BBC Blog Network

User Profile

whatevernext1

Listed below are comments made by whatevernext1 between Wednesday, 6th May 2009 and Wednesday, 8th July 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Bankers more confused 11:03pm on 08 Jul 2009 Will the Tories when they get in nationalise RBS and Lloyds, with Barclays and HSBC moving to the US and running down some of their UK operations?

If the Tories carry our what they propose and keep King in place, King will require substantially more capital in the banks judging from all his populist pronouncements, which is highly unlikely to be provided by the institutions, given the likely poor performance of banks which will be required to hold more capital and lend more to less credit worthy businesses (afterall King has said more capital is needed to lend more and absorb losses-why should our pension funds provide this capital throwing good money after bad, given that they have lost so much already).

Therefore the Government would have to step in and nationalise those banks which could not escape the UK i.e. Lloyds and RBS.

So we could see a new Tory government nationalising two of the major UK banks, shortly after coming to power, with the other two major banks fleeing the UK!

How to inspire international and domestic investor confidence - not.

Given King's incompetence and poor judgement for example in setting interest rates, forecasting what's happening in the economy and being slow to react to the liquidity crisis, if more power is given to the BoE, King should be replaced with someone more competent and better able to understand the consequences of their actions.

Otherwise we will have an even bigger mess.

By the way does Osborne give anyone any confidence that he knows what he's doing, and is not just jumping on bandwagons? I am beginning to wonder whether the Tories will be as bad as Labour.
Bank of England wins victory - but for what? 12:07pm on 06 Jul 2009 Is Labour trying to placate King before the next election by appealing to his pompousity in giving him further power?

Having done so much damage leading the MPC and BoE, he can now do further damage leading this new body.

Still if it stops him undermining Labour and leaking stuff to the tories, Labour clearly regards the damage he further does to the economy as worth it.

I don't know whether we as taxpayers paid for King to occupy the Royal Box at Wimbledon on so many occasions, but I would vote for the taxpayer to pay for him to attend other international tennis tournaments, preferably for long periods, and in far flung places.
Why bankers aren't worth it 10:30pm on 05 Jul 2009 Very good article, but the comments apply to many plc's as most have boards which are ripping shareholders (i.e. our pension savings) off.

Sadly the people who could stop this are fund managers who are also on the gravy train and therfore have no incentive to defend the interests of the real shareholders i.e. us who supply the money through our pension savings.

The major political parties do not want to upset the apple cart because of the contriubutions and jobs MP's get from City institutions and major plc's.

All very cosy, and largely unnoitced by the general popoulation who wonder on approaching retirement age what's happened to their pension.

Talking of pensions I see King has been enjoying himself in the Royal Box at Wimbledon on several occasions including today's men's finals.

I know the taxpayer has paid for his £5.7 m pension pot, but are we paying for his trips to Wimbledon? If so it's money well spent, as at least he should do less damage to the economy and our pensions whilst distracted elsewhere.
I could operate trains 09:57am on 01 Jul 2009 The government is messing it up again and judging from comments made by a Libdem MP this morning, the LibDems are clueless.

The decision is political, with the government wishing to appear tough, as it would cost the taxpayer less to have renegotiated.

There is an argument that other TOC's would seek to renegotiate but providing the TOC's are making a profit or manageable losses in their SPV's, they would not hand the contracts back if the government refused to renegotiate. If they are making unmanageable losses on a contract (as appears the case with NEX) they would try to renegotiate anyway, and hand the contract back if the Government refused to renegotiate.

There are a small limited number of companies able to manage these contracts and in future, seeing NEX's experience and treatment, they will quite rightly be far more careful in their tendering to ensure they make large profits to cover their risks - that means higher prices/lower premia or the government keep the contracts, with all the inefficiencies and taxpayer cost that will entail.

NEX itself has I understand been very efficient in managing the contract - will the government be any more efficient? I doubt it.

Well done NEX for ensuring your risks are limited - after all that's what the government and Mr King have advocated with the banks (whilst confusingly at the same time telling them to lend more!?).
Hester's Royal remuneration 7:15pm on 22 Jun 2009 It seems our pension funds are going to continue to pay for the greed of company directors and the gross incompetence of not only directors but also the Government.

