BEWARE! THE BANKS ARE OUT TO GET YOU!

[Tizer]

`Is old tech putting banks under threat of extinction?' (BBC)
You put your card in the cash machine but nothing comes out. The bank's IT systems have crashed again. But you need money fast, so what do you do? It's an unsettling scenario that is likely to become more common over the next few years as the big banks try to upgrade their IT systems, experts are warning. Global banking giant HSBC is just one of several major banks that have had intermittent problems with their technology, leaving customers unable to access online bank accounts and other services. Bank of America, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, ANZ Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland and NatWest have all suffered similar issues. And these system failures - or outages in the jargon - undermine confidence in traditional banking and encourage more competition from nimbler start-ups. "For the next five years - and we're talking globally - every incumbent banking player who's been around for a while will have an increased risk of outages," says Julian Skan, managing director of financial services at consultancy Accenture. LINK

[Stanley]

Could be right Tiz. The individual systems are so big and such a dog's breakfast after 'combining' data after takeovers that nothing but a completely fresh start will clean them up and this is so expensive the banks will keep trying the 'patch' approach to keeping on line. It's a business cost but the attitude of the banks is to shy away from anything that entails extra expense and impacts the dividend. This has always been the case and will get worse now that the shackles of regulation have been loosened.

[Tizer]

Whoopee! BP shareholders reject chief Bob Dudley's £14 million pay deal
"BP shareholders have rejected a pay package of almost £14m for chief executive Bob Dudley at the oil company's annual general meeting. Just over 59% of investors rejected Mr Dudley's 20% increase, one of the largest rejections to date of a corporate pay deal in the UK. The vote is non-binding on BP, but earlier, chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg promised to review future pay terms. Mr Dudley received the rise despite BP's falling profits and job cuts. The final voting figures will be released later, with some major investors abstaining. But corporate governance adviser Manifest estimated that it would be at least the fifth-largest vote in the UK against a boardroom remuneration deal."..."The Institute of Directors said the shareholder rebellion would "determine the future of corporate governance in the UK"...."British boards are now in the last chance saloon, if the will of shareholders in cases like this is ignored, it will only be a matter of time before the government introduces tougher regulations on executive pay," said director general Simon Walker. LINK

[Stanley]

I note that the chairman says that 'future' pay awards will be looked at and the shareholder's vote is non-binding. That signals to me that the obscene pay award will go ahead..... So the shareholders actually have no power and the remuneration committee is not where opposition to high awards will be opposed. It is the contractual agreements that need to be addressed. This Cunning Wheeze takes the matter out of 'pay' and into areas governed by lawyers and shrouded in 'commercial confidentiality'. It's pure greed and opportunism.
I note also that the Panama Papers have triggered off a move to try to open up the beneficial ownership of off-shore funds. It is supported by the IMF. Sounds hopeful until you consider that, if taken to its logical conclusion it will mean the US sharing information with China.... Go figure! The people who will be clapping hands after this announcement are the lawyers and accountants who find ways round regulations like this. Letter will be flying out to clients making helpful suggestions on the usual terms..... I don't care how obscure the ownership of the funds is as long as they can be taxed adequately, made subject to a progressive Wealth Tax and this is the real problem. Don't hold your breath.....

[Tizer]

The obscene pay award had already gone ahead but at least some of the big shareholders are making a fuss. It's a step forward. If you want to eat an elephant you have to do it in small pieces!

[Stanley]

We're all in it together? I wonder if the trustees of the pension fund have a vote?

[Stanley]

See THIS for a Guardian report on branch closures and job losses at RBS. I think the days of High Stgreet branches are numbered and eventually we are all going to be forced into internet banking. God help anyone who isn't computer literate.

[Tizer]

Some weeks ago I wrote on here about the banks in Glastonbury that were probably going to close down. Now it's happening and there won't be a bank in the town. There's trouble brewing because a lot of people still want to use a branch and Glastonbury has lots of small businesses, especially retail, and lots of tourists. Remember when the banks decided to stop dealing with cheques?

[Pluggy]

Remember when the banks decided to stop dealing with cheques?

They backed out and cheques are still alive and well, maybe that'll happen in Glastonbury.

[Tizer]

I hope it will but the banks have ignored the resistance so far. This is were competitive capitalism fails. Even recently, there were three different bank companies in Glastonbury and they should have been able to work together to make sure each town still had at least one bank. If there's not enough branch customers for multiple branches they could have shared out the smaller towns between them and made more effort to help the customers of other companies who visit them. But no, they go their own sweet way.

[Stanley]

The only way they can be forced to maintain a high Street service is by regulation. They have control of the legislation by virtue of their lobby. They will continue to operate on the narrow basis of profit rather than customer service. That's where we have allowed ourselves to be driven.

[Stanley]

Not sure where THIS fits into the site but it's a report that Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway investment vehicle has bought $1billion worth of Apple shares on the grounds they are seriously undervalued. I have always thought that his policy of long term investment is a lesson to others in the market who are always looking for the 'quick buck'. One thing is certain, he employs some smart cookies!

[Stanley]

THIS makes chilling reading and makes you wonder how £193billion annually can be sucked out of the economy.

[Whyperion]

i think they are bundling in the cost of fraud investigators and a (notional) time cost for people trying to get funds back when they should be working/sunbathing on the beach.

[Tizer]

The source of those figures back in May was Experian, PKF Littlejohn, and the Centre for Counter-Fraud Studies at the University of Portsmouth. Business fraud accounted for £144bn and fraud against individuals was £9.7bn. The BBC report on 25 May this year said: "According to the Annual Fraud Indicator 2016, the biggest loss was due to procurement fraud - estimated at £127bn a year - which included the submission of false invoices and the awarding of contracts in exchange for bribes. The fraudulent cost to charities was estimated at £2bn per year, while mortgage lending losses were put at £1.3bn a year. Insurance sector fraud cost £1.3bn a year, tax fraud was estimated at £15.4bn every year, while fraud losses in the NHS were £2.5bn. The largest fraud carried out against individuals was identity fraud, estimated at £5.4bn a year from about 3.25 million victims."

And we have to remember that identity fraud isn't just the odd thousand pounds of savings here and there. It's now progressed to hacking email between conveyancing solicitors, estate agents and their house-buying customers whereby the transferred funds for purchase of a house are redirected into the fraudsters hands.

[Whyperion]

Would not the awarding of contracts bit is the difference between the price paid and the price that would have been paid or the whole amount?, (assuming quality stays the same), in this instance the money is not wholly lost to the economy, but is spent on wages, materials etc. Often the extra 'profit' might get hidden away on 'expenses' - eg overseas holidays.

[Stanley]

Staggering figures Tiz. Add tax 'avoidance' and the old fashioned black economy, crime and drugs and it makes you wonder if we are fit to run a modern economy....

[Tizer]

There's more news related to the above figures on fraud, specifically cyber crime... LINK
`Criminals winning 'cyber arms race' - National Crime Agency'
"Businesses and law enforcement agencies are losing the "cyber arms race" with online criminals, the UK's National Crime Agency has warned. The technical capabilities of criminal gangs are outpacing the UK's ability to deal with their threat, the NCA added. It said there were 2.46 million "cyber incidents" last year, including 700,000 frauds - with the biggest threat coming from "a few hundred" criminals. The government is to spend £1.9bn over the next five years on cyber-defences. The NCA's annual assessment of cybercrime found a key threat to the UK comes from international gangs. Some are so well-developed they run call centres and employ translators."

This is rather like the situation I've described before with food & drink counterfeiting - the criminals have more money to spend on their activities than do the law agencies and they're not burdened with regulations, they can go about it as they wish. And they can afford to pay enormous bribes or make serious threats against innocent people.

[David Whipp]

An agenda item for next week's meeting of Pendle Council is about 'Treasury Management' - the self imposed rules that the council has to follow to try and ensure that funds are only invested in 'safe' institutions. Thus hopefully avoiding Icelandic bank type problems.

One of the rules is the minimum credit rating of the sovereign countries where money is deposited.

Guess what?

The rules are having to be bent to allow the council to continue to invest in, er, UK institutions following the downgrading of Britain's status...

[Stanley]

Why bend the rules? If the institutions don't achieve your criteria they should not benefit from our investment. Invest in lawyers and accountants, they are the ones who are rubbing their hands with glee at the moment. Years and years of highly paid work.....

[David Whipp]

The institutions have to be fine (another part of the rules covers this), but if the credit rating of the nation in which they are resident is below par, current rules prevent them being used. And that's the case with UK institutions as our credit rating as a country has been downgraded.

[Tizer]

The rules are having to be bent to allow the council to continue to invest in, er, UK institutions following the downgrading of Britain's status...

That's made my day, David. Thanks! When you think about it, the banks are responsible for where we are now, with a little help from recent governments. Their profligate and unwise lending led to the credit crunch. That, in turn, soured the public's view of big organisations and the establishment and, even more important, led to austerity. That really annoyed people and it's no wonder that they made what they thought was a protest vote but now find the referendum was for real and they've been well and truly skewered.

[plaques]

If you want to read a clear simplified analysis of the root causes of financial depressions I would suggest 'End this Depression Now', by Paul Krugman the American Nobel prize winner in economics. (available in the Lancashire Libraries). Very easy reading sounding almost like Stanley in places. One thing is clear George Osborne doesn't understand where our current austerity programme is leading us.

[Stanley]

None of the participants in the long sequence of events which has led to where we are now has really understood what the effects of short term greed and self interest were going to be. I can remember over seventy years ago the church-like calm of the banking hall at Lloyd's Bank in Underbank in Stockport. They were still writing by hand in the large ledgers and it was old-fashioned, boring, safe main street banking. Little did we know that when we lost that it was a signal for the flood gates to be opened and it was all swept away. Compare and contrast with a modern trading floor.....

[David Whipp]

One thing is clear George Osborne doesn't understand where our current austerity programme is leading us.

Straying away from banking... as far as local government is concerned (which is my main interest), I think the Tories are very clear about austerity. They are using it to destroy such government for ideological reasons. And the impact of Brexit will be used as another excuse for the continued contraction and cuts in local government services.