• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

oh dear: Lenders turn wary of house-price predictions

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    There is simply no need for so many banks, hedge funds etc.

    In fact, the opposite it true. The more banks there are the wider the risk is spread, so not as much chance of a collapse of one bank pulling the economy down with it.
    Feist - 1234. One camera, one take, no editing. Superb. How they did it
    Feist - I Feel It All
    Feist - The Bad In Each Other (Later With Jools Holland)

    Comment


      #12
      Originally posted by PAH View Post
      In fact, the opposite it true. The more banks there are the wider the risk is spread, so not as much chance of a collapse of one bank pulling the economy down with it.
      hear hear. we need lots of small banks. each with their own systems......

      Comment


        #13
        Originally posted by PAH View Post
        In fact, the opposite it true. The more banks there are the wider the risk is spread, so not as much chance of a collapse of one bank pulling the economy down with it.
        Rubbish - many banks just hedged with each other reselling worthless paper and using multipliers.

        The banks should be split in my view into those that deal with transactions and those that invest - the first ones should be 100% guaranteed and have no right whatsoever to invest money into anything but safe stuff like gilts. Anyone who wants to keep money save would invest there.

        Maybe there should be a rule where lending money should have few steps - first is people who have the money (savers) -> bank -> final lending step, ie morgage.

        Bankers should also know that high reward comes with high personal risk of going to jail if the bank gets into trouble - it should be part of employment contract and if they don't like they can fook off and do something else with their own money.

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
          hear hear. we need lots of small banks. each with their own systems......

          I'm thinking of changing my Ltd to a bank, so I can blow all my money on hookers and get bailed out by the govermin.
          Feist - 1234. One camera, one take, no editing. Superb. How they did it
          Feist - I Feel It All
          Feist - The Bad In Each Other (Later With Jools Holland)

          Comment


            #15
            Originally posted by PAH View Post
            I'm thinking of changing my Ltd to a bank, so I can blow all my money on hookers and get bailed out by the govermin.
            Already done it. I got a £5m grant for "investment". But I snorted most of it......

            Comment


              #16
              Originally posted by AtW View Post
              Maybe there should be a rule

              I'm sure there are going to be lots of new rules. But they'll just find loopholes or other schemes. People just can't help being greedy.

              Only solution is to remove people from the system. They're only really needed for making judgements on investments. That's got to change when someone finally writes an AI proggie that lives up to the hype.

              Maybe that's the end game for SKA. To conquer the world, first step is to accumulate all knowledge of everything!
              Feist - 1234. One camera, one take, no editing. Superb. How they did it
              Feist - I Feel It All
              Feist - The Bad In Each Other (Later With Jools Holland)

              Comment


                #17
                Originally posted by PAH View Post
                I'm sure there are going to be lots of new rules. But they'll just find loopholes or other schemes. People just can't help being greedy.
                It can be easily regulated - the problem is that regulators slept on the job or (like FSA in the UK) effectively acted on behalf of the City to limit damages in cases when things got out.

                What should happen is that top brass should be personally responsible for anything bad that happens under their watch - if bank goes down then the board should go to jail until money are fully recovered or they die in jail (whichever comes first), if they don't like they should not be responsible for other peoples money.

                The whole sales bonus system should be changed - if you worked in any "sales-driven company" you'd know what I mean - the rules of game are created in such a way that staff have to missell as otherwise they won't earn money. There should be no short term bonuses for big deals - only after 3-5 years it will be clear if deal worked out and it is at that time those who were involved should get the money kept in safe escrow until such time comes.

                Comment


                  #18
                  You've given all this a lot of thought atw, why don't you just go down the pub instead?

                  Comment


                    #19
                    Originally posted by PAH View Post
                    I'm sure there are going to be lots of new rules. But they'll just find loopholes or other schemes.
                    There are already plenty of rules - that isn't the issue. The issue is that the banks are no longer being regulated, and in the UK that is thanks to our "saviour", Gordon Brown. And he STILL doesn't get it, so I see no prospect of that changing to the degree it needs to any time soon.

                    The other big issue is that the USA clearly can't be trusted to have such a dominant role in the world financial markets. How that gets fixed is anyone's guess...

                    WW3 anyone?
                    Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Originally posted by shoes View Post
                      You've given all this a lot of thought atw, why don't you just go down the pub instead?
                      Could you really subject the regulars at his local to him?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X