Luckily for us in the UK we still have building societies which are mutuals run for the benefit of members and some offer bank type accounts with smaller or no fees for services banks charge a lot for, long may they continue and be a pain in the derriere of banks.

What is actually wrong with this thread?? .... and how did carnets get in here from "trip paperwork"?

I think that this is as suitable a thread as any other that has arisen in the bar.
While it is traditional in many societies not to discuss politics and religion in public company, surely taking a view about the current state of the world and its' players is a fair topic?


+ there are credit unions and this also:-
Your Savings | Burnley Savings and Loans
as examples of ethical use of cash deposits for the greater good of the customers, ethical business practice and working for the greater good of countries and their populations.
The guy in the link above has already met resistance from the banking "industry" (which, of course, it is not an industry since it actually produces nothing - Sir John Harvey Jones' (RIP) definition of "wealth" refers)

Micro-financing also comes to mind as another example of "good" investment.

In contrast, the defence given in earlier posts of banks and bankers is how it is supposed to work; clearly this has been malfunctioning for quite some time and the banks have become akin to gambling houses/casinos, with more than a wiff of corruption to boot (LIBOR any one?).
If Hollywood is to be believed, the individual personnel involved (the bankers) have acted in a manner akin to drug-addled "rollers of the dice" at the gambling tables. The evidence for this broad point of view continues to mount, as the various investigations of the main players have progressed; of course, this is far from over, and there is every possibility that the ramifications will continue for some years yet.
The law courts may not be too busy with associated litigation yet, but I rest my case, my Lud.

__________________
Dave

Don't understand why you ask the question. There's nothing wrong with this thread.

Post #1 was a reply in a thread about carnets at http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/hub...e-uk-rac-68191 . Posts #2 to 8 were responses to post #1. Hence I felt it appropriate to move these "off-carnet-topic" posts into their own thread uder the title "Banks and Bankers".

__________________

TBS.com

Thanks.
Now some of those earlier posts make sense - 'til now they were out of the context of the "new" OP concerning banks.

__________________
Dave

Its not an industry, its a sector of the economy. No one said it was an industry. No one said its superior to be part of an industry? Unless you are?

Doctors and nurses also produce nothing ... neither do firefighters. Neither do hairdressers, shop assistants, and adventure motorcycle websites for that matter ... So what exactly are you intimating? Whats your point there?

You seem to be suggesting that if your job doesnt including making something physical then you are a lesser part of society? Is that how you also view firefighters and nurses?



Hows that? Its completely unregulated finance. So are you proposing less regulation or more? It seems you want it both ways. That doesnt make sense. the Micro Finance model is one of wholesale borrowing and unregulated lending. Most people say thats kinda what led to the sub prime loans problem which is why we are where we are today. i.e banks being too generous with their lending. Lending too much money to people who could not prove they could pay it back. Are you saying you want more of that?

What happened, is that the banks got burned by lending money to people with poor or no credit histories (not disimmilar to your micro finance example, remarkably). Now the banks are scared to lend money and the public complains about that too. Lend more money the public and governments cry ... well hang on, arent you simultaneously crucifying the banks for lending too much money in the first place???

And lets not forget ... that commercial banks are conduits for the central bank. When the central bank wants more lending in the economy, they lower interest rates. Thats kinda how it all works. They lower rates. The Central Banks, led by Alan Greenspan, wanted more and more lending. So they threw money at the commercial banks and told them to distribute it ... get it out there in the economy. When a central bank lowers rates, the implicit instruction from the central bank (part of the state) to the commercial banks is to lend more to the public and to businesses (industrial or not...).

So if there is anyone to blame for the excessive lending that led to the financial crisis, its the central banks (The state). The central bankers are appointed by the elected government. YOU elected the government. Stand up and take a bow !

So schools have been malfunctioning for quite some time too with more than a whiff of pornography about it ... with all the revealed student teacher sex relationships that have been uncovered in the last few years.? Just goes to show ... teachers are scum

The medical profession has been malfunctioning for some time with more than a whiff of psycho death about it? Harold Shipman anyone? Just goes to show ... Doctors and Nurses are scum.

Maybe we can list every single profession out there and why it malfunctions. After all, there's a new one every day in The Sun !

Using this method, we will soon be able to clearly justify why every business and industry and job in the UK should be closed down.

Whats your profession btw?

