RBS Results
Peddle Up!
Posts: 2,040
Purveyor of "up" 
0
Comments
-
all these fines for being a bad bank....... what were they thinking?
and sir Fred, criminal charges... err might not have broken any criminal laws
civil.... well there is a breach of his employment contract (brought the company into disrepute, and was unable to fulfil his employment requirements) but it is up to savers or shareholders to take a private case against him (there is no way he could win), and you could re-coup his pension and bonus......
but there appears to be very little appetite for it, why is that? - is it because if he went to court, other top end people would be sued........ Blair for war, heads of unions for hurting the country (car industry in 70's 80's and 90's, mining 70's and 80's and so on).... that is where the fix in society is.......0 -
Mr Hester also told the BBC that the bank would be in a "condition fit to sell" before the next election in 2015, but added:
"There is no guarantee that the shares will be worth more than the government paid for them by that time."
my isetta is a 300cc bike0 -
estampida wrote:and sir Fred, criminal charges... err might not have broken any criminal laws...
Trading while insolvent?Purveyor of "up"0 -
Peddle Up! wrote:estampida wrote:and sir Fred, criminal charges... err might not have broken any criminal laws...
Trading while insolvent?
Doesnt effect government owned and run businesses, almost all governments are insolvent so would legally not be allowed to do any business, hang on, maybe thats why so many things dont get done, they are not doing the jobs to stop from breaking the law
Living MY dream.0 -
VTech wrote:Peddle Up! wrote:estampida wrote:and sir Fred, criminal charges... err might not have broken any criminal laws...
Trading while insolvent?
Doesnt effect government owned and run businesses, almost all governments are insolvent so would legally not be allowed to do any business, hang on, maybe thats why so many things dont get done, they are not doing the jobs to stop from breaking the law
RBS was a private bank while Goodwin was in charge.Purveyor of "up"0 -
I was referring to the fact that I dont think for even a single second that the government have less than 100% knowledge of what the banks are doing, its the backbone of society and it wouldnt be allowed when it is so easy to control.Living MY dream.0
-
Control how?0
-
Whats scary is that Cameron (who is in fact TOW) says the bank is being very restrained by limiting its bonus pool to only £600m - despite this huge loss (ok some is accounting methods and fines) but still i cant see the steady stream of city wan... sorry bankers, not continuing to buy up the few remaining privately owned homes in Cornwall
I would nt be so sure that any Government has the competency to have any idea what a bank or anyone else is up to 0 -
mamba80 wrote:Whats scary is that Cameron (who is in fact TOW) says the bank is being very restrained by limiting its bonus pool to only £600m - despite this huge loss (ok some is accounting methods and fines) but still i cant see the steady stream of city wan... sorry bankers, not continuing to buy up the few remaining privately owned homes in Cornwall
I would nt be so sure that any Government has the competency to have any idea what a bank or anyone else is up to
There is some quite interesting corporate governance theory behind that
1) The bankers aren't necessarily performing badly, they are just suffering from macroeconomic conditions, potentially the failures of predecessors etc. Should we still reward performance? after all good performance is relative? Should the mangers themselves demand a risk premium in their contracts to guard against the possibility of less pay due to factors out of their control?
2) The labour market for bankers says that's the going rate, so if they want good bankers then that's what they have to pay.
But none of us know enough about either 1) or 2) to form an opinion on whether the bankers do deserve their bonus or not.
ok.. actually its probably not too outlandish to say that 1) probably isn't the case.. but 2) still stands.0 -
ALIHISGREAT wrote:
2) The labour market for bankers says that's the going rate, so if they want good bankers then that's what they have to pay.
This seriously annoys me. The entire industry just about collapsed and was only propped up due to the wider consequences of allowing such a collapse. The going rate in 2008 was dole money. We rescued the industry and have to watch continued bonus payments for any level of performance under this totally false guise of we'll all go elsewhere.
The money markets are the most capitalistic of all industries by their very nature and yet the industry and the failures within it have been totally protected from the consequences of failure.
When the whole industry was on it's knees, where were all these bankers going to go? Sure, some would have gone overseas but a good number would have stayed and earned an adjusted salary rate whilst being very conscious of just how lucky they had been in the previous few years.0 -
That's a great statement but you try getting that into the head of a banker. The problem as you suggest is the mind set. In almost all industries it is levelled on market value but some are kept falsely high. This is where the real danger is always going to be. When you have false levels people need to adjust figures to warrant high pay and this leads to false or misguided accounting. That then leads to 2008 repeating itself.
I'm able to earn a wage that pays my bills, the minute I can't do my job I'm gone. I know this and because of that I keep a realistic view and am much more aware of the dangers of fecking up.Living MY dream.0 -
These people do not live in the real world it's a bubble.
I loved the comments about a 'talent' drain if the EU ruling is implemented in the banking sector.
Talent? Banker? Not two words I'd put together. Ones I know are total pr!cks with their heads buried firmly up their own arses.
The banking culture will never change as the people it attracts are the most devious, greedy, self gratifying numpties.0 -
-
0
-
Also, whenever people talk of the "wealth creators" in the City I like to check the numbers.Purveyor of "up"0
-
The most fascinating and quite disturbing thing in equal measure about Goodwin is he has another job that isn't just flipping burgers. How can anyone take him seriously when making suggestions at board level?0
-
verylonglegs wrote:The most fascinating and quite disturbing thing in equal measure about Goodwin is he has another job that isn't just flipping burgers. How can anyone take him seriously when making suggestions at board level?
Easy if they're all in it together...Purveyor of "up"0 -
Part of me wants to say that some of the bastards (banks) are only reporting these losses as a protest against the (frankly ineffective) fines from the FSA (soon to be re-branded the FCA, great.)
If the times were good these fines would just be a big asterisk, shoved to the margins of the accounts as an 'anomaly'. What they'd publish are the purely operating accounts, which may well be turning a profit right now, considering the City has recovered quite handsomely.
They know the media will jump in with 'losses' headlines because of the tax payer malarkey. So then the banks PR team roll out the trump card middle finger to the fine imposing regulators and shareholding government as they present the 'victim of fines', 'any more regulation and we'll leave' turd to the media.
Of course there's probably more to it that that. But it's marvelous strategising nevertheless.
PS Before anyone proclaims 'there's no way they'd be able to omit stuff from the accounts' - believe me they could hide pink elephants in their accounts.0 -
Peddle Up! wrote:
He gets close. He gets very close. He just can't bring himself to get any closer. My italics, by the way. I hope it's obvious why.From the article wrote:Goldman's role in the sweeping global disaster that was the housing bubble is not hard to trace. Here again, the basic trick was a decline in underwriting standards, although in this case the standards weren't in IPOs but in mortgages. By now almost everyone knows that for decades mortgage dealers insisted that home buyers be able to produce a down payment of 10 percent or more, show a steady income and good credit rating, and possess a real first and last name. Then, at the dawn of the new millennium, they suddenly threw all that shit out the window and started writing mortgages on the backs of napkins to cocktail waitresses and ex-cons carrying five bucks and a Snickers bar.Mangeur0 -
VTech wrote:I was referring to the fact that I dont think for even a single second that the government have less than 100% knowledge of what the banks are doing, its the backbone of society and it wouldnt be allowed when it is so easy to control.
Back with the conspiracy theories. There is a mountain of evidence that the bosses of the big banks had no idea how key parts of their own businesses worked when the crash hit in 2008. The idea that some all-seeing person in the Treasury had "100% knowledge of what the banks are doing" is beyond absurd - like all conspiracy theorists you have a weirdly elevated view of what our ruling class is capable of.0 -
ooermissus wrote:VTech wrote:I was referring to the fact that I dont think for even a single second that the government have less than 100% knowledge of what the banks are doing, its the backbone of society and it wouldnt be allowed when it is so easy to control.
