BEWARE! THE BANKS ARE OUT TO GET YOU!

[Stanley]

So all women bankers are bad? I have met one. In charge of Barclays in Barlick. She was OK.
Some interesting ideas are floating round as economists assess the subtle changes in the financial world as the ground moves under the influence of the 'crisis'. The power of the ratings agencies may be waning as bod interest rates become less of a reliable indicator of economic health because of the participation of governments in the market buying 'bad bonds' and supporting lower interest rates. Attention is moving away from containing inflation and focussing more on the relative value of currencies. Speculation that the incoming governor of the BofE will be open to these undercurrents and may advise Osborne to drop the instruction to the bank to cap inflation. In the US the unemployment figure is now seen as one of the key indicators. They aren't quite there yet but it looks as though the basic health of an economy is starting to be judged by how many workers have disposable incomes that can be spent to improve consumption and manufacturing output. I welcome these moves and have long advocated that if we are to get improvement, disposable incomes in the lowest 85% of the population is the key. This of course reinforces the argument, growing over the last six months, that austerity and the pursuit of 'sound money' is destructive. Sad thing is that we learned this lesson in the inter-war years but very few people have been reading the history! Tory dogma might have to give way eventually to economic reality.
The upcoming GDP figures are not going to give much comfort.....

[Bruff]

There's been quite a lot of academic study and wider comment on whether and to what extent the overwhelmingly male environment in parts of our banking sector was a contributing factor to the problems that hit it. The notion being that a more gender-balanced environment would not have led to some of the wilder examples of risk-taking behaviour. Men and women do in the generality exhibit different behaviours and approaches to matters.

All very interesting. Tell you what interests me though. Very clever social scientists and other thinkers muse on these matters. Very clever indeed. We are led to believe the 'bankers' are clever too - indeed perhaps the very cleverest of the clever. Stands to reason don't it? That's why they earn all that loot. I'm not so sure. There are very clever people at GCHQ. Very clever people in our Universities and schools. There are very clever people running their own companies. I would suggest that some of these very clever people are just as clever as the very clever bankers. Oh, and I bet some of them work just as hard as those very hard working bankers.

However, very many of these people do not earn dynastic fortunes year in year out.

Which suggests to me that the amount given (I'm not convinced we can use the word 'earn' from what's said above anymore) to bankers is reflective of other considerations than just the recipients inherent cleverness and graft. Perhaps it is simply their good fortune to work in an environment where billions and billions are transacted each day and so given this scale, quite naturally huge, huge sums are skimmed off as their 'fee' and ultimately profits and ultimately bonus.

This is what it is and you can't blame the bankers (as distinct from the blame you may give to them for their demonstrable incompetence in not understanding what on earth they were doing thus playing their role in the bomb that went off last decade). However, I'm surprised not more is made of this simple good fortune, or when the brilliance and graft of the bankers is mentioned it is not challenged. At the very least it would encourage self-reflection and perhaps then humilty and perhaps then behavioural change.

None of this is to suggest the bankers are not clever or graft extraordinarily hard. But to suggest they are somehow exceptional in comparison to other groups just doesn't hold up for me.

Richard Broughton

[Tizer]

There are many clever people - often maths and science graduates - working in the lower levels of the big banks. (Too many, because this has deprived us of such people needed in science and engineering.) But the bank executives are not taken from this population of clever people, they are there because they've `made a name for themselves'. You don't need to be clever to do that, you just need to be aggressive, fire people, take over companies and bingo - everyone wants you to make more dosh for them too. All at the expense of employees, customers, suppliers etc.

[Tardis]

IMHO Branch level staff are not bankers. They are paid to be touchy feely when they need to be.

Want a merchant banker, they are very sharp, articulate and very well educated. They specialise in pulling apart company P&L's and then finding finance for you if they think that you're a good risk.

You can tell city folk and it doesn't matter what sex they are. It is in their eyes

They are the people who work and play very hard, but are just as likely to turn around and fund a homeless shelter for a month and turn up in their top of the range cars to lend a hand because they can.

