Davos banker is dazed and confused

Coming soon: "I'm A Banker, Get Me Out Of Here"

> Long story short, bankers here are dazed and confused.

Let me make it easy for them. We want wealthy banks and poor bankers, not poor banks and wealthy bankers... it that simple enough for them?

".....the (Obama's) scheme is vague, confused and we don't know what he's on about..."

Does that not well match the messages from banking and finance?

What's so wrong about a service industry concentrating on service?

If reform means we have to suffer a longer 'crisis', may be we need to to get our thinking straight.

And since you asked. Diddums. It could all have been avoided if the B&F profession had regulated itself, like a profession.

So what you've really found, is that these financial wizard's are in denial of their impending fate.

The trouble is that Obama has not lived up to expectations. He lost the senate election because he has failed to deliver, despite having more political capital to spend than almost any incoming president I can remember.

Not only has he backed down to the Israelis, and shown a degree of ineptitude over healthcare reform, but also his failure to take the banks in hand has shown an unexpected degree of weakness - and if he can't get that done with overwhelming public support world-wide, then it doesn't bode well for the future when the really tough times come along. So voters told him that - and his latest stance on the banks is simply his response to that application of the whip - despite the fact that he should have done it unprompted a long tiome ago before the bonus thing raised it's head again.

For what we need banks for, it doesn't take much "talent", just a steady hand on the tiller and that needs to be rammed home very, very clearly to these people. Therefore there is no need for excessive reward. If you want to set up an investment company, go do it with your own money, not ours.

I have a feeling of gloom about it though, since recent history suggests that as soon as he sees a way out of doing anything radical he will take it. I hope I'm wrong. But I do believe that the policy he has put forward is exactly the right solution - good luck to him with that.

The more confused and dazzed this poor, poor bankers are the better. Their megalomaniac, uncritical self-adoration has cost countries around the world a few trillion US dollars, has made hundred of millions of tax payers a lot poorer and made millions of workers unemployed. No more soft touch for those bankers. Paul Volcker (former Chairman of US Federal Reserve Bank)is absolutely right in wanting to rein in these bankers: Volcker has seen the hybris and the moral blindness of bankers for far too long, from very close-by, to be taken in by the crocodile tears of those poor, poor bankers.
You can read many more arguments for the urgent need to rein in an out of control global banking system here:
https://globalinsights.wordpress.com/

It appears the only way the bankers will co-operate is to let them sink and finance the system directly until we have some one in the banking system who will look after the whole enconomy!

Be very carefull Mr. Obama as the last person/God to upset the bankers was crucified and Easter is fast approaching!

"1) the scheme is vague, confused and we don't know what he's on about;"

....what like the ratings on securitised debt was vague and confused? _ what's the matter bankers - can't keep up with the 'innovation'. Maybe you're not as bright as your salary suggests.

"2) it won't achieve its stated aim of reducing the risks of another meltdown in the banking system (although quite how they know that if they don't understand what he's saying is beyond me);"

This is because they know nothing will stop the meltdown - bankers are subtley saying 'this won't fix it - nothing will fix it, and this might actually make things worse'.
...although when your facing financial armageddon - is there a 'worse'?

"3) if President Obama's aim is to savagely reduce banks' direct holdings of tradeable securities, it will lead to a second devastating wave of banks dumping assets - and will risk a return of the credit crunch;"

...and if he doesn't we will continue as before and the result will be the same. At least our way we get to make some money before the whole thing drops like a stone.


"4) the confidence of bankers - which the bankers themselves say is so important to any serious revival of lending (so aim off) - has been knocked by the perception that the US and Europe are divided on the future structure of their industry;"

So when a banker makes a lending decision - does 'how confident do I feel' play a part in that decision? No wonder they lent to people they couldn't afford to pay it back - I wonder if a lot of mortgage approvals were done on Friday afternoons following a boozy lunch when 'confidence is high'. It's not confidence they want - it's reassurance that if they re-engage in lending, they must inevitabley lend to risky subjects (because all the safe ones have gone off borrowing) and they seek clarification from the Government that they will be saved again if it all goes wrong.

"5) bankers' confidence has been knocked further (the poor dears) by confusion over who in the US administration has the ear of the president on financial policy-making (the scheme to shrink the banks was the brainchild of Paul Volcker - that rarity, a central banker with reputation in tact - rather than the supposedly banker-friendly Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner). "

This means they don't know who has the Presidents ear - but unlike the last monkey in power they know it's not one of them. This is why they feel uncertain. I mean would you play in a game of football if you hadn't already 'bunged the ref'? - Banker like to know they will win the game before they start to play it.

Don't worry folks, we have established that due to their huge wages and salaries these bankers are 'hyper-intelligent' and therefore we do not need to concern ourselves with how they manage with new regulation - because I'm sure they'll work it out.

There is an alternative theory that in fact bankers are very, very stupid but believe they are clever because they are highly paid and this is why they didn't see this all coming, and also why they are crying about being chastised for their irresponsibility (which is in fact stupidity - making it very unfair)

However you won't find me signing up to such a theory.....

4) the confidence of bankers - which the bankers themselves say is so important to any serious revival of lending (so aim off) - has been knocked by the perception that the US and Europe are divided on the future structure of their industry;

5) bankers' confidence has been knocked further (the poor dears) by confusion over who in the US administration has the ear of the president on financial policy-making (the scheme to shrink the banks was the brainchild of Paul Volcker - that rarity, a central banker with reputation in tact - rather than the supposedly banker-friendly Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner).

I would almost say the bankers are to be applauded. Almost.

They don't seem to be bleating on that the furious reaction of the public to their trashing of the economy and handsome rewards for being so good at it has reduced their confidence one iota!

Would yells of 'Bankers! Bankers! Bankers! Out! Out! Out!' help?

