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!
Jail Reckless Bankers?
Comments
-
Basically a bunch of politicians have for together and spent months coming up with the following:
Create criminal offence for reckless mismanagement of bank.
Introduce a new licencing regime to replace te existing licencing regime which makes it easier to take action against individuals.
Do everything more cheaply.
Great - now it just needs to actually be implemented. If anyone who had authored the report had ever been involving in litigating even a relatively simple civil case for reckless misconduct they would know that the idea of ever prosecuting anyone for a criminal offence of recklessness is just pie in the sky. I suppose they could create a new statutory definition of what recklessness is...good luck with that.
Completely impractical nonsense if you ask me.
If you want to prosecute more people then you need to give prosecutors more resources and implement a strict liability regime. If you knew you could end up in jail on a strict liability basis, how much of a bonus would you want to be the director of a bank and how long would you hang around?0 -
I think that is the case with most industries, but believe the terms of a banking license give priority to depositors money.grizzly1911 wrote: »As ashareholder and part owner I would expect the executives to be protecting my position and earning me a return as their priority.
That isn't to say they have to be reckless to achieve it or be free and loose with our liabilities.
Tortoise and Hare come to mind.
Payments by results doesn't really help when those in charge "construct" evidence to demonstrate they are performing.0 -
Is not protecting depositors money the first priority though?
I have no idea what the legal position is.
As a depositor gets paid before a shareholder you could say that interests are aligned: if a banker loses the deposits of the savers then the equity owners money is long gone. At least that's how it should work.0 -
I was just going on what I read in Robert Pestons book about the first duty of any bank was to protect depositors money. Not sure where he got it from though.I have no idea what the legal position is.
As a depositor gets paid before a shareholder you could say that interests are aligned: if a banker loses the deposits of the savers then the equity owners money is long gone. At least that's how it should work.0 -
I was just going on what I read in Robert Pestons book about the first duty of any bank was to protect depositors money. Not sure where he got it from though.
Since, by definition, the business of a bank consists of accepting deposits, and then lending that money, and there is always a risk that borrowers will fail to repay, that makes no sense at all. If it was a bank's "first duty ... to protect depositors money" then they would be obliged to stick it under the mattress.0 -
What is the difference between reckless and highly successful except the outcome?
The trader who buys USD/JPY just before it goes to 130 is a genius, and if it goes to 65 he serves 15 years :eek:
Gives a whole new meaning to an Acapulco Spread'In nature, there are neither rewards nor punishments - there are Consequences.'0 -
This is just rubbish from the Orwellian ministry of information to keep the public chattering away.. It will never happen.Feudal Britain needs land reform. 70% of the land is "owned" by 1 % of the population and at least 50% is unregistered (inherited by landed gentry). Thats why your slave box costs so much..0
-
How about jailing "reckless" politicians, such as those who stoke up house prices with schemes even the lenders are criticising as likely to create a bubble, and leave the taxpayer with a large potential liability, or those who are so arrogant they thought they'd abolished "boom and bust" and so carried on borrowing in the "boom" years rather than preparing for a possible downturn? Or those who appointed one of the so-called "reckless" bankers to a senior position in the regulator?0
-
I was just going on what I read in Robert Pestons book about the first duty of any bank was to protect depositors money. Not sure where he got it from though.
Mistake #1. Reading a book by Peston
Mistake #2. Believing any of it
Peston knows F all about the subject as he proves just about every time he speaks or writes'In nature, there are neither rewards nor punishments - there are Consequences.'0 -
Well if you can jail a gasman then you can jail anyone i guess...
http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2012/coi-e-65.htmFeudal Britain needs land reform. 70% of the land is "owned" by 1 % of the population and at least 50% is unregistered (inherited by landed gentry). Thats why your slave box costs so much..0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
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