Another thieving parasite banker

[AtW]

and can you find evidence of gross or deliberate negligence?

I could if I had a free hand and authority.

Not evidence that is good enough for people who don't like bankers, but real evidence. Evidence acceptable and admissable in a court of law, and which a judge will allow to be presented to a jury?

I like bankers. What I don't like is when bankers turn into gamblers (aka hedge funds) with my money without my explicit authorisation and then cause the system to almost collapse and then get bailed out with my money.

I'm not sure that retrospective laws are legal under any constitution, because decisions were made in accordance with the law at the time and to retrospectively alter the law to say those decisions were not just wrong but illegal is contrary to natural law.

Indeed, even backwards countries like Russia don't allow retrospective legislation (it's okay in the UK for some odd reason).

Those bankers of failed banks can and should be done using existing laws -

You can see why I doubt whether a retrospective law would ever survive challenges through the courts.

Tax laws probably can, criminal ones - probably not (even in the UK).

The point I am making is that bankers seem to be getting away with it - they caused massive losses of money, shareholder value etc - where are the lawsuits? So many industries gone bust in this country without any bailout or help, why bankers now got both and still getting millions in bonuses? Just how the fook that is possible?

[deano]

I could if I had a free hand and authority.

How do you know? Are you saying you would manufacture or plant evidence? If not, then no matter how free a hand you had, or howver much authority you had, there is no way you could claim to guarantee to find evidence of wrongdoing. Only a child would claim such a thing.

I like bankers. What I don't like is when bankers turn into gamblers (aka hedge funds) with my money without my explicit authorisation and then cause the system to almost collapse and then get bailed out with my money.

Of course you want bankers to be gamblers. You want them to loan money for mortgages and business loans don't you? They make calculations of return vs risk and lend on those basis. The gambling is not the problem, it is the calculation of return vs. risk that was faulty, and that is a regulatory problem. The regulators should have pointed out that their models were faulty and they should fix them. They didn't and allowed the bank to continue with a faulty strategy. The whole "brownturn" was caused by whoever was in charge of the FSA during the last decade. That would have been the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Those bankers of failed banks can and should be done using existing laws -

Tax laws probably can, criminal ones - probably not (even in the UK).

The point I am making is that bankers seem to be getting away with it - they caused massive losses of money, shareholder value etc - where are the lawsuits? So many industries gone bust in this country without any bailout or help, why bankers now got both and still getting millions in bonuses? Just how the fook that is possible?

A law is a law - tax or criminal. Decisions were made and budgets were spent based upon the tax laws in place at the time. To retrospectively alter them would be thrown out of the EU courts, never mind what the UK courts say.

Where are the lawsuits? Go back to your first point. Where is the evidence to support any lawsuits?

When things have gone wrong like this, highlights why the law must be adhered to and pursued absoulutely correctly, otherwise frustrated people with grudge - political or otherwise - may want to bend or break the law as an act of revenge. That is not what the law is for.

[AtW]

How do you know? Are you saying you would manufacture or plant evidence? If not, then no matter how free a hand you had, or howver much authority you had, there is no way you could claim to guarantee to find evidence of wrongdoing. Only a child would claim such a thing.

No, I won't plant any evidence - it would be sufficient to prove that top management had lax risk controls and thus did not do their job properly.

Of course you want bankers to be gamblers.

No, I don't want it. I put money in a bank to keep them safe - that's primary purpose of the bank, I am actually paying monthly fee (if balance of my account goes below agreed level) - so, no, I don't want them to gamble: banks should never engage in this junk, they must be safe places that keep money, send money around the world in safe manner - stuff like that.

You want them to loan money for mortgages and business loans don't you?

Making subprime loans on the basis of short term high commission incentives is gambling and I don't want that.

A law is a law - tax or criminal. Decisions were made and budgets were spent based upon the tax laws in place at the time. To retrospectively alter them would be thrown out of the EU courts, never mind what the UK courts say.

I'd use existing legislation to get them down - the fact is that they did not do their job propertly as otherwise their banks would not need to be bailed out.

Where are the lawsuits? Go back to your first point. Where is the evidence to support any lawsuits?

Here for example:
http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...tors-75bn.html

Clearly, even if you ignore all that has lead bank to the collapse, the management did not act correctly in winding it down and this has cost a lot of money to credits and shareholders - they in my view have shown criminal negligence that resulted in massive loss of money. In case of Lehman it can easily be proven now - read details in article how they canned derivatives that were actually their "assets", ie people owned THEM money and Lehman canned those too, thus resulting in massive loss of assets that could have been used to repay creditors. If that's not criminal negligence I don't know what is.