There can be no greater collection of the dishonest and detached. Apparently they have no understanding of the anger over the damage they have done. Bringing the world economy to a stall because of a bounus driven system that created a housing market secured with no funds. Their heavy-handed lobbyist walking the halls of governments insisting that no regulations be enacted to prevent the coming crisis. Somebody, or many in the trade should be in jail along with their elected facilitators. They think that paying back the taxpayers funds is sufficient, taking no responsbility for the damages they created, reduced retirement accounts, investments and soical costs such as unemployment. They continue to refuse to accept any responsbility for a crisis that can not be denied as their fault. Captialism at its worst.

Why not simply withdraw taxpayer support by degrees? If the bankers don't realise just how easy they have had it or why regulation is so high on the politician's agenda, why not gradually expose them to the realities of the market place bit-by-bit? Not a sudden withdrawal of all support but a progressive reduction in the size of the cushion they currently have.

If they share the pain with the taxpayer, they may finally see the problem from some other perspective than their own.

Could the bankers that don't like these reforms tell us what they want instead?

When they got what they wanted - ie. deregulation aka 'light touch regulation' - the whole system came crashing down.

Well I'm unsurprised they don't want change - the taxpayer is backing their industry as they pocket the bonuses.

News Flash: Turkey doesn't votes for Christmas!

What I dont understand is the fact that the US have two bodies charged to advise on reform : PERAB - Presdident's Economic Recovery Advisory Board ( the Volcker involvement)- independent ; FCIC - Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission - bipartisan Congressional. PERAB seem to be running the latest initiative. Isnt this confusing?

if it was me I would ask President Obama for further instructions. I picked up the impression that wall street was defying his policy reforms and refusing to go along with him. They said they 'bought the white house' and so everyone down the string is going to think that they control the government.

I don't know what anyone else wants but what I want from a bank is simply somewhere to put my money so that I don't have to carry cash. As for the rest of it well I'm still looking for my way of earning a living. If it isn't going to be an inconvenience to anyone else?

Perhaps I could venture a translation from "Davosbankerspeak" to "Manonthestreetspeak"......

1) the scheme is vague, confused and we don't know what he's on about;
"It's shocking.....I don't know which way to place my bets.... what impact is this going to have on my bonus?....quite outrageous government meddling..... an infringement of my human rights"

2) it won't achieve its stated aim of reducing the risks of another meltdown in the banking system (although quite how they know that if they don't understand what he's saying is beyond me);
"I'm very worried that it WILL achieve its stated aim of reducing the risks of another meltdown in the banking system, but only at the cost of a massive reduction in what us bankers are all paid"

3) if President Obama's aim is to savagely reduce banks' direct holdings of tradeable securities, it will lead to a second devastating wave of banks dumping assets - and will risk a return of the credit crunch;
"I can't think of any other good arguments why it won't actually work..... so I think the best thing is probably to make threats to the wider economy"

4) the confidence of bankers - which the bankers themselves say is so important to any serious revival of lending (so aim off) - has been knocked by the perception that the US and Europe are divided on the future structure of their industry;
"Couldn't you guys just leave it up to a few of us bankers in Basel? We really have got the solution to all the worlds problems forever...honest. It's called Basel III"

5) bankers' confidence has been knocked further (the poor dears) by confusion over who in the US administration has the ear of the president on financial policy-making (the scheme to shrink the banks was the brainchild of Paul Volcker - that rarity, a central banker with reputation in tact - rather than the supposedly banker-friendly Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner).
"Well that's astioishing. I never really thought I'd see the day.... but...it looks like Goldmans has lost the US Govt!"

I've got lots of ideas but not ones that anyone else like. Ideas that involve not being electrocuted by my employers 'cos they don't want to spend money on training.

I ask myself what are the main issues for the average Joe or Jane. And being an average Joe I think of my own experiences, namely the mis-selling and plain dishonesty of financial institutions.

And I think if I asked the average Joe or Jane; they would likely point to the mis-selling of financial products, such as
Endowment policies,
Personal equity plans,
Payment protection policies,
Equity release schemes,
Self certification and 100% + mortgages
Unfair bank charges.
Unfair mortgage penalty charges

In fact not a month elapses when some financial institution is reported to have ruined some savers or pensioners investments.

The financial industry has been regulated in the past by the following:
The Bank of England, The Financial Services Authority, The Financial Ombudsman, The Treasury, The Basel ll Agreement, The European Union.

And as I have previously mentioned that’s an awful lot of people doing an awful lot of regulating.

And what has it led to?
A financial crisis
Large numbers of people being systematically disenfranchised of their savings over many years.
Many people being sold hopelessly flawed mortgages which lead to their ultimate destitution and misery.
Unfair bank charges and mortgage penalty charges.

So now I turn my eyes to Davos, what will come of it all?
The answer I feel will be nothing, nothing at all.

The same people who have acted as the wrecking crew at national and individual level will simply return unfettered in any real sense.

Leave the creation of money in private corporate hands, and there is no hope for our children, other than as debt slaves.

So if regulation doesn’t work, and let’s face it hasn’t has it, the only way I can see is for the people to have their own bank, a National Bank.

If we had that, we wouldn’t have to act as guarantors for all the other banks, and their exorbitant bonus structures.

ideas that do not involve the exploitation of self and being left for dead and having all my hard work be for nothing because I never see a penny for my labours.

It is very worrying to think that the Bankers - market makers - have such an influence over the movement of markets, and consequent affect on Joe Bloggs wealth! The Banking industry has been given a far too long leash, and they are still trying to pull very hard at the end of it! They need to be reigned in whether they like it or not.

Some facts and data:

Fed rates:

2001 January 6%
2001 December 1.75% (this did not happen all after 9/11
2003 June 0.25%
2007 August 5.25%

Bank of England rates

2001 January 6%
2001 December 4%
2003 Jun 3.75%
2007 August 5.75%

3 Month Libor

2001 January 5.25%
2001 December 1.88%
2003 June 1.12%
2007 August 5.36%

UK national debt

2001 320 billion
2007 601 billion

US national debt

2001 5.8 trillion
2007 9 trillion

Oil prices doubled between 2001 and 2007, soared higher, plummeted and have doubled again.

President Obama pledges to cut the annual US deficit of 1.3 trillion in half by the end of his first term

Darling defers steps to cut annual deficit of 175 billion

Davos and Bankers are a side-show.

