OneGuyFromBarlick

See THIS for a Reuters report on bank profitability. Not good news for Europe or the UK. More ammunition for the bankers to resist further reforms. Who would have thought in 2007 that seven years later we would be in a position like this. The bottom line is that not only were the leaders of the sector corrupt and greedy, they were incompetent as well. They had a bullet proof business model where they lent money and charged people for borrowing it. How did they manage to cock that one up?

One of the more esoteric items buried in the Autumn Statement is that some old bond issues, like Post War Credits, are to be re-financed and interest rates lowered as some of these still produce returns as high as 5% per annum. Sounds like a very well kept secret that these were still active. I wonder who was holding them.....

Good News! (LINK) Barclay's Bank are giving their customers more choice as they introduce 'video banking' 24X7.
Really..... Am I the only one who would like to see the banks do other things for their customers. This is yet another step away from face to face High Street banking. How does a shopkeeper bank his or her cash if there isn't a branch nearby? Have they completely lost the plot?

Paul Lewis has had people complaining because HSBC failed to send out a monthly credit card statement which threw them into all sorts of problems. HSBC wouldn't tell him how many people had been affected and would only say it was `due to a glitch'. People with direct debits automatically paying their card bill suddenly found their accounts short of cash with out any warning. Bank arrogance and incompetence again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/moneybox

I heard that report as well. Once upon a time we kept our money under the bed or at a neighbour's house whom we trusted and had a strong room. This is where we are heading now unless we commit to purely electronic transactions.... The day of the banks as a trusted repository for our money are long gone.... What an indictment!
Not sure where this one fits but see THIS for a BBC report that MPs have withdrawn support for the mediation scheme which was supposed to be examining claims by sub postmasters and postmistresses that the computer programme they were forced to use to certify their daily balance was flawed and flagged up deficits which they were forced to make good themselves in order to open for business the following day. In some cases this led to loss of income, loss of their jobs and even prosecution for fraud and imprisonment. The MPs say that the Post Office is being obstructive and denying that there are any faults in their programmes. High time this was taken out of the Post Office hands and properly investigated. There seems no doubt that the majority of complaints against them are valid.
Not much sign of any meaningful business ethic here.....

Yes, it was all done in secret and many of the people affected were elderly men and women who have soldiered on, keeping a small post office open - just like our village P.O. where the postmistress has had hip replacements, is in a lot of pain and struggles to walk and her husband has been in a wheelchair for many years now after a stroke.

The thing that struck me yesterday is that whenever we have a case of a large organisation with virtually unlimited funds defending themselves against claims from small people the starting point is always that the individual has to prove the wrongdoing and pursue it at their own expense. Suppose we had a law that said that in certain well defined cases, like fighting a bank or the Post Office the starting point should be that they have to prove the accusation is wrong and not the other way round. In truth, we are helpless against the bank wall of obfuscation and denial which is the usual strategy in these cases. Remember the days when exposure to asbestos was not admitted to be harmful when in fact the big manufacturers had known the dangers for decades but ignored them in favour of profit? Totally cynical because the longer they resisted the more claimants died. Time for a more level playing field I think.

Even the regulators get the cold shoulder from offending organisations. What we need is a proper troubleshooting team with power to go in and inspect at short notice and to force a change in management where necessary, whether it be public or private (and that'll make the private business people get angry but if they've nothing to hide then they shouldn't be worried by it!

You're right, the PO has even cold-shouldered Parliament!

See THIS for a BBC report on the terrible service delivered by HMRC on it's 'help line. Paul Lewis had a shocking report on it yesterday and it would seem that they have been spurred into action. Could it be that in some areas we actually need to be able to speak to a human being and not a computer programme?
I am reminded of when I called Balfour Beatty about a small matter when they were refurbishing the water mains in Barlick. I was put straight through to the secretary of the CEO and my problem was sorted out immediately. When I expressed amazement that I had got straight through to the source instead of a call centre she dais that the CEO wouldn't have anything to do with such things. He believed that the 'normal channels' and individual attention were the best strategies and cheaper in the long run.

That same Paul Lewis programme was interesting for the story about Bank of Scotland possibly having committed criminal fraud. This is from the programmes podcast site:

"A judge in Northern Ireland has found that the Bank of Scotland has been "unconscionable" in "double-billing" some of its borrowers in arrears on their mortgages. Now, the Attorney General there has called on the police to investigate whether the bank has committed "criminal fraud". We'll look at what it could mean for those struggling with mortgage repayments across the UK. Lloyds Banking Group, the parent company of Bank of Scotland, told us: "In the light of a criminal complaint being made we do not consider it appropriate for us to comment at this time."

High time the full force of the law was brought down on these fraudsters. Wrap it up how you will, this is exactly what they are!

