BBC Blog Network

User Profile

roman221

Listed below are comments made by roman221 between Thursday, 5th February 2009 and Friday, 3rd April 2009.

«Newer
Older»

RBS: Stop the flogging 09:35am on 03 Apr 2009 ... It is simply not true that it was purely ABN AMRO acquisition that sank RBS. This sort of plainly and deliberately incorrect statements by Hampton confirm forcefully that we need more public flogging of these people to get them in proper shape. The annual return of RBS should now have a disclosure of the measure of flogging that its directors received in the year so that the public have confidence that they received enough...
Will Obama pay Goodwin's pension? 10:25am on 25 Mar 2009 The dividends of Fred's investments are starting to flow in for Fred...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7962825.stm
Toon army v me 3:54pm on 20 Feb 2009 Robert, you are a good reporter so bring in the news & the views. This self-indulgent "visit to the North East" is diminishing your value.
A brief escape 10:41am on 18 Feb 2009 Good to hear from you!
The questions for the former bank bosses 2:14pm on 10 Feb 2009
We need tangible responsibility. If the bankers took action that caused losses to others then they need to provide compensation... Yes they are asking for bonuses!

To resolve this really needs a revolution and bankers to face the firing squad in the process. The odds of this happening are on the up-tick...
Are Barclays' profits irrelevant? 1:54pm on 09 Feb 2009 It is rather simple: Massive self-justified deal-making that Barlays (and others) have run-up created massive notional value of assets and liabilities. This notional value has to be undone to put the value of the banks' balance sheet in line with value of the real economy as the banks can only grow at a rate real economy grows. This adjustment which in good times created book profits will have to be undone in the process of reversal which will require of undoing of profits and therefore booking of losses. Barclays and RBS with their swelled balance sheets are in prime position to take heavy losses in this process. Barclays IS already bankrupt; all it takes is for the regulator to recognize it and nationalize it before being forced to do so by the market and ending up nationalizing the bank at hash-up terms detrimental to the taxpayer!
Are Barclays' profits irrelevant? 1:29pm on 09 Feb 2009 Barclays (and RBS) are bankrupt in fact and should be nationalised. This dancing around just prolongs the inevitable. Precisely as has been suggested, Barclays misundestands its own exposure: it can not take confort that on net basis its exposure to derivatives is nil (or limited). Credit risk on its long position is VERY unlikely to be matched by credit risk on its short position. So the view that Barclays can generate income from ever raising volume of deals with long-short offset is naiive (if that view would be valid it would be possible to take an UNLIMITED value of exposure for as long as long-short positions offset each other). Barclays needs to change fundamentally the way of doing business and the road ahead for Barclays to achieve such a change is so unclear that the bank in current situation is worthless. Its equity has no real value.
Bonus buck stops with Brown 3:01pm on 06 Feb 2009 122: ... you are plainly wrong!

A call not to pay bonuses amounts to a tempered and mild-mannered view in the circumstances.

If just and fair had any bearing on the matter of bankers' bonuses, at the juncture of damage the bankers have done, we would not be discussing the topic of paying or not paying the bonuses but whether the bankers should have their heads put on spike or face other comparably jusfiable punitive reward. It is only a testimony to this dysfuncional society when some individuals can do massive damage and walk away not only free of any punitive measure but with massive pay!
Bonus buck stops with Brown 10:26am on 06 Feb 2009 There is no dilemma at all: no bonuses should be paid to any banker whether he/she directly contributed to the loss or not. And here is why: If RBS and other bailed-out banks were not bailed out they would be out of business with all the staff out of work - which is what would happen to us non-bankers. So the bankes would be on umployment benefits and that is the level of pay that they should be receiving. The fact that their basic pay has not been compromised at all is already unfair enough. To open a discussion on whether they should be paid bonuses is a spit in the face of all the rest of us.
Should bankers repay bonuses? 6:09pm on 05 Feb 2009 Logical and fair: banker's need to repay the bonuses received for underserved performance. Liability to pay should fall on bank's executives as a back stop; if a lower-ranking banker absconds before paying back the monies due his/her superior shall be liable. Bankers who do not pay their bonuses back should not have access to ANY publicly financed benefits until they do pay the bonuses back!

«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

roman221