Good story here...

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8483328.stm

'Legendary investor George Soros has called for a radical break-up of banks that are "too big to fail".

He also backed US President Barack Obama's proposed reforms to limit the size of banks at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

Speaking at a private lunch, Mr Soros told journalists that Wall Street bankers opposing Mr Obama's plans were "tone-deaf". '

The banks depend on us borrowing the very thing I have set my mind against. i'm not taking out loans to make risks for uncertainties only to be surrounded by tonnes and tonnes of demands and administration.

Seems like folk aren't content until they have got me running through hoops for them! Well the other guy worked to make money for himself! diddums indeed.

Phooey to all elites apart from the Alps themselves . And a particular phooey to Davos, CH. Does no one remember Adam Le Bon's book "Hitler's Bankers" ? The London Conference on Nazi Gold ? The Struggle the world had to bring the 'pristine' Helvetian Republic to heel ?

Why do the Good and Great have to meet in Switzerland ?

And why is the BIS, used to launder money for the memebers of the SS, there in Basle ?

And the International Red Cross HQ....is it still in Geneva ?

And all this on Holocaust Memorial Day....

"3) if President Obama's aim is to savagely reduce banks' direct holdings of tradeable securities, it will lead to a second devastating wave of banks dumping assets - and will risk a return of the credit crunch;"

If banks are broken up to exclude those wishing to trade on their own account won't this mean that they are allowed to fail? If they hold over-valued assets don't these bad investments need to be flushed from the system?

What's so bad about a credit crunch anyway? Doesn't it just mean that we get back to a balanced economy quicker, rather than trying to prop up the unsustainable situation we have now and storing up a bigger problem for the future?

Thanks Robert - especially love Davos man. Is it 90% women or more balanced?

I would like a simple solution. The owners of the banks tell those who run them what to do (strategically) and set remuneration for those employed to do what they have been told to do.

As we own the banks - as taxpayers for now, but more often as pension-building fund-holders - can we not introduce ways for the owners to do this more pro-actively?

I suspect we would recognise the need for sensible pay and, yes comparatives too, but it would be restrained. Likewise the business.

Or maybe this is the role of the non-executive - too easily sucked in to group think?

Hope Davos is better than Bogner..

21. At 2:58pm on 27 Jan 2010, danj180 wrote:
Good story here...
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8483328.stm
'Legendary investor George Soros has called for a radical break-up of banks that are "too big to fail".
===============================

Is that the same legendary "man who broke the Bank of England" in 1997 costing The Tresury £3.4 billion?

23. At 3:07pm on 27 Jan 2010, Amused2Death wrote:
Phooey to all elites apart from the Alps themselves . And a particular phooey to Davos, CH. Does no one remember Adam Le Bon's book "Hitler's Bankers" ? The London Conference on Nazi Gold ? The Struggle the world had to bring the 'pristine' Helvetian Republic to heel ?
Why do the Good and Great have to meet in Switzerland ?
-----------------------------------------

Because nothing has changed. The same clique that sponsored Hitler is milking us now. They meet in Switzerland because it's safe heaven for crooks.

The banks reaction to Obama's proposals are unsurprising and no-one expected them to whoop with joy.

However they know that change has to happen and in the end they will accept the inevitable and co-operate with governments to better regulate and streamline the banking system.

No gambler can lose money and expect someone else to pick up the losses so why should they? It's been Win Win for banks and Lose Lose for taxpayers.

Heaven knows when they will start making real profits again and contribute to the tax take. They will be writing off losses for years to come so we cannot rely on them to stimulate the economy in the short term.

Change is complicated to enact and will take many years to put in place they say but once it has begun it will strangely speed up once they know that that is what they have to do. They certainly managed to move extremely quickly during the banking crisis in 2008.

So far in 12 months no one has done anything meaningful at all to solve the banking problems and this is the first suggestion that holds any merit. If governments don't seize the opportunity now it may well be too late to avert the next crisis.

21. At 2:58pm on 27 Jan 2010, danj180 wrote:

"'Legendary investor George Soros has called for a radical break-up of banks that are "too big to fail"."

....well it looks like Georgey boy is short on the finance sector then.

Beware the wolf in sheeps clothing - he has no interest in the Economy or even the future stability of it, but how much money he can make out of this situation. Don't forget he's the one who profitted massively at our previous misfortune.

Good piece from R.P., with more irony these days.
"Diddums" is right, RP. Everyone is dazed and confused as to just what happened to capitalism, and how so much wealth ended up in the pockets of so few.
Comment 2 Jaques Cartier hits the spot.
Wealthy banks and not-so wealthy bankers, instead of poor banks and loaded bankers.
Smaller banks or divided-up banks too please.
The whole world can now see the financial insanity of 2000 to 2008.
But "vulnerable" banks are still dishing out all their future security in bonuses.

Dear Robert, as you are the business editor for the BBC I'm raising a business issue which is far more important than anything that will be discussed at Davos.

In the UK the NHS sends all it's typing via the internet to freelance medical typists in New Zealand, Australia and Canada. These overseas typists are not paid less than a UK freelancer. The reason the work goes abroad is UK employment legislation. It adds huge overheads for each typing job carried out by a freelancer.

The same piece of legislation prevents millions of UK mums from working part time at home over the internet. So they do full time jobs to earn the same income net of costs. Thats about 3 million full time jobs that could be available for the unemployed.

So it's a no brainer. Less work exported, lower unemployment, higher govt income and children being bought up at home by their parents rather than farmed out to strangers.

The UK govts stated reason for maintaining this legislation is to protect star struck girls from paying fees to bogus talent agents. It's been law since 1971 and hasn't worked yet.

In this is encapsulated the problem for the developed world. We have a set of laws and policies designed for an age of economies of scale and tight hierarchical power structures. That age is passing in the west. The internet is enabling the home to become a centre of wealth creation. Our varied languages, qualifications and knowledge of the structures of our business' and govts are long term barriers to entry, for offshore freelancers. There is an opportunity here for each western nation to reduce it's unemployment by millions within a governing term, and facilitate the establishment of the next paradigm of wealth creation.

