All bankers are wankers – discuss.

[weeksy]

I don't know what some of the proper terms are, I'm an electrician, but my gripe is that all the above skulduggery is a necessary part of modern speculative banking, where you make money from speculating with money that you don't really have to speculate with. As Mango says, the genie is out of the bottle so I'm only really moaning and don't have a solution, but it's a great big game of Jenga when banks need to take options to hedge for unstable monetary/banking policy, it's like the woman who swallowed a spider because she swallowed a fly.
I know it's not a new thing, modern banking is hundreds of years old, but the last couple of decades are like an insane caricature of banking.

Ironically, the more money I make, the more socialist I become, because you need a lot of money to withstand big pendulum swings or you need to take risks to hedge against them. I don't want a lot of money, I just want enough but a system that massively encourages everyone to leverage to many multiples doesn't favour the man in the street that works hard, saves his money and tucks up a modest nest egg, because when all that leverage tumbles it could wipe the nest egg out in seconds.

There are some people and organisations that have thousands of millions of pounds, they have too much power, even people with tens of millions have too much power. If those people sneeze then the man in the street feels it a year down the line and by then it could wipe him out.

Personally, in my ideal little world, I'd cap everyone at a million quid cash, one house, two cars, two dogs and a cat.

You're very very hung up on money IMO.... it seems to be the center of your thoughts and your world.

I don't care what the people with wealth do or don't do.. i don't care about masses of money like you do... Your 'million quid', meh, it's not a figure i care about either... .

You stopped being 'man in the street' a long long time ago buddy.

I don't mean that in an insulting way... but you're very detached from that part of life you think you're part of.

[Yambo]

Prudent lending = prudent borrowing I think.

When the government doesn't understand prudence (Gordon Brown did iirc, well, he used the word a lot) and simply borrows shed loads and then borrows more . . .

What's good for the goose . . .

That doesn't apply to anyone on here mind, we're all very prudent.

I don't have a single loan out. I have some debt as I pay in arrears for water and electrickery but 'earn' enough to pay that and live comfortably. If I want something, I save for it so the new kitchen, neded now as I've just removed the kitchen wall, will wait until next January I reckon.

[Greenman]

The thing here with all the bankers, CEO's and MP's that are all in it for themselves is that eventually, maybe sooner than they would like to think, it will also take down their world as well, where are they going to run to next when their world is crumbling underneath them due to their selfish actions, mars? the moon? babylon? - good luck getting into there you greedy wankers!

I agree with the sentiment, except you always miss one thing, it's not just rich people that are selfish, everyone is in it for themselves fella, you, your neighbours, the MPs and the bankers, everyone is making decisions that best suit them and their circumstances.

They're not out to get you, they're just doing what is right for them. You can't really control their choices, but you can control yours.
It seems to be all about money for you and the thing is that smart people tend to end up with more money than less smart people - so spend less time doing what you're currently doing, and more time getting smart.

I just have too high a moral code. I have been offered jobs working for big banks offering me a 25% pay rise (as i mentioned one of my best mates is a regional manager for lloyds) but i just can't bring myself to do it. I know i am shooting myself in the foot as i could earn a lot more than i currently do, but i would morally not be happy with who i am helping daily in my working life, big corrupt banker wankers. I don't want to be involved in making selfish rich people even richer, even to my detriment!

That is becoming an ever increasingly hard code to live by, but i am trying my best not to fall to the wayside and just follow the money crowd.

Anyway this isn't about me. I mention money a lot as we are talking about banks so it is hard to get my point across without mentioning it.

My main point here was to state that the banks are corrupt (as we all know right?) and seem to be able to do what ever they want and get away with it. Imagine you ran a company that was responsible for a high percentage of the worlds money, and you fucked up due to total incompetitence or outright corruption leading the company to disspand and go bankrupt, would you and your employees be held accountable for your actions, of course you would, but not bankers, MP's, PM's and any big CEO of billion pound corporations, they can get off scott free and will probably get a bonus for fucking up too, just like my old director did back in the council, he came to the dept, lost over £200,000 of contracts then got promoted to a higher role in a different dept! Oh and just as an extra bonus, how about we set a loophole up for you to take advantage of so you don't have to pay any taxes!

I agree with you about capping peoples wealth, but then you will have those that will pick at this and say it will limit the amount of people that want to make money in the country and will just move elsewhere, which could be true but imo people like this are better off out the country, others will replace them that have a better moral fibre and do just as good a job, those that cannot get into those positions whilst the super rich corrupt gang are in place and being offered the job before them.

Maybe life isn't all about money, and more about a society living together in harmony and helping each other out. You'll find you wont need as much money as you do if life were to be like that, but it never will as we are all too brainwashed and think we all have to have all these material things that Jimmy down the road has, because if you don't you must be a failure, right?

[Ant]

We should only cap the wealth that we can't have, that way it'll be fair

[JackyJoll]

These first paragraphs are simplistic and might bore you.
Some of the Silicon Valley Bank’s Silicon Valley customers were having trouble with their own businesses, so they withdrew money. The bank had to sell bonds to pay those customers. Those bonds had lost value because more recently issued bonds have higher interest rates. SVB had been behaving badly by staking too much on rates staying low and depositors’ contentment.

