Good Banks ?

Anthorn

JuicyJesus wrote: »

I think you have the wrong end of the stick.

Nobody is arguing that regulation is 100% perfect. What everyone is saying is that the Co-op's misfortunes are a largely a result of its own idiotic management and that no amount of regulation will stop a business from just making plainly terrible decisions.

At last something I can agree with. But why is everyone so concerned with the Co-op Bank when all of its actions only affected itself.

I would possibly be against the bank if it continued to propose haircuts on bond value which affected many private investors mainly pensioners. But that original proposal has been thrown out and a new proposal is being thrashed out by the bond-holders group which comprises more than the two hedge funds we hear so much about. If the pensioner bond-holders receive shares to the full value of their bonds which is likely and those shares become hot property due to a take-over which is also likely then they will emerge with a profit. I'm good with that.

The branches closures and everything else related to employees in the Bank's restructuring. Hey that's life so go find another job. The Co-op Bank isn't the first to do that and won't be the last. The bank needs to reduce costs and turn a profit and that's what it's doing. At least we can't blame the hedge funds for that!

Anthorn

scgf wrote: »

If the ethics of a bank concern you then I suppose you're best off with a mutual, like Nationwide, Coventry Building Society, Norwich & Peterborough or Cumbria (if you live in their area).

None of those guarantee ethical investments.

A little known fact is that the Nationwide was a Co-operative until 1970 when it changed its name to reflect its national status. It is currently a member of Co-operatives UK and so has some connection with the Co-operative movement.. Those who want to avoid a Co-operative might also like to avoid Nationwide. What's in a name, etc.

opinions4u

Anthorn wrote: »

Perhaps I should just agree with everyone that for example Rev. Flowers was responsible for the Co-op Bank's acquisition of Britannia which brought down the bank even though he wasn't at the bank at the time.

But "everyone" hasn't implied that. I certainly haven't. So your implication that I have isn't welcome.

On the regulator: If the regulator doesn't regulate why is it there? What does it do if it doesn't regulate?

Co-op can blame regulators and politicians if they like. Ultimately the bank itself made decisions that shafted itself. In 2008, as a member, I could see that Britannia had problems as it's profitability collapsed. But Co-OP not only took it on they appointed a Chief Executive ultimately accountable for a set of lending decisions that would have wiped out a perfectly good building society. As it is he's managed to bring down Co-op bank too while swanning off with a pension that is several times bigger than my annual salary will ever be. Regulators are rubbish. But not as bad as decisions made by Co-op.

On the government: Well it's totally innocent isn't it? Didn't have anything at all to do with the Co-op Bank did it?

But ultimately it is Co-op that messed up.

No-one at all knew about the Co-op Bank's financial position until it was miraculously discovered.

Except those on the inside at the Co-op, it would appear not. While there could be smears, insinuations and rumours, it is up to the organisation itself to be open and transparent. They were either dishonest or incompetent. Which is it?

I lost a lot of money due to similar lending at HBOS. At least the !!!!!! put their hand up early, although it took months. In the case of Co-op there is no way those bad loans have deteriorated this year. An idiot would have realised the need to track their performance closely once they took on Britannia. Those running Co-op Bank have shown their abilities to be somewhere beneath idiot status.

It's a tragedy for employees. It's a tragedy for a movement that, ignoring the political links, has a fantastic history. I do wonder if they thought their political friends would see them right. And when those friends returned to opposition they just weren't brave enough to deal with their issues until now. But now I'm speculating.

There is nothing to defend though. Co-op messed up. And that mess has been hidden while they harped on about being ethical. Which is a disgrace.

Anthorn

opinions4u wrote: »

But "everyone" hasn't implied that. I certainly haven't. So your implication that I have isn't welcome.

Co-op can blame regulators and politicians if they like. Ultimately the bank itself made decisions that shafted itself. In 2008, as a member, I could see that Britannia had problems as it's profitability collapsed. But Co-OP not only took it on they appointed a Chief Executive ultimately accountable for a set of lending decisions that would have wiped out a perfectly good building society. As it is he's managed to bring down Co-op bank too while swanning off with a pension that is several times bigger than my annual salary will ever be. Regulators are rubbish. But not as bad as decisions made by Co-op.

But ultimately it is Co-op that messed up.

Except those on the inside at the Co-op, it would appear not. While there could be smears, insinuations and rumours, it is up to the organisation itself to be open and transparent. They were either dishonest or incompetent. Which is it?

I lost a lot of money due to similar lending at HBOS. At least the !!!!!! put their hand up early, although it took months. In the case of Co-op there is no way those bad loans have deteriorated this year. An idiot would have realised the need to track their performance closely once they took on Britannia. Those running Co-op Bank have shown their abilities to be somewhere beneath idiot status.

It's a tragedy for employees. It's a tragedy for a movement that, ignoring the political links, has a fantastic history. I do wonder if they thought their political friends would see them right. And when those friends returned to opposition they just weren't brave enough to deal with their issues until now. But now I'm speculating.

There is nothing to defend though. Co-op messed up. And that mess has been hidden while they harped on about being ethical. Which is a disgrace.

I find your position regarding the Co-op Group and the Co-op Bank interesting although I think you may be confused between the Chief Executive and the (non-executive) Chairman or you have explained it badly.

Do you have a link to the evidence so I may follow it up and read further? Thanks.

innovate

Anthorn wrote: »

I find your position regarding the Co-op Group and the Co-op Bank interesting although I think you may be confused between the Chief Executive and the (non-executive) Chairman or you have explained it badly.

Do you have a link to the evidence so I may follow it up and read further? Thanks.

O4U will correct me if I am wrong but I believe the part of his post you are confused about refers to David Anderson, not Mr Flowers, as you seem to think.

Anthorn

innovate wrote: »

O4U will correct me if I am wrong but I believe the part of his post you are confused about refers to David Anderson, not Mr Flowers, as you seem to think.

I'll post a link to the story myself which appeared predominantly on the BBC News website which of course ties in with Mr. Cameron's proposed inquiry into the failure of the Co-op Bank. But when we refer to particular positions at the Co-op Bank we need to name the people to avoid confusion because there have been a few resignations:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24997820

Regarding inquires according to BBC News a few days ago there is a possible 7 inquiries. Personally I welcome an inquiry because as I have stated in other posts there are not so much unanswered questions as unasked questions. But I wonder why we need so many inquiries: Isn't just one inquiry enough?

opinions4u

Anthorn wrote: »

I find your position regarding the Co-op Group and the Co-op Bank interesting although I think you may be confused between the Chief Executive and the (non-executive) Chairman or you have explained it badly.

Do you have a link to the evidence so I may follow it up and read further? Thanks.

I'm not confused.

Rev Flowers is a side show (albeit it an extraordinarily funny one that does highlight the stupidity of others within the Co-operative movement).

Start at Neville Richardson and work forwards from there to understand who else I was referring to.

anotherbaldrick

The debacle is interminable
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25330366