__________________

If banks were so good why did we have to bail them out? here the Irish economy is absolutely in tatters thanks to the actions of the bankers and their friend in Government who forced us to bail them out and keep hitting us every day for taxes. any of you ride on Irish roads lately? they would be in the same standard as Albania or Kosovo, no services no repair and huge increases in road taxes.

It's been quite a while since anyone posted in here in support of bankers/the banks, so I assume your question is rhetorical.
One potential, simplistic, answer is that they were too big to fail - recent news in the UK points towards making this a thing of the past; the UK govn aim to bring in more competition within banking including making it easier to start up new banks on the high street + all the earlier policy about splitting the "casino" aspects (or at least firewalling it) from the real world of the countries' population and its needs in banking. Also, the financial services agency (FSA) is being more or less scrapped (I'm not up to date on this but that is how it comes over to me), with the Bank of England taking a much closer regulatory role, after earlier governments cut away and adopted the laisser-faire approach of other decades.

Of course, in the meantime, we have yet another case study of bad banking practice in Cyprus where they seemed to learn nothing from the case of Iceland.

__________________
Dave

Well then you dont understand why I included that example. Your attempt to criticise the financial sector implied the LIBOR scandal tainted the sector with corruption (see above).

My point is thats no more valid that saying the priesthood is malfunctioning because of the child sex scandals, the academic university research world is malfunctioning because of corruption in academic research, the high school world is malfunctioning because to student -teacher relationship scandals, the medical world is malfunctioning because of doctors taking improper sexual advantage of their patients or in the case of Shipman, just killing them. The police are malfunctioning because of corruption scandals, because of the de Menezes scandal etc. According to your logic, society as a whole, without exception, is malfunctioning.

My point is that its not valid to conclude because of a scandal or number of scandals that a sector of society is malfunctioning, because all segments of the economy and society are subject to scandals and cases of abusing their position. Including Doctors, nurses, priests, teachers, police, engineers, academics, etc etc etc etc etc .... ad infinitum

Do you think there are some industries or professions that are immune from wrongdoing?


If Hollywood is to be believed?? Thats kinda destroys any credibility behind an argument right there.

"The bankers?" ... who are the bankers? Genghis tried to point this out but conveniently you Nath Drwnite et al dont seem to bothered to have read (or maybe not bothered to understand) his post. Where does a banker begin or end? The old lady who works behind till number 3 in the local Natwest is a banker. Has she acted in a manner akin to drug addicted rollers of the dice?

The officer who sits in the loan processing centre and tells you yes or no to your mortgage ... he is a banker. Has he acted in a manner akin to drug-addled "rollers of the dice".

The guy who sits in a dealing room in the City, in a sharp suit, who the big corporate clients call up and ask at what price they can buy 20 million EUR. He is a banker. How has he acted in a manner akin to drug-addled "rollers of the dice". He just tells British Airways and companies like them at what price they can buy 20 million EUR against sterling.

The investment banker who has worked for the last 2 years on a potential deal to merge British Aerospace with EADS, making sure the terms of the deal are clear with both parties and the pricing is agreed and transparent ... How has he acted in a manner akin to drug-addled "rollers of the dice".

What about the team of investment bankers who worked for years on a deal to raise money for Tube expansion and improvement ... How have they acted in a manner akin to drug-addled "rollers of the dice".

You dont even know what bankers do.

Of the million or so people in the UK who are bankers ... how can you claim to have any understanding of the matter when you blanket pronounce ... (the bankers) have acted in a manner akin to drug-addled "rollers of the dice" ..... Its a ridiculous oversimplification and generalisation that has absolutely zero truth in it in 99.9% of cases.

If one biker in 100 is a drug dealer and a anti society gangster, should we all be labelled like that? Would you accept that labelling from someone who know nothing about bikers in general? Let say your local conservative party politician just showed you a newspaper clipping showing a biker gang robbing an old peoples home as blanket evidence that Bikers are scum? ... and he is going to propose outlawing them. I assume you would look at the guy, shake your head, and say you have no clue what you are talking about.

Well, thats how it is trying to explain banking to you. I mean lets never never let the truth get in the way of propaganda and ignorant hatred. Its the cornerstone of populism.

It just demonstrates you not only dont understand the topic, but in order to hide your lack of understanding you throw a black blanket over a million people.

That is about as sensible and logical as saying the medical profession are murderers - Harold Shipman anyone?

