We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Gordon Brown: I made a big mistake on banks

1234568»

Comments

  • grimsalve
    grimsalve Posts: 626 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Name Dropper
    pqrdef wrote: »
    But who knew what the risks were? Who knew the business models were unsustainable? Anybody who took a correct view of the future direction of economies abnd markets. But that's not a regulator's job. Any two economists will have three different crystal balls.

    easy to do, you just ask "what if?"
    pqrdef wrote: »
    How does that work? We've lost a pile of money. Never mind, we've still got what Uncle Fred left us, we stuffed it in the mattress, it's not in the books, we'll get it out now and add it to the balance sheet and then we'll be straight again?

    Basically yes. Only "Uncle Fred" would be a ringfenced resource that would cover any shortfall or unrecoverable debt - a bit like an insurance policy.
    pqrdef wrote: »
    The way for a bank to stay out of trouble is to operate well within the regulatory limits. But you can't enforce that by regulation.

    :huh: run that by me again

    The two problems that caused this were the FSA regulations being relaxed, and the FSA turning a blind eye when specific risks were highlighted.

    http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2008/028.shtml

    Specifically...

    1. A lack of sufficient supervisory engagement with the firm, in particular the failure of the supervisory team to follow up rigorously with the management of the firm on the business model vulnerability arising from changing market conditions.
    2. A lack of adequate oversight and review by FSA line management of the quality, intensity and rigour of the firm's supervision.
    3. Inadequate specific resource directly supervising the firm.
    4. A lack of intensity by the FSA in ensuring that all available risk information was properly utilised to inform its supervisory actions.
    (this is the FSAs own report)
    pqrdef wrote: »
    Putting it another way, tighter regulation is like planting a minefield along a cliff edge to stop you going over the cliff. It doesn't keep a bank further away from going bust, it just redefines the point where the bank is obliged to declare itself bust.

    The FSA regulations should have been there to put up a big fence to prevent anyone going near the cliff in the first place.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.4K Life & Family
  • 258.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.