A Global Economy is not the preserve of large business. It effects everyone. Likewise the network revolution establishes a new paradigm for the structure of wealth creation characterized by home based freelancing.

It is unlikely that this issue will be raised at Davos. Macro economics and the interests of large business' will once again dominate.

Without individualising the global economy by facilitating home based freelancing, protectionism will become increasingly attractive to voters facing higher taxes, growing unemployment and probable higher interest rates. QE can only be a stop gap. Legislation is needed to allow entry for all to the the net facilitated global economy.

Perhaps the bankers should stop whinging & reacting to what the politicians propose & start to come up with proposals that will stand a far greater chance of averting similar crises in future AND avoid the taxpayer/user of public services/unemployed person as a result of recessions brought on by bank crises having to pick up the tab. They would also do themselves an enormous favour by agreeing within the finance industry to reduce bonuses substantially & pay them only for REAL value added, not gambling or financial engineering. Of course, they won't. So they'll get what politicians impose on them - with great electoral support. They would also do themselves a favour if they sat back and looked at the ethical basis of their activities and the immense & lengthy damaging consequences of a moral code based entirely on the acquisition of obscene ammounts of wealth

P.S.
And if capitalism and the financial insanity is not reformed, "vulnerable" banks means.....all of them.

28. At 3:46pm on 27 Jan 2010, virtualsilverlady wrote:
'So far in 12 months no one has done anything meaningful at all to solve the banking problems and this is the first suggestion that holds any merit. If governments don't seize the opportunity now it may well be too late to avert the next crisis'

Governments or rather politicians may seize an opportunity get elected, but from past experience they seize the opportunity to do little else.

In any event I reckon the crisis can't be far off now, and I struggle to believe it can’t be avoided either.


Whoever the government is someone has to decide between one or more of the following:

1) Severely cut public expenditure, but that means a lot of the public sector job losses
Cancel infrastructure and other projects, but that means private sector job losses
Cut benefits and pensions, which will hurt some of the poorest in society

2) Try and borrow it by issuing fixed interest gilts, but evidence suggests there isn’t the demand for £200 billion worth of them, and even if there was, the UK would end up in a compound debt trap and likely default in the end.

3) Substantially increase taxation, but then most would spend less in the private sector to compensate for it and the UK would fall into a compound tax spiral with more private sector job losses.

4) Get The BOE to print another £200 billion to fund the shortfall like last year, but then sterling’s value will likely fall further, and facing the problem is only delayed another year in any event.

What would you choose?

And assuming you do choose.

The same people who have acted as the wrecking crew at national and individual level will simply return from Davos unfettered in any real sense.

Leave the creation of money in private or corporate hands, and there is no hope for our children, other than as debt slaves.

If the last ten years has taught us only one thing, it surely must be that 'Regulation' doesn't work.

#8

Leechonthewall, reading your meaningless and inept rants everybody feels suddenly VERY VERY clever!

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin.

The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again.

However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in.

But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits."

Sir Josiah Stamp (1880-1941)
President of the Bank of England in the 1920's, the richest man in Britain.


It has been said by some commentators, that our children face a life of what could be described as debt slavery if the current system of banking and the creation of money is left in private or corporate hands.

The only way I can see to prevent our children becoming debt slaves, is for the State to take control of the creation of money.

5# chris911t

Its actually a lot more sinister than that, this was not a failing of Obama on Israel and the banks and healthcare reform, he did try, the trouble is the president just really isn't that powerful.

Thats what you get when all of your countries power lies in the hands of private enterprise, but i guess its the american way.

Trouble is in such a system you may have 'free and fair' elections but if the body you are voting for doesn't actually have the power to control its own foreign and domestic policy it ceases to be a democrasy.

Thats the irony of Americans thinking, freedom = free enterprise and small government.

36. At 4:11pm on 27 Jan 2010, Dempster wrote:
The only way I can see to prevent our children becoming debt slaves, is for the State to take control of the creation of money.
--------------------------

When do we start the lobbying, Demster, as only saying here it won't make it happen?

Perhaps, Robert's next blog could be on that. ARE YOU BRAVE ENOUGH, ROBERT?

If you couldn't have an ipod or a mobile phone or any of the latest gadgetary (mostly made elsewhere)would you really be any worse off?

If you couldn't go abroad for your holiday would you really be any worse off?

If you couldn't buy piles of the latest designer knock-offs in Primark (mostly made elsewhere) would you really be any worse off?

If you couldn't have gastric band surgery or IVF treatment on the NHS would society be any worse off?

If we didn't have trident or identity cards or if we scrapped all the registration schemes with databases would society be any worse off?

If we walked to the shops or school instead of getting in the car (using fuel from somewhere else) would we really be any worse off?

If those pensioners who can afford to paid for travel on buses etc did so, would society be any worse off?

If there weren't PCs in every classroom (mostly made elsewhere) would we be any worse off?

If you have to turn down the thermostat and put on a jumper is that a bad thing (to pay for fuel increasingly coming from elsewhere)(appologies to those that are sitting in three jumpers, I refer to those that aren't)?

If fewer youngsters got into debt to go to university to do the jobs they could have done without this debt would that be a bad thing?

Despite my personal perspective on GDP as a measure, would it really be so terrible to have a GDP the same as 2003? We weren't starving,without shelter or healthcare or heating, were we?

As individuals we can make some choices - go to Lidl instead of Sainsburys (if we have that option) or grow runner beans in the garden or change the boiler to cut use of gas or just walk.

Shouldn't we consider that each citizen has a duty of care to themselves and their families rather than expecting 'the government' to provide.

The 'growth' in finance fuelled the growth in government. If one shrinks, so must the other.

We have to accept that we are not entitled to anything, from anyone, least of all government, it is not seperate from ourselves. It is not God, a bestower of munificence.

Once you accept that, like accepting that your neighbour is not going to pay for repairs to your car or roof, its not a great leap to accept that government spending has to be slashed in the same way that we ourselves might slash our own expenditure.

So, GDP shrinks. Can someone tell me why this matters at all unless its a question of ego, pecking order and why, pray, does that matter to us?

35. At 4:06pm on 27 Jan 2010, darksurfer

Is all you have left is tepid insults?

Oh dear - desperation with things not going your way?

Writingsonthewall 1 - darksurfer 0

Care to play again?

# 35. At 4:06pm on 27 Jan 2010, darksurfer wrote:

> everybody feels suddenly VERY VERY clever!

I doubt the pariah-bankers in Davos feel clever right now. They're dazed and confused
about thier ASBOs. They're the only chumps in the whole world who can't figure out
why we're breaking them down!

...wait a minute....I think darksurfer might say something relevant.....

...oh, sorry, it was just a fart in the wind - my mistake.

....actually, sorry to go on about this folks but I have noticed 9 of the last 10 comments made by darksurfer are merely personal snipes at what I say - with absolutely no basis of argument.

The only comment in between was one to another poster 'he did not agree with' who got a similar treatment.

Have we got a problem darksurfer?

Maybe we have discovered a stooge in our midsts folks - and more importantly maybe what I say is making 'some people nervous'.

I shall be careful on my way home tonight - I'll look out for black sedan's and men in dark suits - if I do not post here again then you'll know why.....

...and you will also know I was telling the truth....

We need to be protected from these deluded, vastly over paid dimwitted sociopaths ('top' bankers), they are public enemy No 1.....

In fact, we don't need Bankers at all. If the Government is the sole responsible for creating and LENDING money, to whomever it chooses and at whatever rates it chooses, by-passing the "Central Bank" system, then Bankers can stay at Davos and enjoy the scenery. We don't need them.

"Central Banks" are essentially private institutions, working through the BIS, Bank of International settlements in Basel. Untouchable by "law". They are supposed to be "independent" but as we have seen, they are nothing more than the organisers of a (criminal?) cartel.

Can you imagine a world not based on "debt"? Heaven.
The Davos clique are talking, but it is how to renew their privileges and profits, not about us.

#36 and #38

Doesn't the state have a vested interest in the creation of money?

"But the awful truth is that precisely because banks remain vulnerable.... we need them to have a sense of where they're going, lest the businesses and households that depend on their credit founder too."

I believe we need to sort out the Banking system but I am dazed and confused as well. I thought the root of all this crisis was CDO's and CDS's? Banks used these instruments, which were unregulated to shift debt off their balance sheets. Naive Bankers in the USA, Europe and the UK bought them to fund the growth in their businesses. When the underlying ,i.e.mortgages, went pear shaped the whole system went pear shaped. So why not address the securities/processes that caused the failure instead of focussing on hygene factors like Bankers bonuses(obscene though they are), or on overhauling the whole banking system?

To 38. At 4:34pm on 27 Jan 2010, plamski

Sometimes it feels like I’m watching a Christmas Pantomime with the leading politicians being the pantomime dames.

Here we are shouting ‘behind you’, ‘behind you’, and all they do is frolic around a political stage, bleating out the most inept comments, whilst pocketing substantial sums of money in expenses.

I could say it beggars belief, but it doesn't really does it.

But farcical it truly is.

WOTW

I've been reading your posts. Is that you Alistair?

Let's not stop with Banks (Post #2 Jacques Cartier).
Let's have wealthy Auto Companies and poor Auto Workers, and wealthy Soccer Teams and Poor Players.

# 43. At 4:47pm on 27 Jan 2010, writingsonthewall wrote:

> Have we got a problem darksurfer? Maybe we have
> discovered a stooge in our midsts folks - and more
> importantly maybe what I say is making 'some people nervous'.

I think he's dazed and confused.

# 50. At 5:51pm on 27 Jan 2010, DonnachaBan wrote:

> Let's not stop with Banks (Post #2 Jacques Cartier).

No, do stop with banks. Unlike footballers and
mechanics, bankers cost us £850bn.

#43. writingsonthewall wrote:

"Maybe we have discovered a stooge in our midsts folks..."

Well, of course. Anyone who disagrees with what WOTW has to say is obviously a "stooge".

"... and more importantly maybe what I say is making 'some people nervous'."

Don't know about nervous, but your incoherent ramblings and utter confidence in the coming of a new world order certainly make a lot of us laugh out loud.

You claim to work for an investment bank, WOTW, which clearly makes you a banker. So why should we believe or even listen to anything you say? I thought the consensus on this blog was that all bankers are idiots?

“supposedly (!!!) banker-friendly Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner” – GASP!!

Geithner was hired by Michael Froman. Froman was chosen by Obama to put together his new economic team. Froman was an executive of Citigroup at the time. Before Citigroup Froman was a protege of Bob Rubin during the Clinton administration. Rubin, was co-chairman of Goldman Sachs before going on to serve under Clinton as Treasury Secretary. (After his stint with Clinton Rubin went on to run Citigroup until 2009.) Also serving under Rubin during his Clinton years was one Tim Geithner. Mr Geithner now shows up as Treasury Secretary for Obama!

Are you dazed or confused?

#43 - rbstemp
Whatever you think of the quality of WOTW's postings, you can't deny the quantity.
He certainly seems to have a lot of time on his hands.
Given today's clear signs of paranoia, maybe he's posting rather than sleeping.
Time for a rest I'd say!
And of course a spell of silence would give credence to the suspicion that "they" had got You!

Moderators...re block of comment 30.
I believe that you are reading a certain word as being offensive, when it is actually part of the article, and describes the the attitude that many of us have towards the woes of wealthy bankers.

"But the awful truth is that precisely because banks remain vulnerable - though you wouldn't know it from their lush bonus payments - we need them to have a sense of where they're going, lest the businesses and households that depend on their credit founder too."

I think what some maybe assuming is that bankers, being dazed and confused, is something new? Actually it's not, most have that proverbial useless look about them and then the world financial meltdown rather confirmed to me, that many of them are useless. Fancy taking your own industry over a cliff? (I'm sure the anti Glass-Steagall lobbyists assured the powers that be, that this just could not happen!)