__________________

In that case, I wonder how many 'bankers' it took to miss-sell PPI to 12 million customers? Some of which were elderley and were lied to outright about 'what is best for them' in order to fleece their cash. I think those f*ckers have acted worse then your drug-addled roller of the dice!

Just for the record, nothing posted in here so far has come as a surprise to me concerning the nature of banking; I'm sorry to say that it is all too familiar.

If you choose to go into the depths of collateral debt obligations and/or credit default swaps then we may get to a position that needs some further explanation, but, so far, so good.

And certainly this thread has more or less agreed that malpractice occurs in each and every walk of life; but the thread is about banks and banking.

It did seem from recent posts that we were on the way to agreeing that the problems within that activity are the fault of all of us, via ignorance, apathy and the fact that we get the politicians we deserve (who ultimately are responsible for everything that is wrong in the world).

But, oh dear, best not to choose British Aerospace for an example of best practice!
Below is an extract from Wikipedia and I remember this case all too well, including the very active intervention of a certain politician who has already been named in earlier posts (if you get my drift).

Corruption investigations
[edit]
Serious Fraud Office

BAE Systems has been under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office, into the use of political corruption to help sell arms to Chile, Czech Republic, Romania, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Tanzania and Qatar.[131][132][133] In response, BAE Systems' 2006 Corporate Responsibility Report states "We continue to reject these allegations...We take our obligations under the law extremely seriously and will continue to comply with all legal requirements around the world.[134] In June 2007 Lord Woolf was selected to lead what the BBC described as an "independent review.... [an] ethics committee to look into how the defence giant conducts its arms deals."[135] The report, Ethical business conduct in BAE Systems plc – the way forward, made 23 recommendations, measures which BAE has committed to implement. The finding stated that "in the past BAE did not pay sufficient attention to ethical standards in the way it conducted business," and was described by the BBC as "an embarrassing admission."[136]

In September 2009, the Serious Fraud Office announced that it intended to prosecute BAE Systems for offences relating to overseas corruption. The Guardian claimed that a penalty "possibly of more than £500m" might be an acceptable settlement package.[137] On 5 February 2010, BAE Systems agreed to pay £257m criminal fines to the US and £30m to the UK. The UK already massively benefited from £43 billion contract in tax receipts and jobs in the UK, and had dropped an anti-corruption investigation into the Al Yamamah contracts later taken up by US authorities.[138][139] Crucially, under a plea bargain with the US Department of Justice, BAE was convicted of felony conspiracy to defraud the United States government and sentenced in March 2010 by U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates to pay a $400 million fine, one of the largest fines in the history of the DOJ. U.S. District Judge John Bates said the company's conduct involved "deception, duplicity and knowing violations of law, I think it's fair to say, on an enormous scale".[140][141] BAE did not directly admit to bribery, and is thus not internationally blacklisted from future contracts. Some of the £30m penalty BAE will pay in fines to the UK will be paid ex gratia for the benefit of the people of Tanzania.[142] On 2 March 2010 Campaign Against Arms Trade and The Corner House were successful in gaining a High Court injunction on the Serious Fraud Office's settlement with BAE. The High Court may order a full review of the settlement.[143]
[edit]
Saudi Arabia

One of 24 Panavia Tornado ADVs delivered to the Royal Saudi Air Force as part of the Al Yamamah arms sales.
Main article: Al-Yamamah arms deal

BAE (and British Aerospace previously) has long been the subject of allegations of bribery in relation to its business in Saudi Arabia. The UK National Audit Office (NAO) investigated the Al Yamamah contracts and has so far not published its conclusions, the only NAO report ever to be withheld.[144] The MOD has stated "The report remains sensitive. Disclosure would harm both international relations and the UK's commercial interests."[145] The company has been accused of maintaining a £60 million Saudi slush fund and was the subject of an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO). However, on 14 December 2006 it was announced that the SFO was "discontinuing" its investigation into BAE. It stated that representations to its Director and the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith had led to the conclusion that the wider public interest "to safeguard national and international security" outweighed any potential benefits of further investigation.[146] The termination of the investigation has been controversial.[147] In June 2007, the BBC's Panorama alleged BAE "paid hundreds of millions of pounds to the ex-Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar bin Sultan" in return for his role in the Al Yamamah deals.[148] In late June 2007 the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) began a formal investigation into BAE's compliance with anti-corruption laws.[149] On 19 May 2008 BAE confirmed that its CEO Mike Turner and non-executive director Nigel Rudd had been detained "for about 20 minutes" at two US airports the previous week and that the DOJ had issued "a number of additional subpoenas in the US to employees of BAE Systems plc and BAE Systems Inc as part of its ongoing investigation".[150] The Times suggested that such "humiliating behaviour by the DOJ" is unusual toward a company that is co-operating fully.[150]

