Love articles about See the big picture?

Let them come to you! Register with lovemoney.com and we'll send the articles you like straight to your personal homepage.

Join the lovemoney.com experience

Confused?

Banks are still a bunch of parasites

The banks haven’t learned a thing, and we’re all going to pay the price.

The price of a banking failure is high. We are all paying it, in falling house prices, tumbling pensions and in many cases, redundancy.

The average Brit has lost £40,000 in the crunch, according to accountants PriceWaterhouseCoopers. The nation owes £2.2 trillion. The economy is set to shrink by 4.4% this year and unemployment could rise by a million.

It is a fiasco.

We are all hurting, except for one sector of society. And coincidentally, they are the people who are mostly to blame for this shambles.

They're called bankers.

Prepare to be jolly annoyed.

Bankers may have destroyed their own industry and shattered the global economy, but it doesn't seem to worry them.

Many still behave like pampered aristocrats before the French revolution, flaunting their gilded lifestyles while the oppressed masses (you and me) watch with growing anger and revulsion.

Andy Hornby sank HBOS but is now merrily working for Alliance Boots on a salary of £900,000 a year.

Fred Goodwin downed RBS but was canny enough to trouser a £700,000 a year pension before he was booted out.

And now the Government has appointed Stephen Hester as boss of RBS on a potential package of £9.6m, far more than the head of any bailed-out bank is getting in the US.

Chancellor Alistair Darling glanced up from his expenses form just long enough to rubber stamp Hester's wedge.

And all of them grandly deny any responsibility for the chaos they have engineered, or the human cost of plunging millions of pensioners into poverty and a generation of young people into joblessness.

I'm not usually in favour of revolutions (they play havoc with house prices), but there is only one response:

Off with their heads!

We paid twice over.

The banks are stinging us twice. First, by blackmailing the taxpayer into paying hundreds of billions of pounds to bail them out.

And now by using their customers as cannon fodder to plug the vast hole in their balance sheets, by charging rip-off rates on loans and savings.

One year ago, the average mortgage SVR was a modest 1.9% over base rate. Now it is a whopping 4.66% over. Some lenders charge even more, which is pure extortion.

Scores of savings accounts pay 0%, while the average authorised overdraft rate has crept up to nearly 12% and the typical credit card APR to 18%.

And millions now know what it is like to be rejected for a mortgage, credit card or personal loan, as banks torpedo applications on the slightest pretext.

If the Government had been equally picky when the banks came begging, they would all have gone under.

Talk about do unto others.

Maximum damage, minimum wage

What outrages me is that the banks are getting away with behaviour that would be heartily punished if we tried.

If you or I had bankrupted our employer by investing in things we didn't understand and incidentally plunged the world into an almighty recession, we would expect a bit of a telling off.

In fact, we would expect to be fired without compensation, and spend the rest of our lives picking crops somewhere in the Fens at £5 an hour.

What we wouldn't do is demand the taxpayer picks up the tab for our mistakes. Or insist they reward us with a multi-million pound bonus package and pension fund.

No, we would slope guiltily home, draw the curtains, crack open a bottle of Scotch and reach for our old army service revolver.

At least in the Wall Street Crash, bankers had the grace to jump off tall buildings.

Complete bankers

I'm not just scoring cheap points by bashing the banks, there is a serious point to this. Free markets are designed to punish people for their mistakes, to stop them from doing it again.

The banks should have been punished by going out of business, but we couldn't let that happen, because it would have hung, drawn and quartered the entire economy. So instead they were lavished with taxpayer cash.

Investment bankers have even been called in (on vast consulting fees) to help the Government clear up a problem caused by, er, investment bankers.

So what lesson have they learned? That the price of failure is a blank cheque signed by the likes of you and me.

That during the good times they can pocket squillions in bonuses and pensions, and during the bad times they can still pocket squillions, only this time the taxpayer foots the bill.

Which means there is nothing to deter them from creating the same mess all over again.

In fact, they have already started, topping up the discredited megabonus system, and waiting for the investment banking casino to open again.

And the Government is doing nothing to stop them.

Banana republic

Some of you might want to draw a parallel with our MPs, who have been behaving like crony politicians in the dying days of some doomed dictatorship, filching all they can before the people run them out of the country.

