Increase in fscs protection scheme?

gadgetmind

BillJones wrote: »

I do wish people would stop conflating what people like me do (trading in an investment bank) with the relationship that they have online or with their local branch.

Given that the former investment activities are the source of both the bonuses (during good times) and bank capital positions being dangerous eroded once the bad times come along (as they do), I suspect the most people's opinions of their local branch are rather better than those of the troublesome investment arms!

Eco_Miser

atush wrote: »

That is what I meant, and nanny state would be to provide more than is currently available. And given you can get 170K on joint accts,

So £85k protection is ok, but £86k is nanny state?!

And I can't get 170k, because I can't get joint accounts.

grey_gym_sock

Eco_Miser wrote: »

And I can't get 170k, because I can't get joint accounts.

if you want £170k, you should get married

Eco_Miser

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eco Miser
And I can't get 170k, because I can't get joint accounts.

if you want £170k, you should get married

I was just pointing out that £170k protection in one institution isn't available to everyone.
My own cash deposits are well below £85k per institution for entirely other reasons.

2010

BillJones wrote: »

Well yes, we are, but it's not from retail deposits, that's for sure.

Then retail money shouldn`t be used for your "investments skills" ie:gambling.

Ring fence completely the retail sector and you carry on gambling the people`s money that have chosen investments with all the risks they entail.

As regards bonuses, they should be paid for performance and not because "if we don`t pay them a big bonus, we will lose these talented people".

Talented people, errrrrrrrrrrrrr yes, I remember those back in 2007/2008.

BillJones

cloud_dog wrote: »

It is the deposit assets which facilitate (not only I know) financial institutions to undertake their more risky trading / investment operations.

It really isn't. If it was, Goldman wouldn't exist, and Lloyds would be one of the biggest players in investment banking.

As to "risky", what I do carries far, far less risk than what (for example) Northern Rock was doing in the mid-2,000s, which destroyed it.

BillJones

gadgetmind wrote: »

Given that the former investment activities are the source of both the bonuses (during good times) and bank capital positions being dangerous eroded once the bad times come along (as they do), I suspect the most people's opinions of their local branch are rather better than those of the troublesome investment arms!

Which is why Goldman was driven to the wall through 2008, and Northern Rock thrived.

Oh, wait, hang on, no, that's the opposite of what happened.

It's almost as though your simplistic take on the situation doesn't make any sense at all...

BillJones

2010 wrote: »

As regards bonuses, they should be paid for performance and not because "if we don`t pay them a big bonus, we will lose these talented people".

Well, the only people that banks want to pay to retain tend to be those who perform well.

If you've someone who never produces much, shows little potential, and then tries to demand a seven figure package, they'll just politely be shown the door.

Archi_Bald

cloud_dog wrote: »

This is why there have been calls for financial institution's to ring fence deposit operations from their far more risky trading arms.

And isn't it funny how the banks started to wince at the very mention of ring fencing.

Archi_Bald

BillJones wrote: »

If you've someone who never produces much, shows little potential, and then tries to demand a seven figure package, they'll just politely be shown the door.

Never mind 7-figures, trouble is that they don't boot enough of the 6-figure ones. And don't pay their CS staff a high enough 5-figure sum for them to stay in one place for more than 6 months.