BBC Blog Network

User Profile

TheresOnly1Soupey

Listed below are comments made by TheresOnly1Soupey between Tuesday, 10th February 2009 and Friday, 13th February 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Chelsea reduces dependence on Abramovich 1:44pm on 13 Feb 2009 Robert,

The world is in financial meltdown, we're on the cusp of a complete change in World economics and you're reporting on a Russian Oligarth and a football club.

Really - is there nothing else to talk about? What about the fact that none of the 'top men' in out biggest UK banks had any formal banking qualifications?

How about this statement by Tom McKillop:
" *
* About the versions

Page last updated at 12:47 GMT, Friday, 13 February 2009
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Bank chiefs 'should be qualified'
Sir Fred Goodwin and Andy Hornby
The former bank bosses apologised for their part in the crisis

The government is being urged to ensure that in future the chief executives of Britain's banks have a "recognised banking qualification".

The call has come in a Commons motion, tabled by the Labour MPs Gordon Prentice and Paul Flynn.

It follows the admission in a select committee hearing from former bosses of the RBS and HBOS that they did not have any banking qualifications.

Both banks were "bailed out" with £37bn of taxpayers money.

The four former bosses of the two biggest UK casualties of the banking crisis apologised "profoundly and unreservedly" for their banks' failure in a select committee hearing on Tuesday.

The former bank chiefs admitted they failed to predict the collapse of wholesale banking markets and said the bonus culture had contributed to the crisis and needed to be reviewed.

'Finance courses'

All four were quizzed by MPs on the Treasury Committee on their qualifications for running large retail banks.

Sir Tom McKillop, former chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland who admitted its £50bn takeover of ABN Amro had been a "bad mistake", said he did not have any formal banking qualifications.

When the Conservative MP Peter Viggers asked Sir Tom, a former ICI research scientist and ex chief executive of pharmaceuticals giant AstraZeneca, if he had understood the full complexities of the financial instruments devised by the "clever young men" at RBS, he replied: "You said 'full complexities'. I would say no."

A clear case of 'old boy network' getting you a job.

....or maybe you don't want to talk about it as your father is Labour peer and it might seem hypocritical that your career has been aided by the 'old boy network' of your father which allows you to get special access to the treasury's secrets.

Despite being a football fan this report has no place here at this time - it would have been much more interesting if you had written about how Abramovich and his other Oligarths got their wealth when Russia moved towards capitalism and the poor of the country were conned out of their shares in the big and profitable industries by wicked men like Abramovich who offered bread in return for the starving shareholders.

Now that's what I call Capitalism in purest and brutalist form. Screwing the poor for as much as you can whilst being hailed a hero and admired by others for having such extremes of wealth.

Well I hope the Russian people can see where that particular road ends - with your economy in ruins and 3 million jobless by Christmas (if there aren't that many already) and all you have to show for it is a pathetic and unconvincing 'sorry' from the men who created it.

I would also like to know why your new book seems to be a lot more disparaging of the money men in this country - but your stories here are not.

Are you being censored by the BBC?
Why Sir James Crosby resigned 12:05pm on 13 Feb 2009 #359 adamsmiththegreat

What a load of claptrap - your explanation of what brought down HBOS is as outdated as the 'invisible hand' your namesake claimed existed.

Of course it wasn't funding - funding was merely one of the SYMPTOMS of the problem, not the CAUSE of the problem.

The excessive risk taking meant that there was too much money sloshing around that was effectively 'promises' as the bankers were all counting on continued growth (of the FTSE, the housing market and the economy)

When all these promises came under scrutiny they were found to be just that. When the US sub-prime market started defaulting the value of these promises fell dramaitcally and suddenly all spare cash had to be used to plug the holes.

....this caused the funding shortage - plain and simple.

With regard to your personal attack on Moore's interpersonal skills - when you're a professional you don't let wishy washy feelings get in the way of your profession.

Some of the most annoying people in work are also the best at their jobs.
The whole point of the Risk manager is not the be friends with everyone - but to clearly highlight excessive risk.

I don't know anything about Jo Dawson, but the mere fact that she was a 'friend of Crosby' is enough to demonstrate that she could not have been independent in her analysis of HBOS's risk.

....and that my son, is borne out by the compete and utter failure of the bank causing it to have to be taken under state control (which will be the eventual outcome).
Rio, China and British investors 4:27pm on 12 Feb 2009 #86 sutara

I agree with your sentiments, but this is not how businesses work in this system.

If the shareholders are (by proxy) pensioners (or will be pensioners) who are merely trying to save money whilst working so they have a future income when they're not - are you saying that they need to brush up on their corporate Governance and accounting skills before they want to indulge in future security?

That would be all well and good, if it wasn't for the fact most people don't choose private pensions, the Government has been pushing people on to them for sometime by making the state pension more and more unappealing.

I don't believe for one minute that "Mr A small shareholder" would have accepted his good returns if he had any idea about the risks that were being taken.

How can he know what risks were being taken when the banks are unaware themselves.
I have worked with risk in finance before, most banks think it's a guide for them and a marker for their 'riskyness'.

In reality it's merely a probability of everything going wrong (and the probability of the effects of that). It doesn't tell you when that will happen nor does it give you a magic formula for avoiding disaster. You can use it to position yourself to mitigate certain risks (Credit, Currency, Market), but they all rely on you deciding which is most likely to affect your business (i.e. a guess)

The last few days have re-emphasised my original belief that the men at the top do not understand risk in any way shape or form.
...which is fine, so long as you listen to the experts you employ for that purpose and not sack them when they aren't telling you what you want to hear!"
Rio, China and British investors 2:35pm on 12 Feb 2009 #52

"when my Barclays,Soc Gen & Hitachi capital shares were paying big dividends, my house was increasing by 2% a Month and I was getting regular pay rises from my employer"

...and not once did you ask yourself "Where does the profit come from?"

If you had thought about it you would have realised the situation was unsustainable.

You need to aks yourself "Why was my bank offering 100% mortgages".

The answer you seek is competition, which forces market participants to continually cut margins to ensure survival, taking bigger and bigger risks to achieve this.

It's how capitalism works, and with the combination of every other company doing the same you end up chasing a diminishing profit.

A fisherman may work alone, but collectively (and without realising it) he and his peers will over-fish reducing stocks in the chasing of the increased haul.

....replace fisherman with Banker and fish with Money and it's the same story over and over again.
Rio, China and British investors 2:29pm on 12 Feb 2009 #49 - very true....however if society was educated as to how a Capitalist society works then they would reject it.

.....that's why the 'masters of the universe' keep the rules to themselves, for without their inside knowledge the public would clearly see what a bunch of ignoramus's they all are.
Rio, China and British investors 2:12pm on 12 Feb 2009 Robert,

I have to take issue with your inaccruate picture painted above.

Shareholders do NOT control companies, majority shareholders do.

Making a statement like that is akin to suggesting that Gordon Brown was chosen by the public and not cronies like Bernie Eccleston and a myriad of wealthy bourgoisie.

More people didn't vote than voted for Labour in the last election. Small shareholder stakes in companies do not often vote due to the feeling of powerlessness (just like a Democratic voter).

Even when they do they are often fed incorrect information by directors and other shareholders who are promoting their own interests.

I'm sure if HBOS had announced a couple of years ago "hey, we're going to start investing in some right wild stuff, it's dangerous, risky but might make a lot of money" - then maybe the shareholders would have made the right decision at the time.

....but please show me from any past AGM where the risk assesment is in black and white and not buried deep within the accountants artistry.

Remember that a lot of investors are not accountants, nor are they industry experts. They are merely working people who believed successive Government lies of "you don't need a state pension - a private one will be better"

As most of the majority shareholders in any bank are a) Other banks b) Hedge funds run by ex-bankers
.....it doesn't say much for the objectivity of the large shareholders.
Rio, China and British investors 1:56pm on 12 Feb 2009 #1 - Good point, and I would also add that 'failure under the pain of death' is a damned good motivator and should be adopted here.