The only thing bankers believe in is when the gun goes off first thing in the morning that by the end of the day they're one up on their peers. Unfortunately, when the gun goes off first thing in the morning 2/3rds just shoot themselves in the foot!

Bankers, dazed and confused? If they weren't they wouldn't even get an interview!

Someone is asking them if they would just "do" rational. That's the problem, they're being asked (expected?) to do something that they haven't a clue about!

I love it - I mean the venom and the wit - but just a few questions to those who understand the whole business

1)Does TARP give Americans an interest in the share value of their banks in the same way as the Brits who are now share holders and want a return for their investment?

2)If the gambling arm of our banks is currently the profitable bit shouldn't we the taxpayer shareholders get a bit of that lolly before giving it away to the hedgies - how do we stand as shareholders if the banks are split up ?

# 53. At 6:40pm on 27 Jan 2010, rbs_temp wrote:

> I thought the consensus on this blog was that all bankers are idiots?

It's going to take a lot of effort to rehabilitate the bankers. I wonder if we have the resources to spare? They are a product of their environment, like those boys in Edlington, and it's no use blaming each individual banker.

For years, we have allowed impressionable people to drift into these socially-useless and soul-destroying careers, surrounded by other degenerates and misfits. Imagine the damage such an experience causes to any young person.

I doubt their ability to function without a great deal of further help from us taxpayers. Who knows what might happen if we don’t assist them when the banks get broken up? Some of them might even have to grow up.

#45 stonebird wrote:

"The Davos clique are talking, but it is how to renew their privileges and profits, not about us."

----------------------------

Not strictly true...the real dirty work is done in private, behind closed doors, at the Bilderberg jollies!

58. At 7:54pm on 27 Jan 2010, thicklady wrote:
2)If the gambling arm of our banks is currently the profitable bit shouldn't we the taxpayer shareholders get a bit of that lolly before giving it away to the hedgies - how do we stand as shareholders if the banks are split up ?


Good point, but it's our money they are gambling with.

Let's hope they don't lose.

Dazed and confused indeed...

In Davos will they be having a Misty Mountain Hop or doing a Night Flight to get Over the Hills and Far Away instead of listening to boring bankers Ramble On? It's Nobody's Fault But Mine we want to hear them say but No Quarter as they're probaly off Out On The Tiles being Sick Again. And its Ten Years Gone but we're still looking for the Stairway To Heaven. Never mind folks, for us The Song Remains The Same, whether it's The Lemon Song or The Rain Song. Rest assured, When The Levee Breaks don't get Trampled Under Foot. There's still a Communication Breakdown between the bankers/politicians and the taxpayers until our Celebration Day comes, when we give them all their Custard Pie.

What use would a banker be to air crash survivors on a desert island?

Sunday lunch?

I think I'd turn vegetarian rather than have a bad taste in my mouth...

#58 thicklady (not)

you might find this website interesting

https://bailout.propublica.org/main/list/index

If you click on any of the organisations you can see that the government got preferred stock with warrants and that dividends are paid (5% currently going up to 9% in 2013)

The 'big banks' with the exception of Citigroup have paid back the funds and the government no longer has warrants for these

Enjoy!

#61

Dear Dempster

REad with a kind tone for that is the spirit in which I write

You say its 'our' money they are gambling with

What do you mean by 'our', the trillions of pounds/dollars under management from pension funds, money market funds, personal savings accounts, savings bonds, certificates of deposit etc from across the world or tax dollars, as it were?

Is the remnants of Northern Rock gambling and are most home owners with their mortgages repaying them?

Or the remnants of Bradford and Bingley?

How much gambling is Lloyds/HBOS doing?

Hw much of our money did HSBC or Barclays or Standard Chartered get, if they gamble?

Did those gamblers at the hedge funds get 'our' money?

Do you have any pension funds in stock market tracker funds? Is that not gambling?

You could say that the British Government is gambling by owning such big stakes in RBS and Lloyds. I think WOTW mentioned that right now, we are down 50%. As RBS and Lloyds continue to sell bits off, will this bet look better than it does now?

I hope that adressing BANKING PRACTICE can be kept very simple.

Banks can only use clients money not their own, thay cannot add material value only facilitate tranzsactions, excess profits and renumeration must be limited to a minimalist appraoch to expenses incurred adn regulated as such, competetion should be simple, very transparent & published frequently to prevent "surprises".

I don't agree the bankers are confused - as long as there's money there'll be bankers. There'll always be opportunities to invest, insure, make more money. Change is part of life - the banks that adapt the quickest will be the ones paying the big bonuses the quickest... Oh, and there will be more bubles and recessions - no matter what.

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8483896.stm

So Sarkozy has decided to take all the bankers, stick them in a man-sized-centrifuge then accidently switched the on dial to 9 gs for 5 minutes!

Definitely confusion as a result of centrifugal forces.

# 58. At 7:54pm on 27 Jan 2010, thicklady wrote:

> 2)If the gambling arm of our banks is currently the
> profitable bit shouldn't we the taxpayer shareholders
> get a bit of that lolly before giving it away to the
> hedgies - how do we stand as shareholders if the banks are split up ?

It was tempting for me to consider that option. After all, banks
brought us all down, so banks should pay us all back.

But I'm afraid we have to give up hope of getting our money back
that way. They've already took thier cut and (ironically) banked it!
We can't get at the guys who did it (look at Applegarth and Sir Greedie).

So the next best thing is to stop the gravy train before the next
iteration of banking crash, break up the banks to make them small and
unthreatening, put in laws to curtail intimidating businesses, and
(sadly) accept our losses and work them down over time.

That's the only way to put protect our children from more banking slavery.

# 67. At 00:01am on 28 Jan 2010, Jo wrote:

> Oh, and there will be more bubles and recessions - no matter what.

That might or might not be true. Just because you say so, don't make it so.
But that's besides the point. When we have bubbles and recessions, I'd like to make the bankers suffer more than average. That's called "moral hazard".

The only remaining question for me is "how to make the bankers suffer". Just being "dazed and confused" doesn't even scratch the surface.