Over 98% of workers in the finance industry get less than 25k a year and the UK employees some 2m (down from 4m under Brown)

[Tardis]

Goldman Sachs paid about 1000 UK employees £1m or more, which will give the treasury £500m, although it will be nearer £600m because of the tax system

If they had taken the profit, they might have paid 20% or £200m

That's a lot of money for other peeps to find

[Stanley]

RBS will get their fine for LIBOR fixing today. £400million plus the legal costs. The senior executive who is being sacked is seen as a fall-guy to appease critics. There is a suggestion that free shares in RBS should be distributed to the public.....

[Tripps]

I think it will be nearer to £400,000,000. Vince Cable said he hoped it would come from the bankers' bonuses, and not be a charge on the customers, or the owners - which is you and me. When pressed he admitted that despite the fact that "we" own 80% of this bank he is powerless to ensure that this will happen. Po liticians - don't you just love 'em.

PS - the smile went in the wrong place, but it looks OK there, so I'll leave it.

[Stanley]

David, these big numbers confuse Old Farts like me! Thanks. Old socialists like me were asking at the time why we didn't just nationalise the rogue banks instead of supporting them to carry on as usual. But 'nationalise' is a dirty word these days. Can't help remembering Nye Bevan, "The commanding heights of the economy". Now we see them and the utilities being raped by foreign investors and profits being syphoned out of the country in ways which minimise or eliminate tax responsibility. Heathrow Holdings (used to be BAA) is foreign owned and managed so that interest payments on loans cancels out profit and they pay no Corporation Tax. Same for Thames Water etc. Only foreign investors left in race to build next generation of nuclear power. Go figure what will happen to prices, profits and tax revenue. Isn't life great!

[Pluggy]

Isn't 400 million and 400,000,000 the same thing ?

[PanBiker]

I can't quite get my head around this so a little help from those more in the know about such things would be appreciated. We don't have huge amounts of money but we do have savings in Skipton Building Society. We also bank with Yorkshire who handle day to day transactions through our current account via direct debits, and standing orders, the current account gives us a cheque book and access to the hole in the wall. In all cases, outgoing transactions are only made subject to sufficient fund being available in the account. We do have a very small overdraft facility. We have a credit card that we pay off fully each month when the account comes. Now I hasten to add that we have been banking with the Yorkshire for the best part of 40 years, most folk in the bank know us as we are regular users of their facility.
Here's the thing, we had occasion to transfer £4,000 from the Building Society to the Yorkshire Bank. I'm sure everyone will know that a Building Society will only issue a cheque if sufficient funds are in the account. So Sally goes to the Building Society and withdraws a cheque made payable to herself for £4000. The money is in the account so there is absolutely no problem doing this. She then goes to the Yorkshire Bank and tries to pay it in. She says hello to the lady on the till who she deals with each week on a regular basis and is then challenged for identification! perhaps a driving licence or passport. Now hang on a minute, we are giving the bank £4000 not asking to take it out! The lady is adamant that she can't process the cheque despite the fact that the funds are guaranteed, unless she has ID. Sally offers her Yorkshire Bank paying in book, cheque book and bank guarantee card which apparently are not acceptable as ID to the bank that issued them? She eventually did get them to accept the cheque but only after some rounds of protestation, which involved the teller consulting higher echelons around the back. Money Laundering was traipsed out as an explanation for this bizarre ritual?
Should we fell grateful that the bank is apparently so contentious? I think not.

[Big Kev]

The money laundering excuse is a crock. If you'd tried to pay in £4k in cash I can understand them being suspicious but a cheque is traceable. If the teller had to go and ask someone higher up, and they then let you pay it in, there couldn't have been any issue in the first place. More staff training needed I reckon.

[Tripps]

Isn't 400 million and 400,000,000 the same thing ?

Yes - of course it is, but the original post has now been corrected. It originally said £400,000. Made me smile actually - reminded me of George Orwell's 1984 where history was rewritten when BB's predictions did not work out.

