Crash Crash Crash !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Davesnave

john539 wrote: »

What went wrong, UK still in recession yet other countries are coming out.

Record recession for UK economy

Bankers back to getting big bonuses, Mervyn King says we haven't learnt lessons from crash & there is nowhere near enough regulation of banks.

Governor warns bank split needed

It could all happen again.

Ah, but Prince Andrew says it will all be OK:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/oct/24/prince-andrew-defends-bank-bonuses

For him, it probably will be.

Nice to see him carrying on the family tradition so firmly established by his Grandad...No messing, straight in, both feet!:rotfl:

sabretoothtigger

Bank bonuses are just a side issue. The worst thing fred shred did was totally crap bank management, the fact he was so well paid in his endeavours just adds insult to injury but I dont care how much private individuals in private companies get paid so long as they do a good job.
If they had paid his pension in RBS shares not sellable for 10 years then his fortune would have dropped from £12 to 10p like the share price and would put him on 20k a year instead. The actual amount if the company suceeds is a private issue

I dont think he'd have taken the risks if he had been sitting in the cooking pot like the employees in his company. After Northern rock nearly collapsed he decided it was a good time to enter a bidding battle costing billions

Davesnave

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

Bank bonuses are just a side issue.

Totally agree in monetary terms, and payment by results is fine by me, but that's not the way Joe Public sees things.

My comment was simply highlighting the fact that, after a long time out of the front line news, Andrew has found a way to get noticed at a time when the public will be least receptive to his message.

It's almost as if something 'encouraged' him to go over the top and take the fire....

kabayiri

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

Bank bonuses are just a side issue.

Sadly, they have become much more than a side issue.

They could easily become a focal point for public ire.

They also demonstrate the impotence of the government to show effective governance of public funds.

sabretoothtigger

I agree the government is crap but I disagree on this case because they do seem to be keeping the banks at arms length which considering they are crap with money its a good thing

But this then causes the trouble because we have the irony of owning the majority of RBS but not actually controlling it exactly. However we have replaced alot of the management but the decisions are not direct government, I think this is the correct approach

If we take the example of the new chairman of RBS, he is paid 1.2 million pounds. I think that could even increase if he does well.

However put in the context of the potential disaster, its nothing. RBS has 1 trillion of liabilities apparently, more then the GDP of the entire country. We cant afford to screw it up. Even disregarding that, theres the money already spent which also eclipses this guys salary

The Treasury would infuse £37 billion ($64 billion, €47 billion, equivalent to £617 per citizen of the UK)

How much does Mr Hesters pay matter? Its about 0.3% roughly, or close to nothing


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/nov/05/rbs-simon-hester-banking-salary


I think the public is misguided on this one though I cant blame people for being !!!!ed off at such risk and potential cost, its still possible it could make a profit much like other companies previously (re)floated.
Im all for trusting Hester on this one over Mandelson, Brown or darling

kabayiri

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

However put in the context of the potential disaster, its nothing. RBS has 1 trillion of liabilities apparently, more then the GDP of the entire country. We cant afford to screw it up. Even disregarding that, theres the money already spent which also eclipses this guys salary

Maybe this illustrates the irrationality of the whole situation.

I quite agree we should be stunned by the figure 1 trillion pounds. But we are not any longer. Joe Public are used to hearing billions of this, trillion of that. It's lost all meaning, if it ever had any.

But....there will be stories of bankers' bonuses driving up sales of top-end BMWs, Mercedes, Ferraris. I'm sure the media will regurgitate pictures of Harrods expensive trinket department, with those diamond encrusted mobile phones being snapped up. It will be easy for the press to track any spike in holiday bookings to exotic locations, and blame it on those pesky bonuses.

Another 50bn of QE? Not even a blink from the public, we are punch drunk with such numbers.

Stories of strong sales of Ferraris? That will be jumped on by the press for all its worth.

sabretoothtigger

Well yea its more widely understood, I want a ferrari too.
I dont fully understand QE but I think its like RBS issuing more shares without asking those who already hold them so if you owned 1/10 of rbs its now 1/9th and the difference goes to the person who created the new shares for no cost to themselves.
Just like that 50bn QE wasnt free, its paid for by people who hold BOE notes. They now own less

novazombie

Whats everyone think of silver now?

JonnyBravo

novazombie wrote: »

Whats everyone think of silver now?

If I'd started buying it when I started buying shares ($12.50/oz) and sold it now ($17.50/oz) I'd have made 40% (less charges). As it is I've made more than 60% (charges already deducted) on my shares.

sabretoothtigger

^^ Yes Ive followed that ratio and shares have outperformed since March but less so since the autumn. Right now we're in consolidation of gains in both asset classes and the next phase might favour commodities more

I think it might get cheaper before it gets alot more expensive, Im not sure its due to go straight up just yet.


Theres bigger matters afoot: