BEWARE! THE BANKS ARE OUT TO GET YOU!

[plaques]

I've never see such a mess......

All this started when Mrs Thatcher declared that the financial services were going to take the place of the old manufacturing industries. The 'City' would be the main stay of the economy and create the profits that would allow the economy to grow. Although this was evidently true that in the early days more people enjoyed well paid employment the biggest winners were the large capital holders whose wealth increased at a far faster pace than the rest of the population. (see Piketty). Unfortunately, the banks started to play the game of 'pass the parcel' where they cut and diced toxic loans to a point where none of them knew what they were holding. Providing the music kept playing they were quite happy to enjoy the lucrative bonuses that these 'investments' produced. Even when the inevitable crunch came they were still in denial and said it was liquidity that was the problem, ie; keep it going', rather than being under capitalized. The fact that our economy now relied so heavily on the banking sector letting it go bust would have been curtains for the UK from which we may never have recovered. The price of lending banks phantom money was that they had to open up their books to government scrutiny. Barclays refused the offer and raised private capital. Stephen Hester taking control of RBS for five years until the government of the day thought we could get back to business as usual. In my opinion the banks don't really know what their true financial position is but are willing to climb on the merry go round as long as someone else, the tax payer, picks up the bill. Should the banks collapse again possibly the only solution may be to let them sink while at the same time applying penal tax rates on the top 1%. Perhaps this is the main reason for pushing for a Brexit.

[Stanley]

P, I think your analysis is absolutely correct and very well expressed. The only point I am not sure about is your assessment that if we'd allowed the banks to go to the wall, or not given them as much as we did, might have been the end of the UK economy. I believe that it would have been a desperate shock to the system but that eventually we would recover in better shape than we are now. A long time ago I advocated regarding the situation post 2008 as a war situation, constituting a coalition government and using the same controls we had in WW2 In other words, removing the bank's independence. That view sank like a stone, I think everyone thought I was going too far but subsequent events seem to indicate that there might have been something in it. As I understand it, the Icelandic model. As it is, we have allowed the banks to get out of gaol free and they are on the same course now that they were pre 2008. That's why I say that another crash is inevitable and there are no signs that anyone is taking this seriously.
See THIS for the latest financial news.... I can't see anything here to inspire confidence in our present capitalist model. The global economy is in the hands of panic stricken investors seeking to protect their own interests. The free marketeers will say that this is healthy and that the market will correct itself in the long run. As Keynes once said "In the long run we are all dead....".
I'll repeat what I said, it's a mess!

[Stanley]

HSBC announces that they are going to do us a favour and keep their HQ in London.... Could the arrest and illegal detention of the publishers in Hong Kong have anything to do with this? The economic condition of China? the relaxation of regulation on the banks by the FSA no doubt nudged by Ossie?
It looks suspiciously as though they have received covert assurances that light touch is here to stay.....

[Tizer]

The relaxation by the FSA...I'll bet the lobbyists have been busy on behalf of the banks, and they'll have made plenty of money out of doing it too.

This one doesn't apply to Stanley but could affect any car owner. The Money Box programme described how motor insurance companies are running a nice little circular scam to extract lots more money from their customers. We all know that when we ask a company to insure us for a car we have to disclose any modifications to the vehicle or we could be in trouble if we made a claim, probably having the claim refused. A driver explained to Money Box how his accident claim was refused when the garage reported that there was `something unusual in the headlights' and `something different behind the front bumper'. Money Box asked a car expert and he couldn't see anything wrong but he told the programme that it's happening often now and is usually because replaced items on vehicles are identified by the insurance company as `non-OE' (not original equipment, i.e. a non-Ford manufactured item fitted on a Ford car). They are taking a zero tolerance approach and booting out claims if your car has any non-OE items. But the really interesting fact he revealed is that most insurance companies, when getting your car repaired after an accident, will instruct the garage to use non-OE items if they are cheaper (and they usually are cheaper of course). So the companies have a nice little earner going, getting the cheaper items fitted, then later if the car is in an accident, refusing to pay out. The insiders know this has been going on but the rest of us haven't been told until now.

[plaques]

Being a bit paranoid about brakes on cars I've just had all my discs, pads and calipers replaced at my local MOT garage. Not because they failed but to ensure that I had the maximum stopping power. I would have been a bit upset if I'd have paid the Toyota prices. Having elected to re-insure with my long standing company, via the internet which gave me a 20% reduction, I would be a bit miffed if they tried to argue that I was wrong to upgrade the brakes.

[Tripps]

HSBC announces that they are going to do us a favour and keep their HQ in London.... Could the arrest and illegal detention of the publishers in Hong Kong have anything to do with this? The economic condition of China? the relaxation of regulation on the banks by the FSA no doubt nudged by Ossie?
It looks suspiciously as though they have received covert assurances that light touch is here to stay.....

Yes - all of the above, and I'd say that the threatened move to France is another bluff. - I posted this last year.

Postby Tripps » Sat Mar 14, 2015 12:56 pm
Robert Peston's one off on France was interesting. I was surprised to see that French employer/employee relations were ruled by a book call 'Code de Travail', which has 3,600 pages, and weighs 2 kg.
For example women can have as much maternity leave as they wish, and do not have to tell their employer how long it will last. Two and three years was mentioned.The job has to remain open for them to return throughout.
They can resign at any time within the leave period. Then if they don't like their new job - any time within a year, they can return to the original job.