No wonder they have done nothing to prevent the bankers from doing exactly the same, although bankers, being cleverer, are doing it on a much grander scale.

I can destroy worlds!

Our politicians are a sorry bunch of small-time swindlers, but you have to respect the bankers' fiendish genius.

They have long since claimed to be Masters of the Universe, but I'm beginning to suspect they have underestimated themselves.

Anybody who can win such obscene rewards for inflicting so much damage, while leaving others to pick up the tab, has to be much more formidable than that.

And we are in their power.

More: Banks drag their heels on faster payments | Greedy Bankers Are Bailed Out Yet Again

Compare a whole host of financial products at lovemoney.com

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

38 comment

Share this lovemoney.com content on any of the social networks and utilities below by simply clicking the site of your choice.

  • You can subscribe to all lovemoney.com articles via our RSS feed.

Comments

Avatar

stu531 said

  • 0 recommendations

Great article.

I would have liked to have seen something more on what could be done about it! Should we move over to more ethical banks (e.g. Co-op)? Frankly I can't see a change of government doing much about it.

Vote with your 'change of bank application form'?

Avatar

Ed Bowsher said

  • 1 recommendation

"Frankly I can't see a change of government doing much about it. "

I suspect the Tories will be slightly tougher than Labour with the City. I think many Labour politicians are scared of the City and don't understand. But it's a bit different with the Tories. Some of them have worked in the City and even those who haven't will know plenty of City folk socially - from Oxbridge, public school etc.

Of course, you could argue that the Tories will be even more spineless than Labour because they will want to look after their mates. But my hunch is that they will actually be a bit tougher. David Cameron is someone with a bit of spine.

Regards,

Ed Bowsher lovemoney.com staff member

Avatar

peepobaby said

  • 0 recommendations

Disagree with the tone. Banking is dead. When taxpayer support is withdrawn, it will wither. It should be.

Avatar
  • 0 recommendations

A great article Harvey,

Well done.

Avatar

glynh said

  • 0 recommendations

Harvey - were you having a bad day when you wrote this one?

There is of course a great deal of sense in what you say, but the overriding negativity undermines the force of the piece.

Avatar

bimber said

  • 0 recommendations

The collective noun for bankers is Wunch and it would have been appropriate for the banks to go bust. However, given the practicalities of bank failure it may have been better to prop them up. You're already complaining about cheaper houses and shares, just imagine how cheap they'd be if the whole economy collapsed and there were riots in every town! The average Brit may have lost £40k but would have lost a lot more otherwise, and loading debt onto generations yet to be born or too young to vote, to keep the bubble inflated a bit longer, seems to be more acceptable.

However, just because the government has a claim on the banks doesn't mean we have a right to credit on our own terms. The banks are factoring in the risk of default, like they should have done years ago, so the fact there are people who cannot get mortgages or credit cards is a good thing.

Avatar
  • 0 recommendations

I agree totally with your article, but what does Joe Public do about these bankers.   Although it's a well-worn phrase, they just don't get it, do they?

Avatar
  • 0 recommendations

The reason the streets aren't running red with banker blood is simply that the average joe doesn't understand what's going on. Slowly though the scale of the injustice will likely sink in and once it does, well, I wouldn't want to be wearing a pin stripe suit.

We seem to have a problem with comprehending the size of this crime, you've hit the nail on the head though, this is corporatism plain and simple, privatise the profits, socalise the risk. Thankfully history provides examples of what happens when society becomes this unjust and you alluded to at least one such example.

Viva la 1789 ;)

Avatar

pjw said

  • 0 recommendations

Interesting point of view, and as far as the excessive pay for the likes of Fred the shred, and others, I agree.

However, much of this crisis was as a direct result of the total failure of the regulators in the US and then Gordon Brown (as Chancellor) to encourage excessive consumer borrowing, and relax the rules that regulated the banks, including the power of the F.S.A.

Only in a rising housing market would anyone consider lending 110%+ l.t.v. to buy a house, yet this rise in house prices was only permitted by lending money raised on the international markets (which also allowed lending to the un-creditworthy masses that should never have been offered a loan or mortgage to buy their council houses etc.) since previously, lenders could only lend money that they held from savers in the same institution.

