Reply to: Good news - RBS is about to become more like a proper bank

[Mich the Tester]

Sas will be along shortly to call you all cretins.

[DodgyAgent]

I agree about UK banks though - they need to be run for the benefit of the whole of the UK.

They should be run for the benefit of the shareholders in an environment that is beneficial for their clients, employees, directors and the economy of the country in which they operate.

[DodgyAgent]

I think the real problem is that we have some very well paid contractors upset by the fact that there are other people in this world who earn more money than they do. What we have here is a "Hitleresque" hysteria similar to the anti semitic attitudes to Jews generated by the Nazis in WW2.
"Burn them" I hear - no matter that such an action would put huge amounts of people out of jobs who earn a fraction of that earned by the very IT contractors who have made so much money building the IT systems that have supported the banking systems.

Although AtW is right that the power of banks and their trading activities may need reform - and I use the phrase "may" because I dont understand really what banks do - (though this does'nt stop the left wing "rednecks" forming opinions), I sometimes think that it is one or two of you that should be burnt and not the bankers.

[BrilloPad]

Here is another example:

"By rights, those shareholders should be hopping mad when they appreciate the contrast in fortunes: they are carrying a far greater share of the financial pain. Why on earth, they may ask, does chief executive Lloyd Blankfein think he can keep 44% of revenues for himself and his staff? Last year, the ratio was 39.3% and in 2009 it was 35.8%."

Source: Time for Goldman Sachs shareholders to get real on bonuses | Business | The Guardian

If banks are such high cost labour intensive operations then the job of their directors should be every year to cut costs whilst doing same job (supposedly good).

What would have happened if banks actually worked in the interest of shareholders? Profits would have been much higher and staff would have a LOT less motivation to make crazy deals to get their bonus and then leave. High profits would have meant that bank can have more capital to withstand bigger risks where as now most of money just paid to staff and the bank is left bear to suffer hefty losses.

If an American bank wants to hand out loads of cash to its staff then why do we care?

Better still GS pays large amounts of tax in the UK - both as a company and via staff taxes - and there is a trickle down effect too.

I agree about UK banks though - they need to be run for the benefit of the whole of the UK.

[sbakoola]

It happened to Natwest Markets and it will happen to RBS. Parts will get sold off and done away with and it will become a small player in investment banking.

History repeating itself in Bishopsgate, London.

A sad reflection on modern British Investment Banking.

I wish RBS had just not bought out ABN Amro and had risky investment ventures in the USA which dabbled in toxic assets.

[AtW]

Why should bankers go to jail after bank bailouts?

Read this:

Watchdog's verdict could put Sir Fred Goodwin in the dock - Telegraph

Quotes:

"The Companies Act – different from the FSA’s rule book and policed by the Department of Business (BIS) – says directors must be able to “disclose [their company’s] financial position with reasonable accuracy at any time”.

"The Institute of Chartered Accountants says “non-compliance with section 386 is a criminal offence” liable to up to two years in prison and an unlimited fine."

It's all already in existing law.

Limited status won't protect you from it.

Who would want to get involved into complex derivative tulip that nobody understands how to unravel with personal risk of going to jail? Hopefully not many people which is the whole point.

[VectraMan]

How many bankers gone to jail in UK after bank bailouts?

Why should bankers go to jail after bank bailouts? You seem to be not only advocating and end to the concept of limited liability, but taking it further to include not only locking up the directors of companies that go bust, but locking up their employees too.

What kind of mug would ever start a business in a world like that?

[AtW]

I think AtW is missing *the* point, which is that not all rules and regulations are properly enforced, and some (like the 70mph speed limit or directors having to run a company in the interests of shareholders) are barely enforced at all.

I am not missing the point at all, it's you who miss the point with your analogy - in extreme cases in motoring people go to jail or lose their license (100 mph + on motoroway), yet nothing seems to happen to directors of those failed companies (not just banks) despite costing taxpayers many billions.

It is about time it changed.

[AtW]

Bankers who cause loss of life whilst drunk will probably go to jail too.

How many bankers gone to jail in UK after bank bailouts?

Like about none - I don't count here drivers who crashed whilst being a drunk banker, that car analogy wasn't used by me in the first place.

There are enough existing laws in this country to start criminal proceedings, yet they are still talking about it -

Goodwin may face criminal charges over RBS accountancy failings | News | Money Marketing

If local CPS leaders were directly elected by local people then maybe they'd act in public interest.

[Freamon]

Motorists who crash whilst not exceeding the speed limit and not being drunk can also go to jail if consequences of their actions are serious (loss of life).

Bankers who cause loss of life whilst drunk will probably go to jail too.

What's your point?

I think AtW is missing *the* point, which is that not all rules and regulations are properly enforced, and some (like the 70mph speed limit or directors having to run a company in the interests of shareholders) are barely enforced at all.

[VectraMan]

Motorists who crash whilst exceeding speed limit or whilst being drunk can go to jail if consequences of their actions are serious (loss of life), that does not seem to apply to banks or big failing firms in general.

Motorists who crash whilst not exceeding the speed limit and not being drunk can also go to jail if consequences of their actions are serious (loss of life).

Bankers who cause loss of life whilst drunk will probably go to jail too.

What's your point?

[AtW]

No, 99.999% of motorists who exceed 70mph on a motorway suffer no consequences whatsoever. The same as 99.999% of company directors who don't run their company in the interests of shareholders.

Motorists who crash whilst exceeding speed limit or whilst being drunk can go to jail if consequences of their actions are serious (loss of life), that does not seem to apply to banks or big failing firms in general.

[Freamon]

No, but plenty of them get fined and go to jail, compare this with damage "banking" causes and how many of them went to jail? Like about none.

No, 99.999% of motorists who exceed 70mph on a motorway suffer no consequences whatsoever. The same as 99.999% of company directors who don't run their company in the interests of shareholders.

[AtW]

All of them?

No, but plenty of them get fined and go to jail, compare this with damage "banking" causes and how many of them went to jail? Like about none.

[Freamon]

Yes, but the difference is that drivers who exceed 70mph will get 3-12points on their license

All of them?