Trusting again after being cheated and lied too and taken for a ride, while they smile.

if you give a man a gun, he can rob a bank
but give a man a bank and he can rob every f****r
 
Point is not to be outraged, but do to ask why WOULDN'T they do it? Last time no-one went to jail, and the fine was a small percentage of the profit. If the punishment for bank robbery was to be fined a couple of percent of the takings, how many bank robberies would you have?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Moadib said:
Point is not to be outraged, but do to ask why WOULDN'T they do it? Last time no-one went to jail, and the fine was a small percentage of the profit. If the punishment for bank robbery was to be fined a couple of percent of the takings, how many bank robberies would you have?
Click to expand...


Indeed could not have said it better myself - thats the whole point the fines are pointless, pocket change for these people and thats the outrageous bit - Its all got to come crashing down on us at some point. Just who will it flatten when it does.
 
I don't disagree. A sizeable majority of this recovery that we've had, or rather a small few have had) comes from unbacked QE money being sprayed over the stock market by banks with PEs through the roof. Not content with that you have LIBOR fixing, metals market fixing. But again why wouldn't they? We get the markets we deserve, and no-one has insisted some bankers go to jail. It would only take a couple of high level "supposedly the men in charge" at the very top of banks to get a few years at her majesty's pleasure, and it all stops tomorrow. But we don't. Looks we're as addicted to the pumped markets outcomes as they are.

As you say, it's all fine until suddenly it isn't, as 2001, as 2008.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Shareholders like the returns (which is practically all of us through UK pension companies), banks have to make money. Taking in deposits and paying 1.5% on them and lending out some money at 5% doesn't. The banks need to keep a chunk of deposits as capital so they don't go broke and if a few people default on debt it's easy to see why most people's perception of banking in it's most basic sense doesn't make money. Coupled with free services like online, telephone which their customers aren't charged for retail banking isn't the money spinner it's cracked up to be.

So they do this. Higher lending rates, lower deposit rates, charges for everything including invoices for statements, time on the online service might help but they wouldn't be popular.

So they think up stuff like this to make money.
 
They made so much money they nearly bankrupt the country. I've no problem with people making money, but when you have to rely on massive amounts of state aid to survive then isn't that a bit, well communist. Kind of the anti thesis of what they want to achieve
 
its that swear filter it can't spell - the word i wrote rhymes with plucker
 
boyfalldown said:
They made so much money they nearly bankrupt the country. I've no problem with people making money, but when you have to rely on massive amounts of state aid to survive then isn't that a bit, well communist. Kind of the anti thesis of what they want to achieve
Click to expand...

Its either one or the other. They either make so much money, or they make so little money they need state hand outs.

I agree though, I'd have let market forces sink one bank. Although they weren't bailed out, they were bought over and the government can sell its stake at any time.
 
ST4 said:
Shareholders like the returns (which is practically all of us through UK pension companies), banks have to make money. Taking in deposits and paying 1.5% on them and lending out some money at 5% doesn't. The banks need to keep a chunk of deposits as capital so they don't go broke and if a few people default on debt it's easy to see why most people's perception of banking in it's most basic sense doesn't make money. Coupled with free services like online, telephone which their customers aren't charged for retail banking isn't the money spinner it's cracked up to be.

So they do this. Higher lending rates, lower deposit rates, charges for everything including invoices for statements, time on the online service might help but they wouldn't be popular.

So they think up stuff like this to make money.
Click to expand...
It sounds like they have some divine right to make money, but no-one does.

Anyway I would take issue that they are "making money" by such actions. LIBOR and metals are a zero sum game - for every trade there is a winning side and a losing side - someone buys and someone sells. When they rig the market they don't "make money" for society, there is no nett gain - they simply steal from someone by non-equitable access to information. HFT is the same thing, the antics the banks have had to try to be closer and closer (in electronic terms) to the exchanges so they can front run their own customers and steal money from them. We have no markets any more - the majority of equity trades in the US are HFT. That is not providing a service, it's simply a tax imposed by the banks, and that's on top of the other fleecing like LIBOR, metals.

I'd have less issue with it if it was actually providing something to society, but simply lining their own pockets (obviously at the expense of the rest of society) is a negative contribution.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but when did we trust them in the first place?
 
They are no different to anyone else, but bankers are the current ones people love to hate... There are plenty of rotten estate agents, car salesmen, builders out there to name but a few, in fact tell me an industry where no-one is fiddling and screwing people? There are rogue togs, clergy and even charity shop workers. However, a few people fiddling billions will always get more publicity that a wedding tog who messes up a wedding or a charity worker nicking £2k.
 
Moadib said:
It sounds like they have some divine right to make money, but no-one does.

Anyway I would take issue that they are "making money" by such actions. LIBOR and metals are a zero sum game - for every trade there is a winning side and a losing side - some buys, someone sells. When they rig the market they don't "make money" for society, there is no nett gain - they simply steal from someone by non-equitable access to information. HFT is the same thing, the antics the banks have had to closer and closer (in electronic terms) to the exchanges so they can front run their own customers and steal money from them. We have no markets any more - the majority of equity trades in the US are HFT. That is not providing a service, it's simply a tax imposed by the banks, and that's on top of the other fleecing like LIBOR, metals.

I'd have less issue with it if it was actually providing something to society, but simply lining their own pockets (obviously at the expense of the rest of society) is a negative contribution.
Click to expand...

Banks are out to make money. It's the nature of the beast. Retailers do the same. There's nothing new. Retailers shaft suppliers, banks shaft trading partners. Just how business and commerce is.

The traditional take in deposits lend out some at higher rates model makes little money or even loses.
 
ST4 said:
Banks are out to make money. It's the nature of the beast. Retailers do the same. There's nothing new. Retailers shaft suppliers, banks shaft trading partners. Just how business and commerce is.

The traditional take in deposits lend out some at higher rates model makes little money or even loses.
Click to expand...
Then the deposits / lending model is what needs fixed, or consolidation in the industry - not theft on a scale larger than the world has ever seen.

Banks being out to make money is no different from anyone else - the difference is in rigging markets to do it, and in the essentially nothing that happens to them afterwards.

Don't get me wrong, I don't blame the banks - we're not ensuring that they are punished, nor even screaming at those supposed to represent us to do so - therefore of course the banks will steal. Rig the markets for tens or hundreds of billions, and MAYBE pay a percentage of profit (if caught)? Of course they will. But it's an awful, awful way for society.
 
Moadib said:
Then the deposits / lending model is what needs fixed, or consolidation in the industry - not theft on a scale larger than the world has ever seen.
Click to expand...

The deposit rates really need to be lower, and lending rates a lot higher with higher charges. Society won't like the reality of how that looks when mortgage rates go up and they can no longer afford the house they live in. I doubt even I like the appearance of that.

Moadib said:
Banks being out to make money is no different from anyone else - the difference is in rigging markets to do it, and in the essentially nothing that happens to them afterwards.

Don't get me wrong, I don't blame the banks - we're not ensuring that they are punished, nor even screaming at those supposed to represent us to do so - therefore of course the banks will steal. Rig the markets for tens or hundreds of billions, and MAYBE pay a percentage of profit (if caught)? Of course they will. But it's an awful, awful way for society.
Click to expand...

Insider trading and manipulcation is illegal and does carry quite severe penalties for individuals and institutions. Trading currency, money markets, investments in stock markets and commodities is standard financial practice. Contracts for difference, futures etc are nothing new and cannot go away.
 
ST4 said:
The deposit rates really need to be lower, and lending rates a lot higher with higher charges. Society won't like the reality of how that looks when mortgage rates go up and they can no longer afford the house they live in. I doubt even I like the appearance of that.
Click to expand...
I agree to an extent, but it's also better / more sustainable to operate in an economy that properly reflects reality. The flip-side of that would be that house prices would be much lower and thereby more affordable, and we should lose the aspect of house buying that drives prices to the unaffordable, as they should be less of a speculative asset.

Added to that as you say the banks would be able to make money doing normal business, without always having to be blowing bubbles or looking for ways to fleece non-banks.

ST4 said:
Insider trading and manipulcation is illegal and does carry quite severe penalties for individuals and institutions. Trading currency, money markets, investments in stock markets and commodities is standard financial practice. Contracts for difference, futures etc are nothing new and cannot go away.
Click to expand...
Penalties exist, but are either not enacted, or some poor "rogue trader" is wheeled out and does a couple of years. Trading in stock markets is legal, but HFT in front of your own customers is not. No-one else is allowed to place millions of trades "price finding" and cancel them at the last femto-second (or whatever rapidity they are now operating to). It's theft, plus distorts the market (which exists expressly for the purpose of clarity and price finding, not for distortion).

If it is not an open market with equity of information for all, then the gain one person is making as a result of that is the direct loss of someone else. There is no "gain" to society in that, it just shuffles money toward banks, and more importantly keeps the minds and efforts of the banking industry focussed on that. The purpose of the rules of markets is to "direct greed", for want of a better term, such that the pursuit of profit results in benefits for society as a whole. The banking system is a huge fail against that, and has been for at last a couple of decades and getting worse. We can do much better than that.
 
Moadib said:
I agree to an extent, but it's also better / more sustainable to operate in an economy that properly reflects reality. The flip-side of that would be that house prices would be much lower and thereby more affordable, and we should lose the aspect of house buying that drives prices to the unaffordable, as they should be less of a speculative asset.

Added to that as you say the banks would be able to make money doing normal business, without always having to be blowing bubbles or looking for ways to fleece non-banks.
Click to expand...

I quite agree, actually. Houses now, due to low rates have become sustainability expensive and for an asset that should be a reality for all working people but are sadly a distant pipe dream for many. People expect the prices of their house to go up, why should it. Its the same house/land just older when you sell it. It's a greedy and outdated notion. It's a crazy model for society that the bulk of peoples expenditure is paying off the house they have to live in to be near work.


Moadib said:
Penalties exist, but are either not enacted, or some poor "rogue trader" is wheeled out and does a couple of years. Trading in stock markets is legal, but HFT in front of your own customers is not. No-one else is allowed to place millions of trades "price finding" and cancel them at the last femto-second (or whatever rapidity they are now operating to). It's theft, plus distorts the market (which exists expressly for the purpose of clarity and price finding, not for distortion).

If it is not an open market with equity of information for all, then the gain one person is making as a result of that is the direct loss of someone else. There is no "gain" to society in that, it just shuffles money toward banks, and more importantly keeps the minds and efforts of the banking industry focussed on that. The purpose of the rules of markets is to "direct greed", for want of a better term, such that the pursuit of profit results in benefits for society as a whole. The banking system is a huge fail against that, and has been for at last a couple of decades and getting worse. We can do much better than that.
Click to expand...

Money laundering, tipping off, failing to report can carry substancial custodial sentences.

Buying and selling is by nature a potential loss maker. People need to expect that. If I buy Tesco shares 4 years ago (which I did, thousands worth) and sell them now, I make a whopping loss. Who's fault is that, the lying directors about their profits, my niaviety, the company. Losses happen. By and large retail investors don't lose out too much and can invest in cash investments, bonds etc. There has to be an element of loss to make the rewards greater by going stock market. People invest in such things to make money, there is no other reason for it.

Basically we need free market forces, but without any criminality.[/QUOTE]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top