I bet Fred 'the shred' Goodwin and brood of in-bred crooks really WOULD BE SORRY then.

I'm sure banks would have had more respect for the FSA if they were armed and had a secret police division.

I hope this puts into perspective all those anti-China sentiments about their authoritarian state.

AT LEAST THEIR BANKERS AREN'T LAUGHING AT THE PEOPLE AS THEY RUN OFF WITH ALL THE MONEY.
Why Sir James Crosby resigned 1:48pm on 12 Feb 2009 So just to re-cap on recent events.

1) The FSA has been found out as a corrupt and / or useless regulator

2) The Tri-partite system allowed each party to blame the other in a 'ring a round' of blame.

3) The people who were employed to look at risk were fired if their views intefered with profits.

4) The people running the banks and making the key decisions don't know anything about banking.

5) The ministers in the Exchequer and the Cabinet themselves clearly have no idea what's going on.

6) The press don't understand the issues, but are quick to tell everyone the bad news (because they live in the belief that only bad news sells papers)

With markets being wholly reliant on confidence to keep them afloat - it's actually amazing they haven't been in free fall since this thing all started.

I would also add into this mix that the BoE clearly doesn't know what it's doing (or whoever gives it the mandate) as they are changing rates (and even proposing printing money) based on inflation data for the last 3 months.

First of all they cannot realise this data is not and has never been accurate and secondly how fast do they think people and businesses react to rate changes?
My mortgage has dropped dramatically but it will be a while until I have built up enough savings from that to feel confident to start buying again.

.....but the BoE already have their finger on the 'print' button....

Absolute idiocy.
Why Sir James Crosby resigned 5:14pm on 11 Feb 2009 What have I been saying for months now?

"Not one of the directors questioned yesterday had a SINGLE BANKING QUALIFICATION BETWEEN THEM"

Would you go to a doctor who had not previous medical experience?

Probably not, but worse still, would you put that same Doctor in charge of many other Doctors?

It would be madness surely.

Well that's how this system works, and don't be impressed by the harsh questions posed by ministers yesterday - they are all in the same incestuous loop, it just happens the spotlight has moved at the moment.

So now can the public believe that our system promotes fools to the top of the game whilst talent and real skill is left to waste on the floors of factories and low paid industry?

Why did the FSA employ the man who made the mess to advise the Government on how to clean it up?

Robert - get out there and start asking the awkward questions.

How about:

"Does the Government realise that for some time Capitalism has been replacing the diminishing profit by increasing debt levels of the consumer to 'create a market' and that if this continues the crashes will be bigger and more destructive and eventually the Economy will collapse?"

Replacing diminishing profit with debt will speed up the collapse of Capitalism - and I don't think that's what you're trying to do now is it?

Capitalism is a system based on greed and competition, eventually it will suffocate itself.

We had better start looking at another way quickly, or it will be too late!
The questions for the former bank bosses 4:56pm on 10 Feb 2009 I think the dawn is coming for the majority of citizens in this country.

The realisation that the Economic system we employ promotes greed, selfishness and destroys human social relations.

The men (and they are mostly men) at the top are no exception. They are just greedier and more ruthless than the rest of us are prepared to be.

So you can all bang on about bonuses being unfair, how annoying it is that your pensions have collapsed - but the majority of people in this country (and this blog) think this is the best system to use.

The argument seems to be boiling down to one about 'the rules of the game'.

No-one seems to be asking why we're playing this game to start with, whether it's the right game to play and whether there are other games we could all be playing.

...no you all keep moaning about the rules - Peston keeps asking about the rules - but I don't actually care about the rules.

...it's the game I object to - for me the rules are irrelevant. Even if everyone sticks to the most stringent of rules laid down by the hardest of authorities - we will still get greed, bankers will still take more than their fair share and the little man will still get screwed over.

It's all in the game folks.

Has anyone considered that if we weren't all wasting our time finding more and more ingeneuos ways of "making a buck" or "screwing someone" we might have actually come up with a new game that does work?

Think of all the intelligent people who used their brains to make CDO's and SIV's and similar products - what could they have done instead?

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

TheresOnly1Soupey