Bob Diamond

surely it was only Friday/Saturday when he was adamant that he wasn't going to resign?
 
Lynton said:
surely it was only Friday/Saturday when he was adamant that he wasn't going to resign?
Click to expand...


It was. But now they have sorted out his £20m severance package, he's decided that perhaps he will stand down.
 
Bob Diamond is certaily not popular in the public perception.

However

I am sure that when the murk is penetrated we will find far more unwholesome individuals at the core of the problem.
And probably far out of reach of British regulation or justice.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Bob Diamond is certaily not popular in the public perception.

However

I am sure that when the murk is penetrated we will find far more unwholesome individuals at the core of the problem.
And probably far out of reach of British regulation or justice.
Click to expand...

Yip, all these types seem to be outwith the reach of justice.

Have to laugh at the prospect of a parliamentary enquiry. Does that mean the expenses fiddlers are to investigate thieving bankers. Maybe that makes sense - "set a thief to catch a thief".
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Bob Diamond is certaily not popular in the public perception.

However

I am sure that when the murk is penetrated we will find far more unwholesome individuals at the core of the problem.
And probably far out of reach of British regulation or justice.
Click to expand...

But he was the one in charge of it all and so he needs to go if he cannot control his minions.

The buck stops with him.
 
tiler65 said:
The buck stops with him.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I thought when Marcus Agius resigned, proclaiming that the buck stopped with him. Since when did the No.2 take ultimate responsibility for the company's and Chief Executive's actions?
 
He appears to have argued that he can't be responsible for the actions of his staff. That's to say, only when they've been caught being bad. When they're getting the bank massive profit he was happy to collect vast bonuses for their work, but that's different apparently.

Anyway, since saying he didn't know what they were up to, he apparently now says he was told it was okay by the bank of England. So he did know. Or maybe he'll switch back to not knowing.

This is how our top bankers define the truth: it is whatever version of events best suits them at any given point in time.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Bob Diamond is certaily not popular in the public perception.

However

I am sure that when the murk is penetrated we will find far more unwholesome individuals at the core of the problem.
And probably far out of reach of British regulation or justice.
Click to expand...

But he was the one in charge of it all and so he needs to go if he cannot control his minions.

The buck stops with him.
 
tiler65 said:
But he was the one in charge of it all and so he needs to go if he cannot control his minions.

The buck stops with him.
Click to expand...

Hardly...

This is a world banking problem.

But he did join in.
 
The greed of the banking industry is only outweighed by the stupidity of those who thought they would never get caught.

Not only with this event but what has been happening for the past few years
 
Hopefully the other twenty banks involved in this will also face the same level of criticism and censure
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Hardly...

This is a world banking problem.

But he did join in.
Click to expand...
But he/was is charge of Barclays of which were fined £290m for messing up (other banks being investigated, so I will pass comment on the findings).

I think he should have been sacked for gross negligence never mind get a big fat pay cheque.
 
PsiFox said:
The greed of the banking industry is only outweighed by the stupidity of those who thought they would never get caught.
Click to expand...

:thumbs: Agreed, but that is the problem isn't it, why would they worry? what did the hundreds of people involved think was going to happen to them, nothing is what they thought, absolutely nothing! ..they still think this, couple of hundred million pounds in fines isn't going to rock their boat much right?! ..they'll just conjure another derivative to get it out of us again next quarter.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
:thumbs: Agreed, but that is the problem isn't it, why would they worry? what did the hundreds of people involved think was going to happen to them, nothing is what they thought, absolutely nothing! ..they still think this, couple of hundred million pounds in fines isn't going to rock their boat much right?! ..they'll just conjure another derivative to get it out of us again next quarter.
Click to expand...

Always a problem isn't it

How do you cut out a systemic cancer that appears to inhabit the whole of the financial sector, whilst leaving an industry that is responsible to its shareholders, and obeys the laws of the land.

Is it greed that supports it from a bonus driven culture?

They have made a start at separating investment arms from high street banks but need to go further.
 
for as long as you give alpha males a stupidly large salary, and then tell them that if they achieve xyz they will get a stupidly bigger bonus, this sort of thing will always go on. Is it bad or not - that's a different question.

Where did greed and survival of the fittest get us... ???

quite a long way actually
 
Yep. For as long as societal value was matched by societal reward, society and the individual benefitted equally.

But then we started using money instead which didn't quite fit.

And then we started thinking banking paper based profits were as good as money, and it got even worse.

And then, when all those paper based profits got wiped out, we realised how less attractive they actually were.

It's just a shame nothing's going to change.
 
Garnett said:
Yep. For as long as societal value was matched by societal reward, society and the individual benefitted equally.

But then we started using money instead which didn't quite fit.

And then we started thinking banking paper based profits were as good as money, and it got even worse.

And then, when all those paper based profits got wiped out, we realised how less attractive they actually were.