[Mich the Tester]

and can you find evidence of gross or deliberate negligence?

Not evidence that is good enough for people who don't like bankers, but real evidence. Evidence acceptable and admissable in a court of law, and which a judge will allow to be presented to a jury?

You won't find it if you don't investigate the case. That's where AtW might be right; the new US administration might have the political will to carry out really deep investigations, but I suspect that won't happen here in Europe.

[AtW]

the new US administration might have the political will to carry out really deep investigations

I doubt any deep digs will be needed - a lot of people were involved, and those people are wealthy kinds that hate jails - they will squeal and sing like canaries - cooperate with investigation in order to avoid jail themselves, it's not like it's mafia tight family circle - much harder to break those.

One just needs political will to do that because I think regulators were totally complacent (and may well have colluded) and some seriously long jail sentences are required there.

If you don't do anything then well, it's going to happen again.

The sick thing (which really shows their attitude) is that those guys are still getting huge bonuses while having to leave near bankrupt banks, it tells everything one needs to know about them.

[Mich the Tester]

If you don't do anything then well, it's going to happen again.

That's the point. Any action needs to assert that being a director brings not only rewards, but responsibilities.

[deano]

Oh I don't have a problem with investigations. In fact I am looking forward to the Congressional Hearings on this, and if they start to dig, then the pressure will be on Europe and the UK to do the same. What would nice President Obama think of Old Brown Owl if the US were going through things with a fine toothcomb and the UK wasn't.

Nor do I have a problem with handing out tough sentences to people who have broken the law following due process.

What I do find uncomfortable is the assumption that laws have been broken and if they haven't then things should be changed so that they jolly well have been, so that we can put wealthy businessmen who ran banks in prison. Because they have become rich in a distasteful way.

[AtW]

Oh I don't have a problem with investigations. In fact I am looking forward to the Congressional Hearings on this, and if they start to dig, then the pressure will be on Europe and the UK to do the same.

It sure as hell won't happen in the UK - and I doubt very much for rest of EU, though I would expect much tigher regulations there to prevent banks taking on derivatives junk and other stuff.

What I do find uncomfortable is the assumption that laws have been broken

It is always an assumption when investigations takes place - reasonable suspicion here in my view is present because of the facts - banks almost gone bust, this is not a normal thing.

I don't have a problem with people being rich (bankers or not) - I have a problem when such riches however are obtained when everyone is getting screwed by that person who gets rich at the expense of others, those bankers (not all) essentially engaged in running Ponzi schemes - just look at how many of them put money into Madoff fund and were taking out 12% per annum without asking questions, ffs, one hedge fund put almost all money into it - $7.5 bln, just what it says about risk management there?

Not all banks were involved in this deep, some more and some less - but this needs to be investigated with clear objective - bring criminal charges against people who run those banks.

[deano]

It sure as hell won't happen in the UK - and I doubt very much for rest of EU, though I would expect much tigher regulations there to prevent banks taking on derivatives junk and other stuff.

Do you know what derivatives are, AtW? Do you know how hedge funds work?

I have some news for you. Hedge funds are still being invested in. Banks and pension funds are still using them. Right now. At this very moment. Because they are useful tools for financial investment.

As with any tool it is a matter of using the correct one for the job at hand. It is not the fault of the tool, and those people using them correctly should not be prevented from doing so.

What needs looking at is the regulatory system to make sure that the tools are being used properly.

[AtW]

Do you know what derivatives are, AtW? Do you know how hedge funds work?

Yes.

[QUOTE=deano;726665]I have some news for you. Hedge funds are still being invested in. Banks and pension funds are still using them. Right now. /QUOTE]

Right now hedge funds are in huge decline - overall investment is negative (some obviously still get money), given how non-transparent they are and Madoff scam I'd expect more of outflows to happen next year and by the end of 2010 hedge funds will be not as numerous as they used to.

What needs looking at is the regulatory system to make sure that the tools are being used properly.

Agreed. My point is that Lehman (and many others) did not use derivatives (I accept options/futures) for what they were designed for - they used them for speculation on ridiculous scale: $500 bln I think were Lehmans obligations, they stopped being a bank and became hedge fund - massive failure of regulation but also criminal negligence on behalf of the management of the bank in my view.