In the US millions of people took further advances on their mortgages, and then used this borrowing to make the repayments, naturally once the house prices collapsed, the whole stack of cards came down. This borrowing should never have been allowed, and the US banks that sold on this borrowing lied about the value and safety of the lending, in turn causing much of the current global financial crisis.

The government has used the U.K. banks to re-capitalise the economy, as well as require repayment of publuc funds as soon as possible, for this reason these businesses, that, like every other business, are there to make money, are now taking a more prudent approach to lending and recovering and restoring their balance books.

With risk based lending, in a climate of rising unemployment, of course the cost of borrowing has gone up for those more likely to default on their payments. Credit cards and loans are however still easy to obtain at good rates for those that have been responsible in the past, and not built up thousands of pounds of debt from loans, other credit cards etc.

Don't blame the banks for all the actions of our weak and spineless PM, Brown's recent and historic actions have caused most of our country's current financial problems.

Next time you want something you can't afford and don't really need, and consider a loan to buy it, think about the mess we are all in caused by the millions that have done just that.....

Avatar

Hillocks said

  • 1 recommendation

I think Ed Bowsher's view of the City being populated by ex-public school and Oxbridge chaps is a bit outdated. A few more of them and fewer spivvy barrow boys might have meant we would not be in the mess we are.

Avatar

lurcherdog said

  • 0 recommendations

At my age [66], I've been thru so many of these financial upheavals, life wouldn't be the same without them! Now retired on half what I had planned and worked for, I fully realise there is absolutely nothing whatsoever, that I could do, or can do, about it. A revelotion one cried! Read simple history to find out what happened after each revolution. No, these are human attitudes to do with money so keep your noses hard to the grindstone, one eye on your finances and another eye on your back. There are money people out there ready to legaly rob you so take care and try to look on the positive side of life. Good luck to you all - Pete 

Avatar
  • 0 recommendations

In reality, the more astute public members understand why it has happened, how it affects them and their friends anc family, but have NO options to cause the necessary changes.

Unfortunately, the law discourages the direct interventions that would be ethically justified in my opinion, so what can we actually do? The answer is 'not a lot'. There is little choice with banking, and choice of establishments. Most are as bad as each other.

Society has to accept that buying on credit means only 2 things, repayment and a shift of power. Debt is not only a financial encumberence, but also a (partial) transfer of personal power and control to those who can do the lending.

The notion of 'living to our means' needs to be re-established, otherwise a repeat of the current financial meltdown is inevitable.

Avatar

IntelFool said

  • 0 recommendations

You know whats coming dont you......'Bank Bailout Tax'

Either that or we need some form of ABTA for the banking industry.

Avatar

maarkyboy said

  • 1 recommendation

Edbowsher remind  me never to respect your opinion again. Using your own political bias without referencing any relevant facts and statistics is what my mates do in the boozer but they have the mitigation of a half dozen pints warping their brain.Am I the only guy in the uk who thought 125% mortgages were a bad idea in terms of regulating your own finances? people complain about a nanny state then complain that they were not nannied! the mathematical part of the human brain kicks in about the age of eight for the vast majority of human beings. I was actually able to use this part of my brain to prevent a debt problem/spiral/crunch in my own life. My dear friend took on a 125% NR mortgage, £50,000 of credit card debt and £1.2 MILLION worth of BTL mortgages! He's a waiter on £6hour!!! he's a bit in schtuck now but still managing to get by and make a tidy profit. Just a bit sick and tired of brits complaining about bankers giving them too much £££ and not managing their own financial risk. For goodness sake grow up and take responsibility remember the slogan "Just Say No!!!" Oh and yes I am a brit therefore qualified to criticise.

Avatar
  • 0 recommendations

Absolutely right.

There is always the answer 'no, thanks'. Just because it is there doesn't mean we have to use it.

However, 125% LTV can be OK, IF managed. We did this when we bought our first house. It needed renovatiing, so the extra was used for that purpose - ie increasing our home's (read asset) value. It is only when that extra loan part is squandered that it becomes a problem. Our house's value doubled when it was completed. Now tell me we did wrong?

Like I said, personal responsibility, knowledge and understanding goes a long way.

Avatar

fenemore said

  • 2 recommendations

I was listening to an ex bank employee who had phoned in to a TV programme - for me what she said points to the root of the whole thing...