The Government may make a profit on its shares at 70p but our pension funds will still bear a very substantial loss.

Hester's LTIP award which is measured over 3 years, over which time we will be out of the recession and the credit crunch, should have been based on at least £2.

Unless Hester is a total disaster RBS' share price will rise to over 70p as the recession ends, bad debts fall and growth resumes.

RBS' share price was not long ago over £7 and it was worth over £100b. Even with the capital injections (I seem to recall the 2008 rights issue was priced at over £2) and the ABN Amro mistake, 70p is undemanding to say the least - the price was 50p or so a couple of months ago.

Labour (and the Tories for that matter given MPs' directorships of hedge funds etc) must think the British public are stupid.

Sadly they are probably right, as the public, even if they realised they are largely the real shareholders in these companies, generally do not understand and will do nothing about the system of corporate governance which allows the fund managers (who are grossly overpaid themselves from our savings and who do such a wonderful job losing our pensions savings), to agree to grand theft by directors from our pensions.
Spanking bank investors 7:12pm on 04 Jun 2009 Professional investors failing to control management, whether in risk-taking, stupid and expensive acquisitions (such as Wolseley), or remuneration is a result of the lack of accountability both professional investors and management have to the people providing the money, mainly us as pension savers.

This lack of accountability suits professional investors and management of course because they can pay themselves huge sums with our money without reference to us.

It also suits the government as we see the large political donations roll in from the City and big business, and ex ministers are given very lucrative appointments by PLC's etc (I noticed Sugar - a man who sets a sterling example by employing people who lie on cv's - visited Brown today, perhaps Brown is to be the next Apprentice).

Meanwhile we have people like Saint Vince blandly saying the shareholders should pay, when we pension savers are the shareholders who are doing the paying without having any say at all in such matters as senior management remuneration.

Corporate governance in the UK is as corrupt as MP's expenses, which we are also paying for of course.
Executive gravy train stalls 10:20pm on 20 May 2009 Only 60% of "shareholders" voted against despite the climate being so obviously against such greed. Presumably the 60% felt public pressure is mounting such that they had to do something whereas in the past they turned a blind eye.

The key problem is that the fund maangers are not the real shareholders - who are mainly pension savers - and fund managers and others in the City are on the same gravy train of paying themselves huge amounts effectively from our savings as the PLC directors.

Labour has not changed corporate governance to allow those whose money is actually invested in these companies the ability to vote on key issues such as Board appointments and remuneration.

Why?-because they get huge political contributions from the City, PLC directors etc and former cabinet ministers and senior civil servants get lucrative appointments with PLC's and in the City.

From expenses to corporate governance, corruption is rife, and we the ordinary public are the ones paying for it through taxes and raids on our pension savings.
BT: Self-inflicted wounds 3:32pm on 14 May 2009 I wrote to Verhaayen and the BT board some years ago to complain about BT's service,but more importantly to complain about his huge remuneration which I think was about £3m that year, asking him and the rest of the board (including such labour noteworthies as Baroness Jay)how he could possibly be worth that much money, particularly given BT's revenues are largely captive (line rentals etc).

I did not get a response from any board member.

Yet another example of directors reducing the value of our pensions by taking such a large part of a company's worth for themselves whilst performing poorly, and being mainly interested in feathering their own nests, aided and abetted by fund managers who stand idly by, raking in their own huge remuneration, which of course we pay for too.
Brown's right royal dilemma 10:20pm on 06 May 2009 A major error has been to appoint and let Labour cronies run Royal Mail for many years.

Leighton seems to have treated it as a hobby - perhaps because he realises it is beyond his capabilities to run it properly.

They have increased prices way above inflation and reduced the service so much so it is now very unreliable in my area.
An offer Jag can refuse 10:13pm on 06 May 2009 I am surprised this hopeless government has not fallen for Tata's line. Irrespective of the money pumped in, Tata in time will reduce the UK workforce, as India is a cheaper centre and many believe the Indians are cleverer and more hard working than the average native here - well done Labour for insisting on conditions.

«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

whatevernext1