take their medicine, but I just wish someone would recognise that it is politics that is corrupting the UK, not banks.[/quote]

The truth as I see it old mate is government and the banks are both equally guilty.

All weve heard since Thatcher is how wonderful financial stuff is and how important the city is and how much dosh it makes etc etc etc.

Well clearly thats not really so then is it!

yes indeed, it makes loads of dosh for such as fred goodwin: but at our cost!

And now we all owe 45 grand each.

nice.



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He understands badly who listens badly (Welsh proverb)

The reason why so few people are agreeable in conversation is that each is thinking more about what he intends to say than about what others are saying, and we never listen when we are eager to speak. (Francois La Rochefoucauld)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems certain people on here don't want to understand - they just want to rant.  Their perspective is fixed - fed by an ill informed (or is it sensation seeking?) media.  If someone said that all those working in the banking sector were closet members of the KKK they would whole heartedly agree...nodding sagely that they knew it all along. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we're all muppets mate?

Except bankers.

And everything stated in the media is rubbish?

Not a banker by any chance are you mate?

As Ive said before I'm an engineer: which means probably im not a total idiot.

And I am looking forward to Mr Bayponds kind answers to the other points I made.

And by the way mate, cos i'm interested i read a lot on this stuff: and not daily papers cos they are useless.

Since you obviously know all the answers perhaps you can explain how my investments can have done so poorly (Just had my isa statement) when the FT index has gained so much since 2003? And as i said, if i had put my dosh in the post office at 5%, then I would have done much better.

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Scooby"]It seems certain people on here don't want to understand - they just want to rant.  Their perspective is fixed - fed by an ill informed (or is it sensation seeking?) media.  If someone said that all those working in the banking sector were closet members of the KKK they would whole heartedly agree...nodding sagely that they knew it all along. 

[/quote]

Blimey, see, I always had you down as a hoodie where do you get your cloak dry cleaned ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scoobs, if you want people to understand, surely, as in your proverb, they have to be able to listen.  If what they are listening to is a series of non-sequiturs, I don't see how they can be expected to understand  - you owe it to them, if you care about what you are saying, to explain clearly.  All I have read from you on this thread is that you disagree.  But, even when invited, you seem unable to communicate in clear language, why. [8-)]

BTW, I don't think you're a closet member of the KKK or any other hate-filled, mad, racially intolerant or fascist group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mickie Hill"]

Well, my old mate Mr Baypond hasn't had the time to help me to understand more.

Shame really: i was looking forward to some extra info.

 

[/quote]

Mickie take a look at youtube.com   Bank aid- Do they loan this Christmas? & Do they know it's credit crunch time? Says it all really

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...