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!
So now we all have to pay the banks Libor fine.
Comments
-
GeorgeHowell wrote: »Contracts are only drawn up so that someone has a much greater chance of winning if one side is much smarter, or cares more, than the other. If it were all down to the civil service and ministers had no chance to know what was happening, then how come this group of ministers are able to diagnose the problem and point out what an irresponsible pigs' breakfast their predecessors made of it ?
It's called hindsight.
I don't think the ministers found it on their own the issues have been well publicised."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »The Telegraph article says that the government spent £66 billion buying bank shares. Who did that get paid to ?
The banks issued new shares which were bought by the government giving the banks sufficient money to carry on business. The effect on existing share holders was to greatly reduce the value of their holdings as they now owned a small % of the total.
If this hadnt happened RBS/NatWest etc cash machines may not have worked the following day. That's what letting the banks fail means. Still sound a good idea?
RBS share holders made a massive loss during the crash period: RBS price 23/02/07: £7.62, 01/3/09: 10p .0 -
The banking industry is basically a "comp plan" for lots of people but as an "industry" it doesn't really add any value.
A lot of banks have never made any profit in the period of their existence.....it is just a way for a lot of people to get paid well.
J0 -
Jegersmart wrote: »The banking industry is basically a "comp plan" for lots of people but as an "industry" it doesn't really add any value.
A lot of banks have never made any profit in the period of their existence.....it is just a way for a lot of people to get paid well.
J
What do you mean by comp plan?
Where did my dividends come from?"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »It's called hindsight.
I don't think the ministers found it on their own the issues have been well publicised.
It's called managerial incompetence. Ministers of any party are there to protect taxpayers' interests and achieve value for money of their behalf. If they don't then they've failed, no excuses.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
The banks issued new shares which were bought by the government giving the banks sufficient money to carry on business. The effect on existing share holders was to greatly reduce the value of their holdings as they now owned a small % of the total.
If this hadnt happened RBS/NatWest etc cash machines may not have worked the following day. That's what letting the banks fail means. Still sound a good idea?
RBS share holders made a massive loss during the crash period: RBS price 23/02/07: £7.62, 01/3/09: 10p .
As I said it's not about whether the banks had to be bailed out it's about how much had to be poured in, in a panic situation. The urgency does not justify an open cheque policy. Emergency measures could have kept the banks alive and plugged some short term loans, guarantees, and funding arrangements in there to prevent a run on them whilst time was taken to sort it out properly. It would be typical of Labour, with no real understanding of business or finance, and serially managerially incompetent, to just throw money at it willy-nilly -- our money of course, not their own.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »As I said it's not about whether the banks had to be bailed out it's about how much had to be poured in, in a panic situation. The urgency does not justify an open cheque policy. Emergency measures could have kept the banks alive and plugged some short term loans, guarantees, and funding arrangements in there to prevent a run on them whilst time was taken to sort it out properly. It would be typical of Labour, with no real understanding of business or finance, and serially managerially incompetent, to just throw money at it willy-nilly -- our money of course, not their own.
How much money do you think should have been poured in by the BoE, FSA, Treasury and doubtless the odd politician.
What mechanisms do you think should have been used?
-Total nationalisation?
-Part nationalisation?
-Guarenteeing only personal bank a/cs?
-Envelopes stuffed with cash?
After a while it becomes a little boring that every post has to say
labour is rubbish
torys are wonderful
Basically you have no idea how the banking crisis should have been handled;
you don't understand what banks failing means but you are sure that Labour is rubbish and hence did the wrong thing even though you don't know why.
The banking situation that was causing the 'panic' was that RBS was within hours of turning off the ATMs, closing all branchs turning off internet access and freezing all bank a/c indefinitely.
Think about the implications.0 -
If this hadnt happened RBS/NatWest etc cash machines may not have worked the following day. That's what letting the banks fail means. Still sound a good idea?
Then there was the secret loan that the BOE made to HBOS.
(By secret it wasn't disclosed to LLoyds shareholders in the rights prospectus after the merger).
A mere £25 billion from October 2008 to January 2009. Without which HBOS would have faced complete melt down.
Something which may still come to Court.0 -
How much money do you think should have been poured in by the BoE, FSA, Treasury and doubtless the odd politician.
What mechanisms do you think should have been used?
-Total nationalisation?
-Part nationalisation?
-Guarenteeing only personal bank a/cs?
-Envelopes stuffed with cash?
After a while it becomes a little boring that every post has to say
labour is rubbish
torys are wonderful
Basically you have no idea how the banking crisis should have been handled;
you don't understand what banks failing means but you are sure that Labour is rubbish and hence did the wrong thing even though you don't know why.
The banking situation that was causing the 'panic' was that RBS was within hours of turning off the ATMs, closing all branchs turning off internet access and freezing all bank a/c indefinitely.
Think about the implications.
The banking premise has since time immemorial been that the Bank of England is the lender of last resort, and the bank rate is supposed the rate at which it will lend to other banks (although it isn't in practice). If a bank gets into trouble the BofE bales it out with loans in the short term to prevent ATMs shutting down etc. The government of course has to underwrite the BofE's ability to do that if it's a real biggie. It was not necessary to make decisions about buying back shares, in a panic situation, and arguable paying too high a price for them in the process. Short term lender-of-last-resort loans could have been made as an interim stop gap step, secured on the bank as a going concern., and backed up by HMG announced 100% guarantee of all personal and business deposit held by the bank. What to do in the longer term could have been postponed for more consideration, and it may well have ended up with full nationalisation but on the least worst deal for the taxpayer.
Having said that I don't think Labour would have ever got a good deal for the taxpayer because they don't know how to, and virtually never did so. I think it did what it did to try to make the grand gesture -- we've sorted it, everything is under control (cost to the taxpayer immaterial, and let's make sure that Fred Goodwin gets a generous separation package). This was the same government that gave away a huge slice of the EU rebate for nothing, and some months after the banking crisis signed us up to contribute to the EU bail-out funds.
labour is rubbish
torys (sic) are wonderful
.. you say. When it comes to management of public finances, in relative terms that has to be true. Surprise me, come up with some specific examples to contradict it.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »What do you mean by comp plan?
Where did my dividends come from?
By "comp plan" I mean that it is just a way for millions of people to get paid - banks don't add any value as such - as their functions could (perhaps should) easily be regulated and handled by government entities.
Your dividends? Mostly from yourself and other taxpayers of course, in addition to that a lot of banks would have failed so you and other taxpayers underpinned your equity holding (so you didn't lose your "money") in addition to providing your dividend. But then all "profits" come from taxpayers anyway, but banks are just really bad for society as the cost burden is so high.
J0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards