Page 1 of Oh Well Thats All Right Then :)

They said sorry after all :/ No mention if they gave back their bonuses for the last few years tho? f***ing tossers the lot of them

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7880292.stm

Unfortunately mbilko you`re falling into the same "Daily Mail" reporting trap that everyone else seems to be into as well.

It isn`t their fault specifically. They are apologising for their part in the global crisis.
The WHOLE banking sector has to take a portion of the blame for failing to see the risky products they were trading.

However, the majority of these stem from the `sub-prime` mortgage market in the US.
Essentially, mortgages were given to people who could not pay them back, then those mortgages were rolled up into (very complicated) risk products and sold on to other financial institutions.

Credit risk is a very, very complicated area to work in (my wife did it for a few years) and whilst they should have spotted these risky products early on, it wasn`t helped by the various credit ratings that were being handed out by the credit rating companies such as S&P (who, I believe, said that Lehmans were a much lower risk than they actually were).

RBS itself has had various financial issues, mainly stemming from its take over of ABN (for which it paid way too much IMO). But...94.5% of the shareholders agreed to the purchase! So who`s to blame there?

What annoys me is that in an attempt to report the whole thing as news items, the general press tries to simplify (read "dumb it down") the situation but often fails to mention the relevant facts.

With regards to their bonuses, I agree that there are often exorbitant payouts for some executives. They should be performance related payouts, but it is the measure of that performance that needs a review (IMO).

"Build a man a fire, and he`ll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he`ll be warm for the rest of his life."
-Terry Pratchett.

Think Clarkson summed it up perfectly...

They lent money to the Jerry Springer audience and now we`re screwed..

Yeah, I`d tend to agree with that!

"Build a man a fire, and he`ll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he`ll be warm for the rest of his life."
-Terry Pratchett.

Quote:
Unfortunately mbilko you`re falling into the same "Daily Mail" reporting trap that everyone else seems to be into as well.

It isn`t their fault specifically. They are apologising for their part in the global crisis.

Is he really falling into a trap??

I mean for a start they are only apologising because they are being forced to
From what I hear they spent a hell of a lot more time chucking blame at every other bugger under the sun
Sure there are many places to blame - we all know that, I dont think these people need to talk for ages trying to remove as much from their shoulders as possible

They had no banking qualifications between them from what was said on the news last night - Why would be one major question??

One of them apparently chose to sack an employee who said that if they didnt do something fast this exact problem would rise - Why would be another major issue?


Ok, it probably is wrong of mbilko`s post to almost vilify the four of them and no one else however I think it is equally wrong to ignore the fact that these guys have a fairly large amount of blame to shoulder - at the end of the day the buck stops at the top, these people shoudl have been trained and aware enough of their business to know what was going on and take appropriate action

They either didnt know what they should have
or
Failed to take the action necesary

either way they fecked up somewhere




YNWA
A.C.C
"Clarkson you infantile pillock" - J May, Top Gear, 9/11/2008

This item was edited on Wednesday, 11th February 2009, 13:36

Quote:
They had no banking qualifications between them from what was said on the news last night - Why would be one major question??

Look at the majority of the past & present government ministers in cabinet positions, hardly any of them has ever had qualifications in the area they`re in charge of.
I`m sure its the same for a lot of companies (not just the financial sector).

Quote:
Ok, it probably is wrong of mbilko`s post to almost vilify the four of them and no one else...
I think this is my main issue with the whole situation.
The UK banks all have a part to play in this (as I`ve already mentioned) and have to take some of the blame, but the press seem to be making villains of these bankers (and anyone who works for them) in general, lumping everyone in banking into the `greedy bar steward` group. Yes they messed up, and they`re apologising for their mistakes.

But the press loves a witch hunt and with the dumbed-down reporting we often see portray just these guys as the main culprits, which anyone with a little bit of financial knowledge will know is not the case. Sure, some of them may have exacerbated the issue, but they didn`t `cause` it.

"Build a man a fire, and he`ll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he`ll be warm for the rest of his life."
-Terry Pratchett.

Quote:
Yes they messed up, and they`re apologising for their mistakes

voluntarily??

i;d not find it too hard to apologise if i;d been handed massive salaries, bonuses and god knows what else and (presumably) dont need to work again!!!


Quote:
But the press loves a witch hunt and with the dumbed-down reporting we often see portray just these guys as the main culprits, which anyone with a little bit of financial knowledge will know is not the case

Well I do have some financial knowledge

Quote:
Sure, some of them may have exacerbated the issue, but they didn`t `cause` it.

Well surely that depends on what part of the problem you look at

I mean they blatently cant be responsible for the original loaning of money to yanks who couldnt afford it

But, you cant tell me that they didnt have the slightest idea that their bank was buying up dangerous levels of these risky assets??
And if they didnt, well i;d argue in their position they should have known
Again in either case they are the person who gets paid to know and take the paudits / blame for these things when they go well/wrong

In the case of their individual banks then I think the majority of the blame falls with them
In the case of the underlying reason why this has hit the global markets, well then they probably aren;t


For instance isnt there one of the big banks who hasnt being hit by this too much (Barclays or Lloyds I think)
Why were they not hit??
because the people running the business did their job and ensured taht their bank was not hideously exposed to these packages if (when) they went the way of the pear


YNWA
A.C.C
"Clarkson you infantile pillock" - J May, Top Gear, 9/11/2008

This item was edited on Wednesday, 11th February 2009, 14:06

Quote:
Well I do have some financial knowledge
Wasn`t a dig at you mate. Was speaking about the general public, who probably do not have that knowledge and can be easily misled by the media.

Quote:
But, you cant tell me that they didnt have the slightest idea that their bank was buying up dangerous levels of these risky assets??

It all comes down to the risk assessment as I hinted at originally.

Credit risk is a nightmare pure and simple. It takes some brilliant quant mathematicians to come up with the algorythms they use to calculate risk.
And if the credit rating agencies over-rate the institutions (as they appeared to have done for Lehmans for example) and your credit risk systems are partially based on those ratings (which a lot of them are) - then you`re making fundamentally flawed risk assessments.

I`m sure that a fair few of them did realise that they were over-exposed, but they couldn`t start dropping the products like hot potatoes without making the situation ten times worse for themselves and everyone else. Its just unfortunate that most banks had some of these dodgy products and all had to somehow offload them (or write them off in most cases!).

Barclays has been hit fairly badly by it all, and sought some serious capital from the middle east (rather than take the UK government`s money). They`ve still made £5bn in profits though.
Lloyds I`m not sure about, but they have taken £17bn of the Government`s `bail-out` money haven`t they?

Quote:
In the case of their individual banks then I think the majority of the blame falls with them
I personally think it lies with the board as a whole for failing to properly assess the institution`s risk/exposure. But the media appears to portray the UK banks as the villains and cause of this whole situation.
Perhaps that`s me mis-interpreting their reports, but that`s just how it appears to me.

"Build a man a fire, and he`ll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he`ll be warm for the rest of his life."
-Terry Pratchett.

Quote:
It isn`t their fault specifically

Oh yes it is.

They gift wrapped sh*t to sell as chocolate with their `financial instruments`.

They should be made to flog all of their fancy corporate HQs/hotels/country houses/golf courses/boats, etc., etc., and be forced to relocate to an industrial estate until they sort themselves out.

And Bozo Brown just let them get on with it because the government is largely populated by dim wits who just didn`t understand what they were up to as they trousered the cash.

Prudence my a*rse.

As for `bankers` with no banking experience.....Jesus!!!

Quote:
original loaning of money to yanks who couldnt afford it
...Our banks lent to brits who couldn`t/can`t afford it too, it isn`t just about the yanks... I mean, we had people releasing equity to buy cars, holidays etc...that is completely irresponsible lending and borrowing...you can`t blame the americans for that particular bit.

The sales (of loans etc...) culture has doninated the banking industry for the last 15 years, which is part of the reason why that these knighted big bosses, were not necesarily banking experts, they were business men.
Maximising revenue, to which their bonuses and commission were based, was the name of the game...