Back with the conspiracy theories. There is a mountain of evidence that the bosses of the big banks had no idea how key parts of their own businesses worked when the crash hit in 2008. The idea that some all-seeing person in the Treasury had "100% knowledge of what the banks are doing" is beyond absurd - like all conspiracy theorists you have a weirdly elevated view of what our ruling class is capable of.
So you think that traders and the like can run amock with crazy purchases, mix sub prime debt with triple A and no one at the top knows ?
I'm not into conspiracy theories, I just fail to believe that no one but the people selling rolled up debt packages knew what was happening. It's laughable to think such a thing, people didnt talk as so many were feeding from the pack and when a rating climb was seen why wasn't it picked up? We are audited and they can check to the last penny money in, out and in stock yet a bank and government can't ?
When that is answered I will be prepared to think differently but I doubt I will ever see such evidence.Living MY dream.0 -
VTech wrote:So you think that traders and the like can run amock with crazy purchases, mix sub prime debt with triple A and no one at the top knows ?
I'm not into conspiracy theories, I just fail to believe that no one but the people selling rolled up debt packages knew what was happening. It's laughable to think such a thing.
That's exactly what happened. Bank management knew that these new instruments were being bought and sold, but they totally underestimated the risks they posed. These tools were supposed to manage risk, but they were compounding it.
Read any of the very good histories of the crash, or the reams of evidence that have come out of various inquiries, and you will find acres testimony that shows just that. Of course, these bozos had little incentive to question their ignorance in the period when they were being hosed with money, but they didn't then lose billions of pounds on purpose.
Some worked out what was going on - hedge funds run by outsiders mostly - and they made a fortune betting that the crash was coming. Some banks too, who specialized in selling toxic debts to other, more credulous, banks. German bankers were renowned for being especially gullible buyers of poisonous waste.
As for politicians and regulators, they were out of their depth. Even Alan Greenspan - the Maestro himself - was forced to humiliate himself by admitting to Congress that he had had no idea what was going on.
You can believe that governments ran the world economy into the rocks on purpose if you like, but you don't know what you're talking about.0 -
I didn't suggest that they run the world Into the ground. That wasn't what I was trying to suggest.Living MY dream.0
-
ooermissus wrote:VTech wrote:So you think that traders and the like can run amock with crazy purchases, mix sub prime debt with triple A and no one at the top knows ?
I'm not into conspiracy theories, I just fail to believe that no one but the people selling rolled up debt packages knew what was happening. It's laughable to think such a thing.
That's exactly what happened. Bank management knew that these new instruments were being bought and sold, but they totally underestimated the risks they posed. These tools were supposed to manage risk, but they were compounding it.
Read any of the very good histories of the crash, or the reams of evidence that have come out of various inquiries, and you will find acres testimony that shows just that. Of course, these bozos had little incentive to question their ignorance in the period when they were being hosed with money, but they didn't then lose billions of pounds on purpose.
Some worked out what was going on - hedge funds run by outsiders mostly - and they made a fortune betting that the crash was coming. Some banks too, who specialized in selling toxic debts to other, more credulous, banks. German bankers were renowned for being especially gullible buyers of poisonous waste.
As for politicians and regulators, they were out of their depth. Even Alan Greenspan - the Maestro himself - was forced to humiliate himself by admitting to Congress that he had had no idea what was going on.
You can believe that governments ran the world economy into the rocks on purpose if you like, but you don't know what you're talking about.
As someone with experience in sub-prime, that's pretty much bang on. Very few people in banking understood what was going on, let alone politicians. Merv King spouted about "shouting from the rooftops", after the effect, but that of course was much, much too late.0 -
Should the banks that have been bailed out by the public purse to a lesser/greater extent be sold of bit by bit as each part of the bank returns to profitability or shoul the sell back wait untl the entire bank is profitable.