When it became known that SVB was selling bonds at a loss, other depositors also tried to withdraw their money and it became a run on the bank.

The psychological bit that I find interesting is that the failure of a bank (first one to fail, for a while) gave everyone a reality check, or at least made everyone feel as if they’d had one, so they started looking around for the next weakest bank. Next weakest bank was deemed to be scandal-ridden Credit Suisse. Cue share sales, price drop, scared depositors making withdrawals, you know the score.

[Greenman]

We should only cap the wealth that we can't have, that way it'll be fair

How about we pop a cap in your ass?

[Ant]

We should only cap the wealth that we can't have, that way it'll be fair

How about we pop a cap in your ass?

How naughty, you filthy bugger

[JackyJoll]

We should only cap the wealth that we can't have, that way it'll be fair

How about we pop a cap in your ass?

That’ll compound his interest.

[Ant]

We should only cap the wealth that we can't have, that way it'll be fair

How about we pop a cap in your ass?

That’ll compound his interest.

It would certainly make him feel a special nugget on his tip.

[Greenman]

I just have too high a moral code. I have been offered jobs working for big banks offering me a 25% pay rise (as i mentioned one of my best mates is a regional manager for lloyds) but i just can't bring myself to do it. I know i am shooting myself in the foot as i could earn a lot more than i currently do, but i would morally not be happy with who i am helping daily in my working life, big corrupt banker wankers. I don't want to be involved in making selfish rich people even richer, even to my detriment!

That is becoming an ever increasingly hard code to live by, but i am trying my best not to fall to the wayside and just follow the money crowd.

You can't be much of an iconoclast from the outside Greenie.
Why don't you go through the door, build your influence and then change things from the inside? It's a lot more fun than sitting on the pavement thinkin' bout the goverment.

Anyway this isn't about me. I mention money a lot as we are talking about banks so it is hard to get my point across without mentioning it.

Quite. That's what I should have said.

Because i will just be an IT Engineer with literally no power over the top.

It will be like working for the LA again where the good do all the work and the well paid do fuck all and take all the money from the bottom for themselves.

[Screwdriver]

As Mango says, the genie is out of the bottle so I'm only really moaning and don't have a solution, but it's a great big game of Jenga

Oh I know exactly how to fix that problem. The one where the more money you have, the more money you get.

Let's have a system where the more money you have the less money you get...

Then when you're up in the stratospheric realms where billionaires reside, you'd have to earn a million ponds to make an extra thousand. The rest of it would be cycled back into the respective countries government coffers and used to support the communities and infrastructure these multi billionaires forget they rely on.

But wait! There is a system like that. Called income tax.How is it then that ever since I can even remember the "tax haven" has been a thing? Somewhere the rich, not merely super rich, can send their personal wealth to avoid the liabilities they are obliged to share as payback for the millions of us who make the wheels of their world turn round.

I know the answer to that too. It's because the people who are so desperate to acquire these excessive amounts of personal wealth are the same people who make the rules. Not literally "in the job" of rulemaking but with sufficient influence in our increasingly corrupt so called "democracy".

[Greenman]

As Mango says, the genie is out of the bottle so I'm only really moaning and don't have a solution, but it's a great big game of Jenga

Oh I know exactly how to fix that problem. The one where the more money you have, the more money you get.

Let's have a system where the more money you have the less money you get...

Then when you're up in the stratospheric realms where billionaires reside, you'd have to earn a million ponds to make an extra thousand. The rest of it would be cycled back into the respective countries government coffers and used to support the communities and infrastructure these multi billionaires forget they rely on.

But wait! There is a system like that. Called income tax.How is it then that ever since I can even remember the "tax haven" has been a thing? Somewhere the rich, not merely super rich, can send their personal wealth to avoid the liabilities they are obliged to share as payback for the millions of us who make the wheels of their world turn round.

I know the answer to that too. It's because the people who are so desperate to acquire these excessive amounts of personal wealth are the same people who make the rules. Not literally "in the job" of rulemaking but with sufficient influence in our increasingly corrupt so called "democracy".

And here lies the rub.

As i have been saying for years, maybe not quite as elegantly as you, there needs to be change at the top, gov and the billionaires that influence them need to be striped of their power and held account for their actions over the past x amount of years and give back some of their wealth to the country they have been trading in, and no doubt live in.

People can link me to articles showing how much Bob from MS and Jimmy from Apple have donated to charity in the years but that IMO is all just postering, all to boost their ego. Why are they not giving back to the people in their own country by paying their taxes correctly if they are so interested in helping others less fortunate than themselves, they aren't, they just send a bit of money to the 'black' kids over in africa so they look like they are a caring ethical community of leaders and most people are stupid enough to believe them, that is also a massive part of the problem here, people are just so fucking gullible, or maybe, just maybe, they have had enough and have just given into and accepted that this is the way the world works rather than being active and trying to force a better way! Defeatists!