65. At 10:31pm on 27 Jan 2010, mrsbloggs13c2 wrote:
#61

Dear Dempster

Read with a kind tone for that is the spirit in which I write

You say its 'our' money they are gambling with

What do you mean by 'our', the trillions of pounds/dollars under management from pension funds, money market funds, personal savings accounts, savings bonds, certificates of deposit etc from across the world or tax dollars, as it were?


Yes, and our 'promises to pay'.

I think ther are more pressing matters at home in england like why is it
THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE RIPPING OFF THE PULIC WITH THE HIGHEST INSURANCE RATES IN THE WORLD /NO MENTION OF THAT ON YOUR FINACIAL PAGE ?

Bigest insurance rip off yet ,yes the british insurance companies have got together and decided that because businness is so bad they are going to raise the price of insurance to a new time high ,to justifi this they are saying that WE HAVE TO PAY FOR UNINSURED DRIVERS ,this is a total lie of course as they do not pay for UNINSURED DRIVERS AT ALL its just a rouse to grab more money.

remember 3RD PARTY FIRE AND THEFT, why did they do away with that ,well you used to get just third party ,which covered you to be on the road/then third party fire and theft /then full comp so as to make more money they did away with third party,/then we had third party fire and theft and full comp the diference in the price between the two was huge
so in order to make even more money the insurance companies got to together and decided to narrow the price gap down to next to nothing
between third party and full comp ,did any body say anything at the time no not the gov/rac/aa/nobody so they got away with it ,and now
they are at it again =more money .

well mister insurance company the people cant afford to pay ,the people like me who cant work but need a car there are thousands of us
and we have been paying and we have not claimed and our reward is insurance we cant afford so what if we all drive without insurance
whay are you going to do then ,stick it on house insurance ,i bet they
will come up with something ,me im sick of there lame excuses:

mrsbloggs13c2 your post 39 is, I think, one of the best posts I have read for quite sometime. I found my self really identifying with what you are saying.

58, 61, 65 etc re bankers' gambling

Most of the pro traders / gamblers at the big banks consistently make good money - very good for countries such as the UK with massive, long-term and structural vested interest in the success of these banks.

If Obama succeeds in outlawing these 'risky' practices, dramatically reducing bank profitablility, there will eventually be highly negative consequences for all of us in the west.

It was not this kind of relatively small-scale gambling of banks' trading desks which caused the problem.

The problem was caused by the boards of almost every major bank buying into the idea that AAA rated securitised loans were as good as G7 sovereign bonds, to the tune of trillions, when CDS CDO etc are included. Bank boards bought their own junk, and how to stop that happening again is what we should focus on, not the relatively tiny gambling behaviours of trading desks.

If Obama's plan is followed, the hundreds of millions of profits made by western banks every year from trading will slowly migrate east. Banking is the one western industry which has the potential to balance out the capital outflows caused by Asian dominance in manufacturing. The only other is 'defence'...

Without a highly profitable banking sector, largely the result of 'risky' trading, western societies will gradually become more like those under Chinese state controlled capitalism, with very low living standards for the vast majority.

Before wrecking the one industry which makes very good profits for western democracies, it would be perhaps better to consider the alternatives. Surely, limiting the kinds of risks taken by deposit-taking banks can be achieved without killing one of our very few remaining golden geese?

# 75. At 10:56am on 28 Jan 2010, U14313657 wrote:

> 58, 61, 65 etc re bankers' gambling
> Most of the pro traders / gamblers at the big banks consistently make
> good money - very good for countries such as the UK with massive,
> long-term and structural vested interest in the success of these banks.

You seem to infer that a zero-sum game (gambling) is yielding a non-zero result. Both the bookie and the customer win, eh? "Make money" is just a turn of phrase...


> Bank boards bought their own junk.

Yes. With our money, not theirs, though.


> Banking is the one western industry which has the
> potential to balance out the capital outflows caused
> by Asian dominance in manufacturing. The only
> other is 'defence'...

No. We don’t do “blackmail”, sorry. That sort of stuff might help out a few toffs in London, but has bugger all use to the rest of us. There is no reason for banks to have “headquarters” etc. in any particular city. They’ll drift around, blackmailing and intimidating everybody, unless we control them/break them up. I want rich banks (and shareholders), and poorer bankers. If you can set that up, go for it. But I can't do with such militancy. Some humility is now required. Please. Pretty Please?

# 75. At 10:56am on 28 Jan 2010, U14313657 wrote:

PS: Heck of a username, there, U14313657! I think we'll go with George Soros - limit the size of banks and limit their speculative activities (but go further) and make banks that speculate in financial markets hold massively more capital. Way to go Barack and George, and don't get sidetracked by the hecklers!

Jacques,

I'm just talking about reality, not some utopian ideal planet. You're
not going to get rich banks without them taking some risks. Every loan
is a risk.

Generally, the profits made by banks' trading desks ultimately come
from the world's taxpayers and megacorps (customers). The banks
ultimately get paid to manage the risks of governments and other large
organisations who have the desire for a high level of certainty.

Having a large financial centre in London partially makes up for the
fact that we don't want to live like the vast majority of the world's
population - working long hours in agriculture or manufacturing for
peanuts with terrible if any public services. If the price we must pay
is that a few thousand bankers get silly-money bonuses for syphoning
off global taxpayer / consumers' money, I'm happy to pay that price.

Someone somehwere will get the billions generated by international
finance, why not us?

Of course, we need to ensure that the levels of risk taken are
massively lower than that taken over the last decade by the boards of
Citibank, RBS, UBS etc. This doesn't mean exporting the entire golden
goose, or we'll quickly find ourselves with living standards close to
those of 90 % of the world's population.

We need to get tough with banks, collectively as western democracies,
but let's not kill them off, esepecailly while we UK taxpayers still
have a massive direct stake in RBS, which would be practically
worthless if it wasn't allowed to take any risk at all.