I believe the latter, then the bits that become profitable first can over the ensuing period be putting money back into public coffers. Then when the whole bank is saleable we get our money back aswell.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Frank the tank wrote:Should the banks that have been bailed out by the public purse to a lesser/greater extent be sold of bit by bit as each part of the bank returns to profitability or shoul the sell back wait untl the entire bank is profitable.
I believe the latter, then the bits that become profitable first can over the ensuing period be putting money back into public coffers. Then when the whole bank is saleable we get our money back aswell.
Thats the issue, they will sell before profit (someones pocket lined) and we wont see profit.
If it were in a company the CEO and board would be liable.Living MY dream.0 -
ALIHISGREAT wrote:mamba80 wrote:Whats scary is that Cameron (who is in fact TOW) says the bank is being very restrained by limiting its bonus pool to only £600m - despite this huge loss (ok some is accounting methods and fines) but still i cant see the steady stream of city wan... sorry bankers, not continuing to buy up the few remaining privately owned homes in Cornwall
I would nt be so sure that any Government has the competency to have any idea what a bank or anyone else is up to
There is some quite interesting corporate governance theory behind that
1) The bankers aren't necessarily performing badly, they are just suffering from macroeconomic conditions, potentially the failures of predecessors etc. Should we still reward performance? after all good performance is relative? Should the mangers themselves demand a risk premium in their contracts to guard against the possibility of less pay due to factors out of their control?
2) The labour market for bankers says that's the going rate, so if they want good bankers then that's what they have to pay.
But none of us know enough about either 1) or 2) to form an opinion on whether the bankers do deserve their bonus or not.
ok.. actually its probably not too outlandish to say that 1) probably isn't the case.. but 2) still stands.
Banks are making money. RBS is a basket case. Lloyds is a different case because they're not really remotely involved in capital markets in a serious way.
Lloyds is paying for PPI and since it's a retaik bank, that hurts.
RBS has more problems. It's structurally readjusting, moving back to its RBS/ natwest fixed income roots on the capital makrets side and away from its costly move into equities (through ABN). Generally all banks are much much stricter on where they can do business with regard to credit worthiness of the customer / other party, regardless of whether it makes business sense or not, and RBS loses out in that respect.
It can't pay to keep top talent and the structures to pay are uncompetitive compared to the market so the talent that was there has all gone. So you're left with a bank with third tier people, really strict capital requirements that make it uncompetitive, and an infrastructure that didn't have the time to catch up to where RBS was before it all tanked.0 -
As for bonuses, it's a different issue. Bansk prefer bonuses because they can go up an down very easily. Salaries can't and make cost bases a lot more unwieldy. People should focus on total comp rather than the bonus element. That is what HR looks at and what banks look at. Broadly speaking, tc is down year on year since 2009.
Banks don't see bonuses as 'rewards' but an element of total pay which they can vary as much as they want.
So say a guy's market value is £500k. You could either give him a 100k salary and pay the rest in bonus, or givr him a 500k salary
But if the msrket value for him falls next year to 300k, with the latter settup you are screwed.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:As for bonuses, it's a different issue. Bansk prefer bonuses because they can go up an down very easily. Salaries can't and make cost bases a lot more unwieldy. People should focus on total comp rather than the bonus element. That is what HR looks at and what banks look at. Broadly speaking, tc is down year on year since 2009.
Banks don't see bonuses as 'rewards' but an element of total pay which they can vary as much as they want.
So say a guy's market value is £500k. You could either give him a 100k salary and pay the rest in bonus, or givr him a 500k salary
But if the msrket value for him falls next year to 300k, with the latter settup you are screwed.
Rick, as someone who IIRC has worked as a headhunter in this industry, is the difference between the top and middling talent tangible, and are they consistently better performers?You live and learn. At any rate, you live0