"I had to sell 10 loans or 5 credit cards before I could go to lunch!"

...which sums up life on this planet - damned "TARGETS".  No matter what your profession, you are faced with these interminable things.  Be it in a hospital where so called "managers" try and meet targets on waiting lists, or in a school where teachers strive to achieve some pre-set government educational flavour of the moment!  Maybe a policeman who is faced with a certain arrest rate!

The fact is that targets should be aspirational - not a threat!  Employees faced with disciplinary action or worse, getting fired WILL without a doubt cause them CONSPIRE to meet them.  It is human nature!

So a bank employee isn't going to be too searching when "selling" a loan or a credit card... he/she gets to eat tonight!

Avatar
  • 0 recommendations

Tend to agree with the statements, but comments of a change in Government to Conservatives would not improve anything, they are just as likely to help the banks as the Labout party, and certainly wouldn't do anything regarding the contractual obligatins of the bosses.

Since we don't know what was in these contracts, and what clauses were in there, then we cannot remonstrate a Government that has probably held to the letter of the law. However, they do need to make sure that any future contracts made have exclusions amended, so that if a bank fails, then the bosses are held ultimately responsible and receive nothing.

I know people in the banking sector, who have been asked to work for less pay, so that they can keep their jobs, whilst not only these bosses getting paid large sums of money, but staff just below that tier have had no pay cuts and not been fired. I tend to think that it is easy to blame the bosses and try to use that as an excuse to not pay them their contractual terms, but at the end of the day, the boss of any bank, gets filtered data from those beneath him/her, and can only go by what is being told to them. Maybe the Governments should be cracking the whip on these immediate subordinates and getting rid of them as well.

Avatar
  • 0 recommendations

"I think Ed Bowsher's view of the City being populated by ex-public school and Oxbridge chaps is a bit outdated. A few more of them and fewer spivvy barrow boys might have meant we would not be in the mess we are."

This statement is utter drivel, I'm afraid. I once thought such class prejudice was long dead in this country, but sadly it seems to be coming more and more to the fore, as the ruling classes re-assert their self-adjudged superiority. The City is absolutely riddled with male ex-public school types, and has a vanishingly small population of women or State-educated individuals. Those that do slip through the vetting process are then weeded out by being kept in the lower reaches of the organisation and bullied until they go back where they are deemed to belong - the kitchen and the council estate, respectively. City workers may behave like spivs, but they were certainly born with the proverbial silver spoon firmly in cakehole.

The worrying thing about the  statement is the idea that the upper classes have better morals than us plebs. This idea is not only false but utterly repellent, and has been propogated by, guess who?, the upper classes! "Yah, but it's not our fault the bankers ruined the World. We were managing your money quite ethically until they let hoi polloi into the Square Mile."

The Shadow Chancellor is an excellent example of how far an idiot with the correct school tie can get in life.

Avatar

LastChip said

  • 0 recommendations

What is disappointing, is when the government (effectively) controlled a couple of banks, staright after the fallout, they had the opportunity to knock these excesses on the head, there and then.

But no! All they did was more of the same.

Not only have politicians proven to be crooks, they are also incompetent as well. But we all knew that, didn't we?

Avatar
  • 0 recommendations

I am sure that rightoncommander meant the οι πολλοί when you mentioned the great unwashed.

rightoncommander - from Elite?

Avatar

marrers said

  • 0 recommendations

The critics of your article are missing the point.  It's a given that there was little else could be done but to bail the idiots out once they had caused chaos and couldn't help themselves out of it.  BUT the idiots should then have been removed far far away from anything to do with finance and absolutely not given other lucrative jobs.  I like the thought of them pea picking in a muddy field for the minimum wage, which was my reluctant second choice after a firing squad.  Ordinary Joe Public wouldn't stand a chance at interview with a CV stating he "made a serious mistake" in his last job.  These folks, however, are cossetted, pensioned off in supreme comfort or given a huge salary elsewhere - seemingly anywhere they like.

The Government, whichever party it is, will do absolutely NOTHING.  We are unable to do anything and will continue to get blood pressure over it forever.  Harvey's article was particularly great reading because it was so wonderful to see what we all think and feel put into print without fear of retribution.  Rock on Harvey!

Avatar
  • 0 recommendations

maarkyboy + iamcoldsteve seem to have hit the nail on the head for me.

