So was the 2nd World War all for nothing?

[AtW]

If there were no banks there would be no google

Boll0x. Google got financed by VCs.

If you use Google to commit a crime then you will be held responsible for it.

People who fraud using banks also responsible for their actions.

The banks themselves however do not appear to be responsible at all - especially with other people's money!

Banks should stick to boring stuff like payment processing (don't have problem with it), taking good care of money entrusted to them by savers and give reasonably priced safe loans and mortgages.

That's it - none of this "investment" bull tulip, none of borrowing money from other banks especially from other counties, and none of the investment in foreign countries unless it is to support local company expanding there.

[DodgyAgent]

Boll0x.

got financed by VCs.

Banks should stick to boring stuff like payment processing (don't have problem with it), taking good care of money entrusted to them by savers and give reasonably priced safe loans and mortgages.

That's it - none of this "investment" bull tulip, none of borrowing money from other banks especially from other counties, and none of the investment in foreign countries unless it is to support local company expanding there.

And how do VCs get their money? By working in a field and swapping some sheep for a PC?

[AtW]

And how do VCs get their money? By working in a field and swapping some sheep for a PC?

I would have thought you knew how VCs get their money, what edukation did you have again?

In this country people who are often called "VCs" borrow money from banks and other places to make leveraged buyouts of companies and then run them into the ground.

That's not how proper VCs work that made Silicon Valley possible.

Proper VCs are made of well off people who earned their money (by selling their companies in trade sales or IPOs) and they are prepared to put their money into the VC pot to make proper investments in companies to fund their growth.

Proper VCs don't borrow from banks as a loan instead they will have their own shareholder capital if you like that gets invested.

This is why I have no problem with those VCs - if they go bust completely it's just their shareholders who lost and taxpayers and others are not affected.

Did you even hear of a proper VC bailed out by Govt recently? I have not.

[DodgyAgent]

I would have thought you knew how VCs get their money, what edukation did you have again?

In this country people who are often called "VCs" borrow money from banks and other places to make leveraged buyouts of companies and then run them into the ground.

That's not how proper VCs work that made Silicon Valley possible.

Proper VCs are made of well off people who earned their money and they are prepared to put their money into the VC pot to make proper investments in companies to fund their growth.

Proper VCs don't borrow from banks as a loan instead they will have their own shareholder capital if you like that gets invested.

This is why I have no problem with those VCs - if they go bust completely it's just their shareholders who lost and taxpayers and others are not affected.

Did you even hear of a proper VC bailed out by Govt recently? I have not.

So how is the money collated and transacted? And did those "well off people" make their money by trading sheep for spears?

[AtW]

So how is the money collated and transacted? And did those "well off people" make their money by trading sheep for spears?

Money typically exchanged via simple retail banking - that banking I support and I think all banks should stick only to these simple things that were typical for banks.

It's not rocket science you know - even in Knight Templar times they were able to transfer money, they did so well that the Govt did a reverse-bailout on them.

Should I repeat to you that I have no problems with banks doing actual payments quickly and without big expense? That's what banks should do, but they should not be investing savers money into AAA subprime tulip in foreign country just to make extra 1%-tage profit.

Perhaps there should be just one Govt funded non-profit money clearing house where every taxpayer should have an account and only payments made through that clearing house are legitimate. With all accounts in one place in a non-profit it would make it very efficient and safe money exchange mechanism.

[Paddy]

Money typically exchanged via simple retail banking - that banking I support and I think all banks should stick only to these simple things that were typical for banks.

It's not rocket science you know - even in Knight Templar times they were able to transfer money, they did so well that the Govt did a reverse-bailout on them.

Should I repeat to you that I have no problems with banks doing actual payments quickly and without big expense? That's what banks should do, but they should not be investing savers money into AAA subprime tulip in foreign country just to make extra 1%-tage profit.

Perhaps there should be just one Govt funded non-profit money clearing house where every taxpayer should have an account and only payments made through that clearing house are legitimate. With all accounts in one place in a non-profit it would make it very efficient and safe money exchange mechanism.

I have to agree with you

[AtW]

I have to agree with you

[darmstadt]

Yep.

[AtW]

"Ex-heads of Fannie and Freddie sued by US regulator over sub-prime exposure

Daniel Mudd, who ran Fannie Mae between 2005 and 2008, and Richard Syron, who headed Freddie Mac between 2003 and 2008, were among six senior former executives of the lenders sued in a New York court by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were created to help promote home ownership in the US, were bailed out by the US taxpayer in 2008 after the value of their holdings of mortgage debt collapsed. Together they've received almost $170bn (£109bn) of taxpayers' funds and are now under government control.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives told the world that their sub-prime exposure was substantially smaller than it really was," said Robert Khuzami, head of the SEC's enforcement division. "These material misstatements occurred during a time of acute investor interest in financial institutions' exposure to sub-prime loans," he said.

The SEC alleges that executives at Fannie Mae made misleading statements between November 2006 and August 2008. At Freddie Mac, the alleged misrepresentations occurred between March 2007 and August 2008. Both lenders have agreed to co-operate with the investigation into their former executives. "

More from the source: Ex-heads of Fannie and Freddie sued by US regulator over sub-prime exposure - Telegraph

---

IANAL but based on requirement of company directors to know their liabilities and true position at any time plenty of UK bank execs should be spending this Xmas in jail.