Anti Fat Cat Bank CEOs? Let's go! & teach them a lesson!

ahai1

I agree they were at fault but that does not excause the bankers. If they knew what they were doing how did they get into sub prime mortgages?

I am sorry but it is about time people in the financial sector took responibility for what they are doing.

Francis63

BarclaysManager wrote: »

It's silly money - in your opinion. In our opinion, his skills and talent set are worth that amount.

This success is worth that amount of money to us, and it's worth that to a lot of other people, too. We need to pay him that to keep him with us, because he is a valuable asset. It's not as though we're the only ones who would offer him such money.

If Barclays is doing so well how come it needs an injection of cash from the Middle East at an interest rate of 14pc and about £300m of arrangement fees?

PROLIANT

ahai1 wrote: »

I agree they were at fault but that does not excause the bankers. If they knew what they were doing how did they get into sub prime mortgages?

I am sorry but it is about time people in the financial sector took responibility for what they are doing.

.....as should consumers who over commit and borrow beyond their means?

Extant

Francis63 wrote: »

If Barclays is doing so well how come it needs an injection of cash from the Middle East at an interest rate of 14pc and about £300m of arrangement fees?

Because the FSA has just "re-assessed" the capital ratios that it imposes on banks. The FSA, one part of the government, is saying "go raise more money" while another part of the government is saying "oh hey, I can lend you some money if you do what I want!"

Nevermind the fact that we have operated on the same financial ratios for the past few years. We would actually be fine if we didn't raise any extra capital.

The reason why we're going to our investors as opposed to the government is in order to maintain our independence and operational freedom - so we can run our business as we choose to. If we can do that, I fail to see why the source of the funds should matter at all.

Francis63

BarclaysManager wrote: »

I actually this, first read. A small profit?

I congratulate you on living a life so successful that you can declare 2.75 billion profit "small" - and that's at INTERIM results.

Yes, comparatively small. That is a DECLINE of 33% on last year's result.

shoe_girl_2

Francis63 wrote: »

Yes, comparatively small. That is a DECLINE of 33% on last year's result.

id hate to see what you call tiny.........

Extant

ahai1 wrote: »

I agree they were at fault but that does not excause the bankers. If they knew what they were doing how did they get into sub prime mortgages?

I am sorry but it is about time people in the financial sector took responibility for what they are doing.

Actually, most of the banks involved in this crisis had little to no direct exposure to sub prime lending.

Our exposure lies in bonds issued by (primarily) US lenders. The mortgage debt was packaged up as bonds (i.e. the interest paid on the mortgage would be the interest paid on the bonds) and rated as A/AA/AAA bonds. That means they're supposed to be solid, high class bonds with reasonable returns - safe investments.

What actually happened, however, is that people couldn't afford to pay these mortgages back. So there was no money to pay back the bonds. These bonds then became effectively "worthless" - junk bonds - with no sign of recovering. So they're written off because the money is effectively lost.

Extant

Francis63 wrote: »

Yes, comparatively small. That is a DECLINE of 33% on last year's result.

Except you never made that comparison.

It is indeed a decline on the interims of last year, but you're also failing to take into account that the majority of the decline comes from investment banking. This is effectively outside of our control, as this is a market issue, not through poor management.

If you look to areas not directly affected by the market - UK and international retail banking, Barclaycard, wealth management services - we've improved YoY by up to 30%.

You can't really blame lower interims on poor management of the company when most banks are reporting similar or worse down turns and areas of our business are showing significant and steady improvement.

ahai1

The worst offenders been Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley were involved in sub prime markets in one way or another from 125% mortgages to self certified mortgages. I do agree that it is the fault of the customers as well but the banks should not have lent them the money in the first place.

As for the credit ratings agencies what they say is not worth very much as the people who work there don't understand the products.

It's good to see bankers buck passing. The thing is that the FSA and the SEC may have not been up to it but that is no excause for the wrecklessness of the bankers.

As it has been said by money this bonus culture amongest the banks is about short term gain rather then long term gain.

Yes instead of been controlled by the British Government Barclays will be controlled by a Middle Eastern Government.

Francis63

The point is we have a bank president 'earning' £21m in salary and shares. You say he could easily go elsewhere and earn that. Well that could be true but it doesn't make it right. These people pay themselves huge bonuses each year and then justify it by saying 'everyone does it'.

The Prime Minister earns £163,000 annually. Does that put some perspective on it?

If we all moved to a bank that paid it's chiefs a more realistic salary yet still did a good job for its customers then perhaps we can pass on a message and put an end to this hideously greedy culture.