One thing that makes me seeth is that the regulatory reforms now proposed will not put an effective firewall between high-risk ("investment") banking and low-risk ("retail") banking. There is no good reason for these things to be joined at the hip, and lots of reasons why they shouldn't be. The BofE's latest proposals, that hybrid banks should be allowed to continue, but that they should hold more liquid assets to finance foul-ups, assumes that banks (or someone) can accurately estimate the level of risk they are taking. But since risk assessment went badly wrong last time, why would anyone believe that it would be done better next time?  

Wouldn't it be better to assume that in high-risk banking, where there is inevitably unfamiliarity caused by innovation, one of the risks is that you can't accurately assess the risk? Therefore a prudent personal will assume that a fatal error cannot be prevented. On that basis, you do all you can to make sure that retail banks are too dull to crash and that a dying investment bank cannot bring down all and sundry with it.

And if that makes the game less fun, well that's tough. They can be astronauts or racing drivers instead and take some real personal risks.

Avatar

dodge66 said

  • 0 recommendations

Banks, like most companies, will fleece the customer for as much as possible. But if the Banks have no consequence for the poor risk management why should they change?

When I remortgaged I was looking to continue with the current mortgage but I was oferred an extra £100k based purely on the increase in equity of my property, even though it meant going from approx 4 times joint salary to over 6 times. Needless to say I explained to the bank that I could not afford it. I have no other loans .

Why was it left to myself to explain to the bank about what I was able to afford. Because whilst house prices was increasing they felt little or no risk if I defaulted (my repossesed house would clearly cover that, phew).

Now the house trend has switched, the "drawbridge" has been pulled up, funny that.

I have my mortgage coming up for renewal and a bet that £100k offer is no longer there......

Avatar

okz1990 said

  • 0 recommendations

im sick of banks and they way they charge people for going overdrawn etc, i understand that yes people should learn to manage there money better, i personally have never paid a single bank charge and no that in the future i never will, because i know how to manage my money, but ive seen my parents loose nearly £300 in 1 month just from simply going overdrawn by £2/3   because they wack on charges like theres no tomorrow. and i still think the banks are sick the way they are still charging ridiculous fees for small miss-haps like going overdrawn, what the hell are the taxpayers charging the banks ??   personally i think that no one should pay and banks charges until the banks have paid back all the tax payers money in full.

Avatar
  • 0 recommendations

Well spotted, Iamcoldsteve, you're the first to catch the reference.

You're quite right, I should have used the Greek characters, since the use of such terminology is primarily to exclude anyone without a Classical education.

Avatar

Big Al said

  • 0 recommendations

"You're quite right, I should have used the Greek characters,"............

One may have received a Classical Education but one may not have actually learnt anything from it......except perchance that Golden of Rules; "why play with ones own money when one shall be given a job where one can play with everyone elses".

Heaven forbid! One doesn't live anywhere near those Greek characters you speak of.

Avatar

Big Al said

  • 0 recommendations

I should have added, "Greek Characters! Far too costly I'm afraid. No, we employ those nice little Chinese people these days."

Avatar

ticktock said

  • 0 recommendations

We can all moan about the past, let's look to the future. Learn from the past. Everyone should reduce or stop borrowing money (loans).

Don't aim to beat the 'Jones' living next door, live your life not theirs.

Teach your children to save not borrow. Spread any savings around for safe income, not high return. A safe return is better than a possible loss.

I'm 66 and have worked since I was 15. My income is enough to allow me to still save. Keep records of your spending over income. Live for the bad times as when they come, and they will (have) you will cope.

Avatar

HomerJay said

  • 0 recommendations

the ordinary person may not appear to be doing anything at the moment, but they know who has been responsible for much of the mess, and the failure to clean it up properly.  And come the next election Gordon Brown will get the message loud and clear.

thing is that in a democracy people tend to wait to vote rather than rush into a revolution.

Avatar

Hitman said

  • 0 recommendations

Correct me if I am wrong here but Democracy gives and guarentees people rights and freedom, however without restraint and guidance, chaos ensues.

It would be my assertion that those individual rights and by extension the rights of any and all institutions or businesses, does not include any right to behave or cause others to behave or operate in an unethical or immoral manner or to cause harm to others directly or indirectly in any manner including but not limited to health or finance.