If loopholes are set out so that they can be taken advantage of only by the rich then nothing is going to change for anyone as they will continue to take advantage of those options, but when the actual people who take advantage of these actions to the detriment of our country also set the rules/laws where the fuck so you go from there. Revolution?

If the people at the top can set the rules they are only ever going to set them out according to what they and their crony mates want, considering what will be best for the actual country probably doesn't even come into the conversation at all.

It needs to be torn down from the top, no side shuffling, no back handers, the hierarchy needs to change so drastically that none of the remaining corrupt rulemakers can have any influence at all and should also be striped of any confidence in ever having any involvement in political or financial decisions ever again! This way we could start a new structure using the same principles we already have (Democracy) but make sure the law isn't bent in favour of the rich and has a more level playing field of laws that everyone can use to their own advantage, not just 1% of the world!

[Greenman]

As Mango says, the genie is out of the bottle so I'm only really moaning and don't have a solution, but it's a great big game of Jenga

Oh I know exactly how to fix that problem. The one where the more money you have, the more money you get.

Let's have a system where the more money you have the less money you get...

Then when you're up in the stratospheric realms where billionaires reside, you'd have to earn a million ponds to make an extra thousand. The rest of it would be cycled back into the respective countries government coffers and used to support the communities and infrastructure these multi billionaires forget they rely on.

But wait! There is a system like that. Called income tax.How is it then that ever since I can even remember the "tax haven" has been a thing? Somewhere the rich, not merely super rich, can send their personal wealth to avoid the liabilities they are obliged to share as payback for the millions of us who make the wheels of their world turn round.

I know the answer to that too. It's because the people who are so desperate to acquire these excessive amounts of personal wealth are the same people who make the rules. Not literally "in the job" of rulemaking but with sufficient influence in our increasingly corrupt so called "democracy".

Once you're at that level then you're almost untouchable.

It's impossible to reel them in, they'll just move, or shut you down.

Do you think that is the way a successful country should be ran then?

[JackyJoll]

In a Worldwide controlled economy, nobody would even need to be taxed, because everyone would be paid the correct amount.

I suppose that’s the sort of thing that made World revolution attractive to the Bolsheviks.

[Cousin Jack]

Just about every revolution that set out to sweep away power and corruption has ended in a bloodbath and an even worse dictatorship.

Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, Stalin, dozens of African countries, the French Revolution, .......

[gremlin]

As a final footnote, this from the MorningStar:

(My italics)

Quote:
Federal Reserve will issue a review of events leading up to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank on May 1

The Federal Reserve issued warnings to Silicon Valley Bank that its risk-management practices were deficient as early as 2021 -- well over a year before the bank ultimately failed -- and met with the bank's senior management in October of last year to express concern over interest-rate risk, Fed Vice Chair Michael Barr plans to tell Congress Tuesday.

These concerns were heightened enough that Fed staff specifically cited the bank's risk-management practices in a presentation to the Federal Reserve Board on the impact of rising rates on bank stability.

"SVB failed because the bank's management did not effectively manage its interest rate and liquidity risk and the bank then suffered a devastating and unexpected run by its uninsured depositors," Barr will tell the Senate Banking Committee Tuesday, according to prepared remarks.

Barr, who as vice chair for supervision oversees the Fed's role as a bank regulator, is conducting a review into possible regulatory lapses that could have contributed to the failure of Silicon Valley Bank earlier this month. The report, set to be made public May 1, will examine whether the Fed's supervision of the bank was adequate given the bank's rapid growth in recent years and its concentrated business model.

The review will also seek to determine whether supervisors "have the tools to mitigate threats to safety and soundness" and whether the "culture, policies and practices" of the Fed support effective oversight of banks, according to Barr's prepared testimony.

Barr's analysis will also address whether 2019 changes to bank laws, which eased oversight of medium-sized banks like Silicon Valley Bank, contributed to the bank's failure to adequately manage its risks.
Unquote

I would contend that the answer as to whether the Fed's oversight was effective is a fairly resounding 'No'.

[mangocrazy]

I would contend that the answer as to whether the Fed's oversight was effective is a fairly resounding 'No'.

Agree. But you can bet that the official conclusion will point the finger elsewhere.

[Ant]

As a final footnote, this from the MorningStar:

The morning star? That's a far left extremist paper and I'm not just saying that as a wind up....

[gremlin]

As a final footnote, this from the MorningStar:

The morning star? That's a far left extremist paper and I'm not just saying that as a wind up....

It's also a financial media source In fairness, I should have dropped 'the' for grammatical correctness.

https://www.morningstar.com/en-uk/try/free-direct-trial

[Greenman]

As a final footnote, this from the MorningStar:

The morning star? That's a far left extremist paper and I'm not just saying that as a wind up....

It's also a financial media source In fairness, I should have dropped 'the' for grammatical correctness.

https://www.morningstar.com/en-uk/try/free-direct-trial

A financial media source!

Please explain?