Prudent savers being punished - reply from governor boe office

steampowered

JohnRo wrote: »

Perhaps bank bashing of this sort is getting a bit long in the tooth or people just prefer to choose to forget what really happened.

The TBTF banks certainly had huge incentives to park their gargantuan handouts with the FED. Risk free return..

Do you know anything about the financial crisis?

Instead of making patronising remarks to people that you disagree with, why don't you explain why you disagree, and better yet even provide evidence or some numbers to back it up?

xylophone

We all know how much "bankers" like sitting on their piles of gold, rubbing it in their hands, holding it up to the light so it glints off their long hooked noses, carrying it in a little black bag when they go outside.

Certainly not!

They prefer to lend the cash at as high an interest rate as possible and pay interest to depositors at as low a rate as they can get away with, all under the aegis of the dear Old Lady and her faithful servant Mark......:rotfl:

ColdIron

Malthusian wrote: »

We all know how much "bankers" like sitting on their piles of gold, rubbing it in their hands, holding it up to the light so it glints off their long hooked noses, carrying it in a little black bag when they go outside

You forgot talking like a pirate

JohnRo

and better yet even provide evidence or some numbers to back it up?

A simple no would have sufficed, which numbers are you interested in?

The banks parking their toxic and other asset handouts with the FED have been paid around $550B since 2009. This is funded by the interest bearing assets the central banks have obtained.

The FED asset purchases stand at about $4.5T,
the ECB's something like €3.5T,
the BOJ's are approx ¥485T,
the BOE's about £480B

These mind boggling numbers are asset purchases made with money simply plucked from thin air. Given the profitability of these assets it begs the question what crisis?

During the GFC it was claimed by liars like Bernanke that effectively the world was about to end, words to the effect of 'there will be no economy if we don't do this' were used. They'd already planned and prepared the QE fraud, the headlines stated an $800B bailout was needed, TARP was forced on politicians who hadn't got a clue what was happening.

The first GAO audit forced on the FED in it's 100 year history, under great protest from, you've guessed it, the FED, revealed they'd been making secretive loan payments to allow their client banks to pay off previous loans. The total aggregate was around $16T, about $9T of which could not be properly accounted for.

The nature of central and TBTF client banking secrecy and misdirection makes it almost impossible to untangle and decipher exactly what was and is going on.

The bottom line is fiat currency is a government sanctioned fraud on the people, it's one that everyone has to accept under threat of state violence. In any other walk of life central banking would be a criminal enterprise.

The financial crisis is close to a decade old, that's why bank bashing is getting long in the tooth, it doesn't negate the fact that the effects of the banks own criminal actions leading up to, including, and since the GFC and the emergency measures they're inventing to get themselves out of the hole are still ongoing.

The best ordinary folks can do is ride their coat tails.

baby_boomer

"For a pensioner who may have savings of £100k , they have lost around £4k per year since 2008 which approximates to £28K -£30k lost income"

Well this is fanciful. It assumes that savings rates will always be 4% above inflation. Why would anyone think that? If that was the case why would anyone invest in anything but savings accounts? It also does not take into account the benefits that pensioners have received from the "Triple Lock" which has seen their income outpace that of those in work. My mother's income has greatly benefited as a result over this same period. Our next door neighbour 45 years ago was a former garage owner who put his money into building societies and then saw it savaged by 25% inflation in 1975. That was really something to moan about.

MiserlyMartin

steampowered wrote: »

Mark Carney became the BoE governor in 2013.


This is simply not true. You absolutely don't need to be an expert to invest. In general the experts rarely do much better than the market as a whole anyway.

Investing is very straightforward. Stock market investments have never been more accessible.

You can very easily buy a balanced investment fund, or perhaps just a tracker fund, through any number of websites or even through your bank (though your bank will probably have higher fees).

Keeping your savings in cash is madness in my view, unless you are likely to need to withdraw that money in the next couple months (e.g. for a house deposit).

The stockmarket is way overvalued and due for a huge correction in the coming financial crisis. I won't risk it, even if savings in cash are being slowly eroded by inflation.

MiserlyMartin

HUMBUG wrote: »

So you knew that the banks were about to go bust even after Martin Lewis said that the risk was virtually nil? Wow, can I have a peek at your crystal ball.

There were a lot of people who predicted the Northern Rock bank run before it happened, myself included. The signs were all there to see.

Anyhow that was a good email to Carney's office. The reply from them was bull though. They got it wrong on brexit, their rate cut was unjustified, so was their gloomy forecast post brexit. Rates need to be raised to 1% at least. At the moment we have people buying overpriced piles of bricks at ultra cheap rates. It is not going to end well.

HUMBUG

jimjames wrote: »

You sound a lot like some of the comments on the Daily Mail who shout with joy every time a bank says it's leaving London. I don't think they'll be cheering as much when the banks pack up and tax revenues dwindle so services are cut or taxes rise for everyone else.

Do they? Sorry but I don't read the Daily Mail and never have. If Banks want to leave London why would that worry me? I really don't give a monkey's uncle about where they want to move their business.

HUMBUG

baby_boomer wrote: »

"For a pensioner who may have savings of £100k , they have lost around £4k per year since 2008 which approximates to £28K -£30k lost income"

Well this is fanciful. It assumes that savings rates will always be 4% above inflation. Why would anyone think that? If that was the case why would anyone invest in anything but savings accounts? It also does not take into account the benefits that pensioners have received from the "Triple Lock" which has seen their income outpace that of those in work. My mother's income has greatly benefited as a result over this same period. Our next door neighbour 45 years ago was a former garage owner who put his money into building societies and then saw it savaged by 25% inflation in 1975. That was really something to moan about.

Triple lock on £6.2k a year? That will just about pay for the increase in council tax but not for increases in their utility/food bills . Those in work have better options to generate more income than pensioners. A more favourable % increase on low incomes does not necessarily mean they have profited a great deal in the real world.

bowlhead99

HUMBUG wrote: »

jimjames wrote: »

I don't think they'll be cheering as much when the banks pack up and tax revenues dwindle so services are cut or taxes rise for everyone else.

If Banks want to leave London why would that worry me? I really don't give a monkey's uncle about where they want to move their business.

Perhaps you didn't notice that over 10% of government tax revenue comes from the financial services sector or that although the million people employed by the FS industry are only about a thirtieth of the working population, they are responsible for about a nineth of the PAYE receipts. Clearly those million jobs are not all provided by London banks but you can't have failed to notice that the service sector, particularly financial services, is where a huge amount of our 'exports' come from and where there are £70bn of taxes borne and collected each year.

Or maybe, you have failed to notice it because you don't understand much about economics and think that somehow the economy doesn't affect you. When clearly it does affect you, so much that you are writing to the Bank of England with advice on how to run the economy.

HUMBUG wrote: »

Triple lock on £6.2k a year? That will just about pay for the increase in council tax but not for increases in their utility/food bills

£6.2k a year is the minimum basic state pension assuming no s2p/serps so perhaps there is a workplace pension on the side (and if not, pension credit). Looking at the components of CPI/RPI, food inflation over the last decade is not high compared to percentage increases in state pension/pension credit and DB pension indexing.

Those in work have better options to generate more income than pensioners.

That's true. But pensioners have had a longer lifetime in which to receive income and accumulate income-generating assets.