Peston asked 'how can businesses make plans if that is the case. The French lady replied - 'c'est impossible'

[Stanley]

That's a good reminder David.... I am beginning to think that rather than reforming the banks we need to reform our chancellor! Something on the lines of Snowden, 'The Iron Chancellor'. (LINK)
In other words someone who is an accountant, not a politician, not interested in massaging his image as a potential Party Leader and simply getting on with maximising the tax take and cutting expenditure on vanity projects. Perhaps they need another Yorkshire man..... After all, who is supposed to be running the economy? He didn't have a bunch of SPADS seconded from the banks who all have their own agenda.

[Tripps]

Thanks for the Snowden link. I'd never heard of him. It always puzzles me why a socialist such as him would accept a peerage and become a Viscount, with all the hereditary perks that go with it.

[Stanley]

Philip Snowden was his own man. There's a memorial for him on the moors near Cowling. I once delivered cattle to his grandson in the West country.....

[Stanley]

See THIS for the Guardian account of the present state of HSBC bank. Do they spend all their time sailing close to the wind?

[Tizer]

The big banks are all reporting their results this week and it's going to be interesting, especially when an expected £5 billion of bonuses are expected to be paid out for lack lustre performance and outright swindling.

[Stanley]

I can remember the time when one of the favourite analogies used by journalists was that if California was floated a separate state it would be one of the most successful economies in the world. Do you ever get the feeling that this now applies to the UK financial sector? Perhaps one of the reasons why this government is treating them so well (apart from the revolving door and the SPADS) is that they are keeping the economy going at the moment. We heard a lot about changing the ethos and their methods but that is all in the past now.

[Stanley]

See THIS for a report on Lloyds Bank's profit fall but there bumper payout to investors and CEO, looking no doubt to boosting the chances of a sale of shares. PPI payments and fines are enormous and I heard one banker saying the other day that the total of pay outs will be over £35billion. How much has this contributed to 'the economic miracle'? What does the government do for an encore? Is this a new way of taxing the financial sector?

[Tripps]

"How much has this contributed to 'the economic miracle'?"

I have long thought that to be the case. I'm also suspicious of the ease with which compensation is gained after the most minor of traffic accidents. I have a very small circle of friends and acquaintances, but two of them have had pay outs of £2k, and £5k in the last few years for what I would say were trivial injuries. Compare that with the lengths companies will go to, in order to avoid payment to say flood victims, and people with terminal illnesses, and you can't help thinking that there is intention behind it all.

[Stanley]

I share your suspicion David. It comes under the heading of 'Cunning Wheezes'. At one tome social control was catered for by organised religion but now our leaders have to find another way. I can't quite see the connection but I associate the rise of gambling, lotteries and pay day loans with some form of control of expectations and the general economy. Thinking about it makes my head hurt..

[Tizer]

Now it's the turn of RBS. RBS results
"Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) has reported a loss of £1.98bn for 2015, its eighth year of annual losses. RBS shares fell 7% to 226.6p and remain well below the price the government paid for an 84% stake to save the bank in 2008. The bank, which came close to collapse at the height of the financial crisis, is still setting aside billions to cover past mistakes and fines. Even after all these costs are stripped out, profits are still falling. The annual loss is partly due to a £3.6bn charge to cover conduct and litigation costs, many of them in the US. RBS also set aside another £2.9bn for restructuring, as it withdraws from 25 of the 38 countries it still operates in."

[Stanley]

Cheaper to have done a Lehman Brothers on it?

[Tizer]

Yes, the American's have pioneer spirit and let survival of the fittest work. Our Eton Boys would strive to keep bank's from sinking because their mates probably owned them and they wanted a job there themselves eventually!

[Stanley]

See THIS for a warning from Mervyn King that under the present regime of supervision another crisis is unavoidable. Makes you wonder how much real control the BofE has over the financial sector.

[Tizer]

Changes are being made by the new CEO at Barclays; cutting bonuses is one. I wonder how long it will take before they `let him go' as they did with Anthony Jenkins? LINK

[Stanley]

At the moment the only thing that is holding a full scale investor revolt back is fear. Wonderful how wrong these 'financial experts' can be and yet survive. Biggest Cunning Wheeze ever I reckon.

[Tizer]

The banks have repeatedly claimed their systems are foolproof. Now they are proven to be at fault...

`Online break-in forces bank to tighten security' 3 March 2016
"Two major high street banks [Natwest & RBS] will change security procedures after journalists from BBC Radio 4's You and Yours programme broke into an account online and removed money. Recently bank customers accounts have been successfully attacked by criminals who divert mobile phone accounts. Criminals persuade phone providers to divert mobile phone numbers in what is sometimes called "SIM swap fraud". Some banks text security details when customers forget their details. The activation codes sent by text to mobile phones also allow payments to be made from an account. The scam works by blocking the genuine phone. The owner is unaware of why the phone has been blocked and allows the criminal - who now has control of their phone - to syphon money from their bank account. You and Yours has been contacted by dozens of people affected by the scam. All say they have never revealed their security details to anyone, and the that first they knew something was wrong was their mobile phone going dead." LINK

[Stanley]

And when asked the spokesman refused to answer the question 'Did you know it was possible to do this?' Surely attitudes like that are obstruction verging on fraud? If a bank can't be transparent and honest who do we trust? The bottom line is that if a system is cheaper to run than paying people to keep things safe exposing 'a few' customers to losses like the ones they described is acceptable. You're safer with a biscuit tin under the bed!

[Tizer]

We heard recently that Barclays has decided to sell off its Africa business. It now emerges that someone wants to buy it as part of his new little empire. Guess who. Remember Diamond Bob, he of Libor rigging fame at Barclays? Yes, he's been busy setting up his own business and, not surprisingly perhaps, he's employed a number of his old Barclays buddies. He knows that regulation will less than in the UK. Watch out Africa!

[Stanley]

Bunch of shysters......