It's just a shame nothing's going to change.
Click to expand...
I am more peeved by the way he said he wasn't standing down even though he knew that he was partly to blame. Other members of staff below him were sacked......he resigned on a nest egg.
 
Split the commercial from the retail side of banks, make the retail side go back to the mutual model of banking (make slight adjustments to accomodate current accounts and such). With the commercial / investment company now a completely seperate entity and the only part that can have shareholders, it will then be treated as any other privately owned company and can then be left to the implications of failing without taking money from taxpayers.
 
Gareth S said:
Split the commercial from the retail side of banks, make the retail side go back to the mutual model of banking (make slight adjustments to accomodate current accounts and such). With the commercial / investment company now a completely seperate entity and the only part that can have shareholders, it will then be treated as any other privately owned company and can then be left to the implications of failing without taking money from taxpayers.
Click to expand...

and the ratings agencies / other banks will still look at the company as a whole
 
PsiFox said:
...

They have made a start at separating investment arms from high street banks but need to go further.
Click to expand...

Yea its a start I guess.

Its the psychosis of the passed that's been its own undoing like your all saying.... and its also suggested that fixing the (this week anyway) Libor rate to some variables based in reality, real assets compared, instead of today's mash up for convenience and profit, ...that that would go some way to drive off the unaccountable side of trading and help remove the daft psychosis.

Give the big bonuses to those that sort the system out I say.
 
Gareth S said:
Split the commercial from the retail side of banks, make the retail side go back to the mutual model of banking (make slight adjustments to accomodate current accounts and such). With the commercial / investment company now a completely seperate entity and the only part that can have shareholders, it will then be treated as any other privately owned company and can then be left to the implications of failing without taking money from taxpayers.
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me...
 
It's all ideas that go to curb rampant dirty capitalism, but it's a genie you won't get back in the bottle...sad to say.

Just like curbing executive pay, there are too many vested interests to break the cycle.

It's the same problem as the eighties communist leaders faced with trying to make a more pleasant face to communism!
 
Just got back in and started listening to the parliamentary questioning of Bob Diamond ... is it only me that thinks this is a 'meeting for chums' ... and asking his advice on how to resolve the banking issues etc :thinking:
 
tiler65 said:
But he was the one in charge of it all and so he needs to go if he cannot control his minions.

The buck stops with him.
Click to expand...

Really???? How can ANYONE control however many thousand people they employ. Management is on many levels and while he may have known about all this there is every chance that he would not have known. Even managing 'just' 500 people is impossible as some of those will get up to stuff they shouldnt.

Not saying the behaviour is acceptable but it quite possibly has nothing to do with these guys or even other senior managers.
 
But in the same way he was always happy to take their successes as his own, so to their failures.

That is what being a leader is all about.

When you've been in charge of corporate failure, it's you that Carries the can.
 
desantnik said:
But in the same way he was always happy to take their successes as his own, so to their failures.

That is what being a leader is all about.

When you've been in charge of corporate failure, it's you that Carries the can.
Click to expand...

No. If you implement policies that fail then yes. You carry the can but you cannot be responsible for rogue elements.
 
cambsno said:
No. If you implement policies that fail then yes. You carry the can but you cannot be responsible for rogue elements.
Click to expand...

But what's a rogue element?

Doesn't this just mean he can take a bonus for the good elements and shirk responsibility for the bad?
 
U take a bonus because you Implement the right strategy, culture and profits increase. You resign or get sacked if opposite happens. But u cannot be responsible for what 0.005% of your workforce may be up to. Imagine u run a local supermarket with 200 people. Should u be responsible of it turns out 2 people have been deliberately short changing customers?
 
Yes, if because of that you get fined hundreds of millions, dragged through the headlines and eighteen percent of your stock price lost in one single day.

And that's without guessing how much damage your guys have done to the UK economy and the wider financial markets.

I can't actually think of a bigger screw up really
 
So if you were in a management position and someone did something naughty which cost your company a lot of money, you would have no complaints about being fired, even if you were not aware of it?
 
That's the way it works...
 
Yep. Because the "little naughty things" they did actually merited an unprecedented fine. Not really that minor after all, and so really something that you should have been in control over.
 
desantnik said:
Yes, if because of that you get fined hundreds of millions, dragged through the headlines and eighteen percent of your stock price lost in one single day.

And that's without guessing how much damage your guys have done to the UK economy and the wider financial markets.

I can't actually think of a bigger screw up really
Click to expand...

Exactly, even though it appears your 'Red Flag' comrades were in cahoots with this 'rigging' all along.

Greed is a bad thing, why can't folk just be happy with being wealthy enough?
 
tiler65 said:
Greed is a bad thing, why can't folk just be happy with being wealthy enough?
Click to expand...

Define "wealthy enough"

_40871308_cleese.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top