News this morning that the Co-op Bank has failed the latest BofE stress test and that Lloyd's and RBS give cause for concern. (LINK) Evidently we have higher standards than the standard Euro Zone tests and this means more likelihood of failure. I'm all for doing everything we can to ensure that the banks are robust but can't help thinking about the fact that money locked up in banks to make them safer is money taken out of the general economy. Have I got this right? Does this cut down on the capital they have available to finance loans? If so it looks like a Catch 22 situation.

Yes, it has already done just that and is partly responsible for businesses not being able to get loans and for others having their loans terminated. But I suppose it's a necessary evil, we have to make sure the banks are going to be viable. Having said that, there's more to it than just how much cash reserve they have - no matter how big the reserve it won't be enough if they aren't diligent about their business methods as we've seen in recent times.

Like taking dodgy gambles on oil futures?

How much debt is being added to the already high levels during the Xmas frenzy. How many people borrowing money at ridiculous rates from High Street leeches.... It frightens me.

The computers will be busy sending the bills out for Xmas spending..... Some people will be in for a shock.

The man who, due to a keying error was debited £59,500 instead of £59.50.... That would be a bit of a shock on the monthly statement!

See THIS for a Guardian report on the new restrictions on pay day loans that come in today. I am confused because as far as I can see from the adverts there are still companies offering loans at well over 1000%. How does anyone not pay back more than 100% of what they borrow?

BBC web site, 2nd January 2015, on Goldman Sachs...
"US investment bank Goldman Sachs paid the highest bonuses to senior staff among banks operating in the UK in 2013, according to research by Reuters. Its employees in key senior or risk-taking positions received £2.57m bonuses each on average - roughly twice the amount handed out by other banks. The TUC said it was time for their pay to come "back to planet earth". Reuters compared the wages paid by 13 leading investment banks based or working in London. RBS paid its code staff - risk-takers and staff in senior positions - an average of £600,000. Goldman Sachs' bonus award was also found to exceed the average bonus paid out by the bank to its US-based staff. The data showed 2,600 City employees were paid more than £3.4bn in 2013 - almost 50 times average annual pay in Britain."
More here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30648333

And when taxed about it one of their executives used the old threat about re-locating abroad. Why the hell don't we tell them to go anyway? Everyone knows that they are in London because of the government regulation climate, the time zone and because they can make more profit here.

Suddenly there's been a realization that all the money pored into the Geek economy hasn't gone into creating growth but to the banks and the hedge funds that created the problem in the first place. Greek This is exactly what Piketty and Stiglitz have pointed out over the past years. The rules of the game are set by the people who will gain most by its failure. The built in loopholes result in the perpetrators get away with billions while poor old Joe public picks up the bill and endures untold austerity measures. A parallel was drawn on the American bailout as seen by this quote:- 'She quotes former US labour secretary Robert Reich, who described America’s bank bailouts as “capitalism on the upside and socialism on the downside”. This begs the question - is a similar thing going on in the UK?I I suspect the answer is Yes.

Almost certainly yes P! The basic problem here, and I take credit for banging on about it ever since 2008, is that the bail out money and QE funding have all been injected at or towards the top of the food chain. That way it was corralled by the wealthy and they made sure they got their cut to safeguard their position. As I have said time and time again, it should have been injected at the bottom where income is spent straight away. That way it moves up the chain triggering the multiplier effect as it was used for trade. In the short term it would have been harder for the banks and the wealthy but far better for the general economy.
See THIS for Obama's latest tax plan, he's on the right lines. Not on the BBC site yet but they say that by 2016 the top 1% will own over 50% of global wealth. Piketty and Stiglitz et al are gaining traction as this glaring imbalance becomes more obvious day by day. This is why Tory economic policies are totally wrong and will end in failure. Guess who will get it in the neck.....
HERE is the account I referred to above from the BBC. The subject is an Oxfam report criticising the inequality gap.

`Savers getting raw deal from big banks, says FCA' (BBC web site, 20 Jan 2015)
"Millions of savers are getting a raw deal, particularly from the big High Street banks, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has concluded.
In many cases, the interest rate on their accounts has been as little as 0.5% - the same as the Bank of England's base rate. Savers should be given clearer information and helped to switch to better accounts, said the FCA. But the City regulator stopped short of banning bonus rates. Such rates operate for a limited period, and are used to tempt savers in. The FCA also said that 80% of easy access accounts have not been switched in the past three years....."

"....So the FCA has devised a shiny new weapon to cow savings providers into behaving better. When they write to you with a regular statement they will have to include a "switching box" which shows in a colourful chart how bad your rate is, how much more you could get from the provider's other accounts, and what you could earn from the average of the best 10 savings accounts on the market. Another innovation is that when you get the account in the first place they will have to include a warning if the rate is a poor one, saying it pays "interest below the Bank of England's base rate". The watchdog has retreated with a whine and a lowered tail from drastic measures such as banning the introductory bonus rates that make accounts seem attractive at first but leave you stuck on a measly rate later. But the switching box could be a big embarrassment for banks and building societies that take advantage of gullible customers."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30894086

There was a Natwest notification regarding my account in spam - I did not open it but beware.