At present it appears that the attitude of society is to allow most individuals to operate within the bounds of existing if somewhat lax laws and trust that these individuals are raised in a manner where they understand and follow those ethical and moral rules. Self Regulation of business or Regulation by toothless entities with little or no power is a joke.

It is clear that any ethical or moral grounds on which many individuals are raised whether the ethics and moralities are part of a religion are for some often quickly overwhelmed or ignored when financial considerations come into play. This may not always be so much down to the individual where the employer may follow some dubious practice, and compel the employee to become involved.

The only way to ensure that such ethical and moral rules for society are observed is to ensure that there is absolutely no latitude for these rules to be side stepped and should the rules be broken that a sufficiently serious punishment is metered out. A punishment should be sufficiently serious to provide a genuine and serious deterent and might follow a 3 strikes rule with progressively harder deterents for each strike.

The only way to ensure such rules are honoured and observed is for these rules to be instantiated as law.

There should be laws to control the behaviour and practices of politicians, preventing the abuses that have so recently been highlighted but have been practiced since governments were first formed, and where such entites as Monarchies and Religious Institutions exist are often seen to hord and worship such wealths irrespective of the cost to people in general

There should be laws to control the behaviours and practices of business whether local, national or international including but not limited to financial institutions such as banks, insurance and pensions companies. Laws to control the nature and terms of contracts, to protect employees and client rights and to re-emphasise and balance the rights of investors, general and senior employees and client such that there should be no unreasonable or unrealistic charges, salaries that are excessive and well beyond the real cost of living, or provided at the cost of other employees jobs, and dividend should also be moderated so as to protect employees. The importance here being balance so that no individual regardless of position is unfairly treated.

Any individual or organisation that persists in breaking such laws might be considered to forfit those rights related to the nature of the crime and might be denied the right in the future for example a politicion commits a fraudulent action might be denied the right to continue in the role as a politician, A business over charges customers unrealistic prices for products or service might be compelled to return funds and potentially be banned from providing such products or service, a company that over pays senior staff or pays excessive dividends and is perhaps reducing staff without first reducing the salaries of senior staff to more reasonable levels and reducing dividends to minimal levels might be compelled to take such actions or be compelled to remove those staff who themselves are the most significant cost to the company. Such staff might be denied the right to operate in such roles again.

It therefor would be in the interest of all to behave in a more reasonable manner or risk consequences that may make such risks wholy unacceptable to all but a few and those who do will pay the consequences

Avatar
  • 1 recommendation

lamcoldsteve, are you showing your knowledge of Greek or HTML?  ;-)

Well, the message of the article was that banks are rubbish, and they caused the whole credit debarcle - but I'm not so sure.  I'm not a financier or a bank worker, but it occurs to me that the banks were working  in a competitive environment - all competing against each other, jossling for a bigger slice of the market than the next bank was getting.  It seemed OK in those days of financial excitement, but as each bank tried to go one better than the others, silly propositions were put forward - the 125% mortgage being probably the silliest - though at the time, with houses appreciating the way they were, it didn't look all that stupid either .....

Well the bankers were a bit short sighted and didn't see the crunch coming - but how many of us did?  Hindsight tells us what a responsible bank should have been doing, but if a bank had behaved that way during those heady years from 2000-2027/8, would it have survived?  I don't think it would have gained market share, so it wouldn't have been popular with its shareholders, share price falling, loss of confidence in the institution, etc.  You get the picture.  It would have looked like a loser.

To me, it seems that the fault lay in the environment that gave headroom to these wild financial gesticulations, more than with the banks themselves, and the environment was created by the regulators, of which the principals, the folk at the top of the regulatory tree, were the chancellor and the government.  My personal take is that Mr Brown has had more to do with our sorry plight than anybody else.  Heaven help the next generation!

An analogy can be drawn between the banks, and even the government, and an average individual.  The fact that the individual is offered a loan facility that common sense tells him cannot be paid back, that does not oblige him to accept it - and the availability of headroom did not oblige a bank director to use every last inch of it.  And the governent that borrowed its way into a recession, and is now trying to borrow and inflate its way out is like a teenager who has maxed out on a credit card, and is now taking another to pay off some of the first one.  What's that you say? - What inflation?  Just wait a year or two!  Printing money inflates the amount of money chasing the same amount of goods.  Wasn't there a definition of inflation something like that?