Robert, it would be useful if all articles were not regarding the banks and some of them actually referred to things that are more relevant today. Im far more interested in what you believe will happen to raw material prices and thus inflation, hopefully we will have the bankers once again to thank for our boom, but at what cost to inflation? The continual criticism of bankers is growing a little tedious, you seem to believe all bankers are identical, and dont have the same concerns as everybody else. Sometimes your articles seem to be filled with jealousy, this may be incorrect, but at least aim to be fair in your articles, and try to cover different parts of our economy.

78.At 12:12pm on 28 Jan 2010, U14313657 wrote:

Cheers, U14313657

I know there is a great pressure to “get back to normal” amongst the banking community, so that they can go about their lucrative business. Unfortunately, they are finding that it's not so easy to get trillions in state then walk away from it unscathed. You might get away with a million of two, but when you reduce the economy to ashes, costing the jobs of hundreds of thousands of people, then I'm afraid it's not quite so simple as that.

Here in Liverpool, great fortunes were made from salvery, and many of the traders would have said what you say now “we may as well have the money, someone else would have it anyway”. Abolition was seen as a utopian ideal by the perpetrators, back then. Luckily, utopian ideals have a good habit of becoming real, don't they? And time is being called on the bankers.

The basic reality is that there is absolutely no way that London can exist any longer as a large financial centre – it'll all shift to the very lowest tax. You might buy a year or two with out-dated laissez faire ideas, but London is finished. If you don't want to work hard for a living, you'll have to think up something a but more clever than the status quo – that option is most firmly closed off, after the bailout. And it isn't helpful to hark back to the past -it's all over,U14313657.

> We need to get tough with banks, collectively as western
> democracies, but let's not kill them off, especially while we UK
> taxpayers still have a massive direct stake in RBS, which would
> be practically worthless if it wasn't allowed to take any risk at all.

It's already worthless. Do you really think we'll get anything out of that, after Sir Greedie's stint at the top? The price of slave ships dropped alarmingly once the trade was abolished, you know. And so will the price of banks, once they get ripped up by the Internet and distributed over the whole plant. Forget London. It's finished.

Jacques, (btw, I don't know why I am a number U something, I
registered with a real, non-offensive, pseudonym)

We'll wait and see about london, but your pessimistic scenario looks
unlikely to me. There's more to finance than low rates of tax,
otherwise it'd all be done elsehwere already. Thats why the bankers'
threat to move abroad if their bonuses are taxed is generally hollow.

Do you think the west (inc Japan) would not move heaven and earth to
retain the billions, plus power, it collectively gains from having the
main financial centres in its territories? We might as well hand the
lot over to Mr Bin Laden, and let him see if a global (excl. China)
Caliphate works better.

Capitalism looks like it's here for a while yet, but the laissez-faire
version might be at risk. Having said that, it seems that in the UK
the response of the electorate to the failure of laissez-faire
capitalism is going to be the election of, er, Eton's finest to run the
economy in an even more laissez-faire way!

Maybe you're right and we'd better lower our expectations of living
standards and public services down to the levels of most of the rest of
the world.

# 81. At 5:20pm on 28 Jan 2010, U14313657 wrote:

> There's more to finance than low rates of tax,
> otherwise it'd all be done elsewhere already.

Really? That's like saying that there's more to banking than money. The reason they stick around is hysteresis. And hysteresis is, by definition, temporary.

> Do you think the west (inc Japan) would not move heaven and
> earth to retain the billions, plus power, it collectively gains from
> having the main financial centres in its territories? We might as well
> hand the lot over to Mr Bin Laden, and let him see if a global (excl.
> China) Caliphate works better.

I'm sure _some_ in the west would prefer that. But the bankers will follow the lowest tax. And they're already gone really, because we are totally fed up with them anyway. Sometimes, we have to follow our hearts. What's good for London is not connected with what's good for Britain. As for Bin Laden, I'll say this – he represents a real problem, like it or lump it.

> Capitalism looks like it's here for a while yet, but the
> laissez-faire version might be at risk. Having said that,
> it seems that in the UK the response of the electorate to the
> failure of laissez-faire capitalism is going to be the election
> of, er, Eton's finest to run the economy in an even more
> laissez-faire way!

Yes. But that's ironic because it's leading to the break up of the UK, which is not what Eton's finest want at all. Wearing my Quebec hat, I love it that Eton is on the Slough side of the river (perhaps I'm a snob!)

> Maybe you're right and we'd better lower our expectations of living
> standards and public services down to the levels of most of the rest of
> the world.

I've got all I need, now. I just need food, basically. If you haven't sorted yourself out, that's tough. I live high on the side of a Welsh mountain now, and I can shoot lambs with my air rifle, if it comes to that! But in general, yes. We need less stuff, and more love.

PS It's odd that, in a previous post, you mentioned risk. Most bankers are greedy because they loath risk. It is monetary security they crave, not risk. That's why they ratchet (bank) their gains. We have the wrong people in the job because bankers are as soft as butter. We must never reward "timidy punctuated by stupidity" with high wages, expecially when it threatens to destroy the world.

I always thought that if you don't borrow money then nobody can drag you through the courts and make your life a mess because you can't pay it back. It seems pointless to be running on the spot so what did I do, well I had no idea what policys were being formed around me it's clear to me now that various agencies were pushing their reforms but me, I have been just occupied with my own affairs whilst keeping an eye on the news.

So, I decided that I wasn't going to borrow money because I was struggling to find an opening in the workplace, in college and so on, drifted from one thing to another and I think that part of financial stability is not to owe money.

Can't help it that the government demands tax. Ok so that keeps you in the workplace but then people are going out of work and it's musical chairs. What I think is undemocratic and unfair is when you are stuck in a vice between benefits and work while the other guy can go anywhere and anything when all your life is just anxiety about the rent.

I'll accept some things with discomfort but for me, I want growth and stability and that means no debts which means people will find it harder to hassle me for money and ideally a steady job to provide an income but where is one of those? To get that you need training and get training you need a whole lot of others things and you even have to pass the exams and go through it all. So that's how I end up here.

I tend to go with the flow and while I would want a 'more abundant life' as I have heard many televangelist types talk about well all I've seen is that some people have solved their problems and others such as myself are looking for that opportunity.