A judicial review of the decision by the SFO to drop the investigation was granted on 9 November 2007.[151] On 10 April 2008 the High Court ruled that the SFO "acted unlawfully" by dropping its investigation.[152] The Times described the ruling as "one of the most strongly worded judicial attacks on government action" which condemned how "ministers 'buckled' to 'blatant threats' that Saudi cooperation in the fight against terror would end unless the ...investigation was dropped."[153] On 24 April the SFO was granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords against the ruling.[154] There was a two-day hearing before the Lords on 7 and 8 July 2008.[155] On 30 July the House of Lords unanimously overturned the High Court ruling, stating that the decision to discontinue the investigation was lawful.[156]
[edit]
Others

HMS Coventry was one of two frigates sold to Romania.

In September 2005 The Guardian reported that banking records showed that BAE paid £1 million to Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator.[157] The Guardian has also reported that "clandestine arms deals" have been under investigation in Chile and the UK since 2003 and that British Aerospace and BAE made a number of payments to Pinochet advisers.[158] In 2003, HMS Sheffield was sold to the Chilean Navy for £27 million, however the government's profit from the sale was £3 million, after contracts worth £24 million were placed with BAE for upgrade and refurbishment of the ship.[159]

BAE is alleged to have paid "secret offshore commissions" of over £7 million to secure the sale of HMS London and HMS Coventry to the Romanian Navy. BAE received a £116 million contract for the refurbishment of the ships prior to delivery;[160] however the British taxpayer only received the scrap value of £100,000 each from the sale.[161]

BAE ran into controversy in 2002 over the abnormally high cost of a radar system sold to Tanzania.[162][163] The sale was criticised by several opposition MPs and the World Bank;[164] Secretary of State for International Development Clare Short declared that BAE had "ripped off" developing nations.[165][166] In December 2010, leaked US diplomatic communications revealed that Edward Hoseah, the Tanzanian prosecutor investigating misconduct by BAE, had confided in US diplomats that "his life may be in danger" and was being routinely threatened.[163]

In January 2007, details of an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into BAE's sales tactics in regard to South Africa were reported, highlighting the £2.3 billion deal to supply Hawk trainers and Gripen fighters as suspect.[167] In May 2011, as allegations of bribery behind South Africa's Gripen procurement continued, BAE partner Saab AB issued strong denials of any illicit payments being made; however in June 2011 Saab announced that BAE had made unaccounted payments of roughly $3.5 million to a consultant, this revelation prompted South Afric

It's a bit long, but you get the idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems

__________________
Dave

+ anyone for a spot of money laundering? I do recall there have been one or two cases that have come to light.

__________________
Dave

I think there are examples of bad people in every walk of life and profession.

But more so in banking and finance than possibly any other.

Probably to do with the type of people who go into the industry, the opportunity and the culture of greed, bonuses and lack of moral, ethical leadership at the top. This still does not mean everyone in the field is a wrong 'un. But a lot are.

I make no judgement about Colebatch or any other individual when I say this, unless they have been dishonest or unethical - some will have been prosecuted, some not - and only they will know.

Just sayin', that's all.

You can pick selective events that occur in any set of organisations and then use that to extrapolate that they and everyone who works in those industries is defined by those events. Doesn't make it so.

Take another set of organisations that have garner much negative press of late, churches, judging by the press you would think everyone who works in churches are either pedophiles or covering for pedophiles. This ignores the extensive not for profit work they do in the welfare sector. In my country (Australia) the welfare sector would collapse under the weight of demand if weren't for churches the money and volunteer workers that they deliver.

The crash in the housing market wasn't caused by bankers, it was created by everyday people overpaying for houses. The lending practices that encouraged this were an initiative of the US government to get people into their own houses.

BTW the person who I heard predicting that it would all go pear shaped (and actually gave a specific date) was - wait for it - a banker!

Thats just an incredible statement.

How can you possibly justify that?

__________________