[David Whipp]

I can't quite get my head around this so a little help from those more in the know about such things would be appreciated.

Don't think I'm any better qualified to understand such things and, sadly, haven't had any large cheques to pay in recently...

What drives me up the wall is then number of times I've to prove who I am at the bank when opening an account or changing the signatories to an account.

I'm involved with several voluntary organisations which uses Yorkshire Bank as it has free banking for local societies and am treasurer for a couple of them. Usually, the accounts need two signatures from the half dozen or so people on the mandate. From time to time, committees change requiring a fresh mandate. Each occasion results in a trip to the bank to prove who I am and where I live despite being a personal customer at the bank for decades and being involved with a clutch of society accounts there as well.

I shiver in my boots when I'm responsible for getting several signatories along to the bank to provide the same proof and resign myself to waiting several months before everyone has done so.

Why can't the bank keep a single copy of my proof of identity and associate it with accounts as needed?

I don't think this posting does anything to answer Ian's query, but am glad I've got it off my chest!

[PanBiker]

I have another one which is not directly related to banks but linked in a way. Sally has Power of Attorney for her mums affairs. This of course is a legal requirement and makes it a lot easier if you have to administer another living persons financial affairs. When you are granted Power of Attorney they issue you with a set of legal documents that effectively grant the rights to administer on someone else's behalf. The problem arises when you have to prove you have Power of Attorney. Only the original documents will do or a copy of all of them (about 30 pages) signed off by some official body.
Sally had to notify some changes to her mums circumstances which would had a knock on effect to her mums pension and benefits that she was receiving at the time. Apparently there are no official bodies in Barlick capable of verifying these documents and we ended up having take them to the Job Centre in Colne so they could copy them and sign each individual copied page.
Am I being to naive when I ask why the powers that be cannot issue some kind of plastic card based verification when you are granted Power of Attorney rather than have to cart round and ship to all and sundry reams of paper signed off by a third party. It's not rocket science to do this in this day and age. I'm afraid that the legal system is still operating in some areas on mechanisms more suitable to the middle ages designed to keep the surfs in their places.

[hartley353]

Over the past ten years my work has taken me into many banks. What I have witnessed is bullying on a massive scale,staff driven to tears by a system that forces them to meet unattainable targets.Perfectly nice people forced to con the old and the young,and some in between, and the constant threat of dismissal if they dont.
Many branches are under staffed which means staff being moved from one branch to another,and at a minutes notice. When you are faced with what appears to be a Jobsworthy remember,that person is scared of making a mistake and losing their job, or having their career stalled permanently. Banking used to be a good job choice, but as they say I wouldn't do it for a gold clock. No the banks aren't out to get you,they already have you, try to live without them,very difficult. We are all just cash cows now Queuing up to be milked of our hard earned money.

[Stanley]

I confess. I rewrote history when I corrected my post after the mistake was pointed out.......

[Tardis]

Why can't the bank keep a single copy of my proof of identity and associate it with accounts as needed?

Because you don't understand the legislation?

[Tardis]

Interesting stuff coming from the new Governor of the Bank of England. Very interesting indeed. Especially the debate about inflation. Watch this space kind of detail.

Can't understand why Vince the Cable wants to buy out the rest of RBS to give it away to the populace. It would cost billions to buy up all the rest of the shares (what deficit?)

About the same as him asking for the fine to be paid out of bonuses. If they did, the individuals would be able to claim tax relief on it (61%) instead of the 27% in corporation tax from profits. I wonder what kind of planet he actually lives on when he dreams of numbers.

Surely much better to sell it back to the private sector and get it off the books.

Ireland has finally recognised that it has to liquidate it's nationalised bank.

[David Whipp]

David Whipp wrote:
Why can't the bank keep a single copy of my proof of identity and associate it with accounts as needed?


Because you don't understand the legislation?

HSBC (RIP) kept proof of identity which they used to verify my identity for different accounts...

[Tardis]

David Whipp wrote:
Why can't the bank keep a single copy of my proof of identity and associate it with accounts as needed?


Because you don't understand the legislation?

HSBC (RIP) kept proof of identity which they used to verify my identity for different accounts...

That actually makes record keeping harder and less efficient for the bank because they have to have two files open when they need to verify. As I'm sure you're aware the records have to be updated regularly, and after 7 years paperwork can be ditched. All about 'proving' that you are following due dilligence procedures and thus complying with both legislation and your business insurance

[Tizer]

Tardis, have you never used a computer database, and I don't mean some simple spreadsheet on your PC but professional software? Anything can be associated with anything else at the click of a key or mouse, vast amounts of information can be linked, cross-linked and cross-cross-linked. We live in the 21st Century. Are you telling me banks don't use such software? No wonder the banks are in such a pickle!

As Kev said, money-laundering is the standard excuse given for all the unnecessary checking of IDs, and just how ironic can that be? We go to deposit a few grand (as a cheque) and they want ID. Some Russian spiv comes along and wants to deposit a million quid and the bank asks no questions, just takes the cash and asks him to come again. And I'm not making that up either. We know it happens. How does it happen? We have to deal with the folk on the counter who, like Hartley says, have their strict instructions and they have to follow them even when they are barmy and obstructive to the bank and its customers. But the Russian spiv? He'll probably deal with a senior bod who can ignore these silly rules. Let's be honest, the banks in Britain are in a total mess, they've generated vast numbers, millions, of complaints from customers. Most of the complaints that get taken on to the ombudsman get upheld in favour of the customer. The banks are having to pay out billions in compensation to customers for various mis-selling scams. Who heeds scammers, who needs terrorists to undermine our nation, the banks do a good job of it themselves. Time to break them up, start all over again, the sooner the better.

[hartley353]

Santander walked away from the RBS because their IT systems were so antiquated. The debacle that upset NWB and RBS computers a few months ago was caused by RBS trying to run their system in tandem with Santander for the 6 months prior to the take over, and not some silly so and so deleting files on an upgrade as reported in the press. If you stay away from the end of the world sites, there is enougth evidence out there to suggest the banking system is dead in the water. Many believe fort knox has just empty shelves,and the chinese are holding on to US Dollars that are all but worthless. Quantative easing could only be a short term remedy,and had no way back, so once again Yes they are out to get us,but in the end it will be only to climb on our backs as they drown. Me i'm going to buy a mattress with a zip in it, the old ways are the best. You are of course right about the seedy Russian Millionaires and the other financial criminals, It is called private banking, you will enter the banking hall and use a private entrance to visit the inner sanctum, were you will be made very welcome,and your every whim catered for without a mention of money laundering ,as your personal banker calculates his bonus. There is one law for the rich, and no other laws.

[Tripps]

There was a chap on R4 this afternoon who was described as "Visiting Professor of Fraud and Money Laundering" , He was Russian. This is from memory but I promise you I am not making it up.

[Stanley]

Sounds like an interesting subject! Certainly an active field at the moment. I read my PE this week and the stories they investigate are frightening. Worst thing is that the same names crop up again and again. In any other industry they'd be unemployable.
I hear on the radio that the question of the Barclay's funding that saved them from public bail-out in 2008 is coming under scrutiny. I wonder how much of this interest has been triggered by the articles in Private Eye? Their investigative journalists have been pointing out the problems with this funding for months when nobody else wanted to question it. It's quite significant how many matters are eventually 'discovered' after PE flags them up. There is a Panorama programme on this due to be screened tonight. I wonder if PE will get a credit or will it be claimed as 'an exclusive'.

[Tardis]

Tardis, have you never used a computer database, and I don't mean some simple spreadsheet on your PC but professional software? Anything can be associated with anything else at the click of a key or mouse, vast amounts of information can be linked, cross-linked and cross-cross-linked. We live in the 21st Century. Are you telling me banks don't use such software? No wonder the banks are in such a pickle!

General banking software are programs developed at the start of computing with bits bolted on. They have never invested in new IT.

Unfortunately the Law demands paper records, as electronic ones can be altered or just wiped