I agree with the sentiment that bankers who were reckless should not be cossetted with comfortable pensions beyond the wildest dreams of the average man who is still salaried; and neither should chancellors who have lost billions for their country - even if it was through short sightedness rather than greed.

Avatar

charles125 said

  • 0 recommendations

Banana Republic hits it right on the head. Bunch of Bankers leave you to work out a cockney rhyming slang for them!  They are carrying out 'legalised' THEFT from ordinary people. If I went up to a magistrate or judge and demanded 12% with menaces (lose possessions, lose home) I'd be locked away for a very long time. The fact is 12% DOUBLES their money over 6 years. 18% DOUBLES their money over just over 4 years. 24% DOUBLES their money in just over 3 years. 30% DOUBLES their money in about 2 1/2 years and 40% DOUBLES their money in 2 years. These interest rates are not just extortion, they amount to criminal blackmail and grand larceny, not just grossly indecent greed.

Avatar

McLeodC said

  • 0 recommendations

At least it's some comfort to know that Fred Goodwin will never work again, unless a theatre company wants to employ him as a pantomime villain for us all to hiss and boo at!

Typically, someone in his position could expect to hold directorships (frequently multiple directorships) paying telephone-number salaries until around age 70. So while his RBS (= taxpayers) pension is enough to keep him in luxury for the rest of his life, his income will fall far short of what he must have dreamed of.

Avatar
  • 0 recommendations

Ha ha at uphillalltheway. ;-)

A bit of both, I went to a normal comprehensive school, but am educated to degree level.

rightoncommander is from a misspelt youth on the BBC (so I'm not a 'chav', as 'chavs' didn't have BBC B's)

I knew that is was from greek, but not what it was in greek letters.

In honesty, I saw the collapse as early as 2001 - the first time I went to the US on business.

I came back and thought that it could not continue like it was.

OK, I didn't know when the whole pack of cards would collapse, but I was sure it would sometime, as a society funded through credit isn't stable or viable longer term. How right I was.

Avatar

cabrach said

  • 0 recommendations

Great article -  but completely pointless.  What is Harvey Jones, or YOU, or I, actually going to do about it ?  Sweet F.A. is the answer, apart from whingeing in rant columns such as this.  These sleazebags (bankers and MPs) will simply play out time until another crisis or piece of earthshaking news arrives to distarct the public's attention.  And should it ever be raised agin after that, there will be anodyne statements from both sleazebag camps; " Reviewing ongoing procedures.......Determined to learn from past mistakes.............New failsafe guide lines are under active consideration....blah, blah, blah.  I would have more respect for "Lovemoney" if you were to organise a demo in front of Parliament: I'll carry the banner !

Avatar

Max878 said

  • 0 recommendations

Cabrach.

Well, one thing you could do is start taking away the banks' business. One way to do that is through 'social lending', Zopa being one such method. You can lend directly to people who need the money, at a lower rate than the banks are offering (the rate you offer is up to you). You pay a 1% fee to Zopa to vet the borrowers. And the banks are taken out of the equation.

So,to answer your question - thats what I do!

Max.

Avatar

Concord UK said

  • 0 recommendations

Quote from article: We are all hurting, except for one sector of society. And coincidentally, they are the people who are mostly to blame for this shambles.

That should be two sectors really to include central and local government officers who have made their lifetimes work producing useless tomes of watse of space works. They cover everything from how we naughty people should not use cars but public transport (this is known as Transport Policy) to something equally obnoxious, know as spatial planning which tells us how we should all live in eco-settlements served only by public transport, pedal cycles and the odd yak cart.

Banks could well be described as parasites but only little ones compared with the civil service and local government policy writers. We can at least control what a bank costs us!!! Try not paying council tax!!!

Avatar

SannaLar said

  • 0 recommendations

Most of the readers seem to agree with most of the content.

I think it's important to keep this scandal fresh in our minds, to make it more difficult for the authories to forget all about it and do nothing. Whoever is to blame - the Government is one institution that can actually do something to minimise the risk of it happening again.

Join the conversation

Please sign in or register to add a comment or recommend.

Thank you for using Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels