Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ranting into the ether about banks

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

    Ranting into the ether about banks

    Hold on, 3.5bn losses? 375m in bonuses? Leaving aside the PPI insurance claim money, that is still a 300 million loss. I bet the job losses won't be from those who sold the PPI. This
    The average bonus for each of its 100,000 staff will be 3,900.
    is disingenuous bullshit as well. You can bet that Kevin and Karen at "Window number 7, please" won't be getting 3900.

    I mean, we are just laying down and taking this shit, aren't we? This will be forgotten about next week while people mumble and grumble a bit in a general manner about "bankers". I heard someone saying that they had to pay these bonuses to stop the bankers that were left from joining those that had already fucked off. If this was in the public sector, we would never hear the end of it.

    Watch the sly cunts have a dig at Bob Crow's council house in the next press article about him and not mention that we are subsidising these arseholes' houses

    #2
    Ranting into the ether about banks

    We have to keep our captains of industry sweet. I mean, think of all the tax they pay!

    Comment


      #3
      Ranting into the ether about banks

      Move Your Money

      Comment


        #4
        Ranting into the ether about banks

        It is the whole long term outlook and way that rewards work in any industry. It is a human capital business.

        Say you have team A, B and C. Team A loses about $1 bil, so they all get fired. Team B about breaks even. Team C makes $750 mil.

        You are sat on a loss, but team C expect to get paid. After all, they had no control over team A and would get paid elsewhere. So to keep them, management has to make some form of compromise on bonuses. Otherwise you are looking at a $750 mil hole in next year.

        Comment


          #5
          Ranting into the ether about banks

          Well, that would be fine if Team C made 750 million but I would be amazed if they did here and also if Team A gets sacked. Like I say, I expect that Team Y at the Barrow branch don't get bonuses and Team Z at the Port Talbot branch is getting jobs cut

          Comment


            #6
            Ranting into the ether about banks

            What's this all about:

            Comment


              #7
              Ranting into the ether about banks

              Bored of Education wrote:
              Well, that would be fine if Team C made 750 million but I would be amazed if they did here and also if Team A gets sacked. Like I say, I expect that Team Y at the Barrow branch don't get bonuses and Team Z at the Port Talbot branch is getting jobs cut
              Team A in this case is the High Street branches. Kevin and Karen cannot be sacked (well, not all of them), because of the effect that would have ordinary people and towns.

              But just giving the average, without at the very least a standard deviation is indeed disingenuous bullshit. Personally, I would like them to be forced, if they want to publish an average, to include the SD and 99th percentile. That final one would be particularly interesting...

              Comment


                #8
                Ranting into the ether about banks

                No tribute thread about England's greatest ever goalie? This place is slipping.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Ranting into the ether about banks

                  Why at Last! wrote:
                  No tribute thread about England's greatest ever goalie? This place is slipping.
                  Not even one questioning whether the Shipping Forecast really needed a makeover to make it edgier and more relevant.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Ranting into the ether about banks

                    Bored! Are you open to the possibility that dglh just might know a bit more about how banks work than you do?

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Ranting into the ether about banks

                      I know my contribution to this thread was a little cryptic, but I wonder if anyone could shed any light on that statement in the video. As a brief precis it's made by an ex banker, and now Tory peer in the house of lords, regarding the apparent dealings of a sum of 15 trillion dollars, and 750,000 tonnes of gold (when only just over a 1000 tonnes has ever been mined in the world in history) which appears to be an absolutely massive fraud.

                      Can anyone shed any light on it? It's all way over my head frankly, but it does seem on the face of it to be almost incredible. But given the identity of the speaker and the venue hardly the standard internet conspiracy theory

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Ranting into the ether about banks

                        Say you have team A, B and C. Team A loses about $1 bil, so they all get fired. Team B about breaks even. Team C makes $750 mil.
                        But how big a bonus should you award yourself?

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Ranting into the ether about banks

                          Are you open to the possibility that dglh just might know a bit more about how banks work than you do?
                          Of course he does, though I don't think it follows that it negates all of Bored's criticisms. I mean, I know fuck all about the minutiae of the arms industry - but I'm with those Campaign Against the Arms Trade dudes meself.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Ranting into the ether about banks

                            And you have every right to do so. Your objections to capitalism and its current excesses are deeply held and have been consistently articulated ever since I showed up here (and, I'm sure, well before).

                            But Bored questioned dglh's factual description of the dynamics of investment banking compensation and job security, noting that he would be "amazed" if one group made 750 million and another group was sacked.

                            My point was simply that each of those things are relatively common in the industry, and that dglh knows that better than anyone on here, because his professional life depends on it.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Ranting into the ether about banks

                              ad hoc, James appears to have fallen for a fraud that passed its sell buy date over here about four years ago:

                              From the Fed:

                              Scam Involving Yohannes Riyadi and/or Wilfredo Saurin
                              November 2007

                              The Federal Reserve is aware of a fraudulent scam involving individuals using the names Yohannes Riyadi and/or Wilfredo Saurin, or persons claiming to be representatives of these two men. In a typical version of this scam, Mr. Riyadi and/or his delegates falsely claim that they have on deposit with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York several U.S. Treasury Checks issued to Mr. Riyadi amounting to billions of dollars.

                              The Federal Reserve Bank of New York has been contacted by several brokers and financial institutions worldwide inquiring about the validity of this fraudulent account documentation, which is being offered as collateral for lines of credit or other types of asset based financing. The fraudulent scheme includes multiple documents which purport to have the signatures of various Federal Reserve officials, including Chairman Ben Bernanke.

                              In some instances, individuals involved in this fraudulent scheme claim to have met with Federal Reserve officials and claim to have verified that the alleged account is in order. We have also learned that the fraud may include the purchase of certain documents by the introducing brokers.

                              If you have information regarding this fraud please contact either Robert Amenta, Special Investigator at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, or Erik Rosenblatt, Senior Special Agent at the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
                              Of course, I am sure that there are people out there who would say that that is exactly what the Fed would say if they were up to their eyeballs in the fraud, but it really is terribly implausible (the description of the "European MTN trading market" has no basis in reality) and it is worth noting that last year he was going on about Foundation X.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Ranting into the ether about banks

                                My point was simply that each of those things are relatively common in the industry, and that dglh knows that better than anyone on here, because his professional life depends on it.
                                Firstly, of course, I am open-minded to dglh being more knowledgeable about this than me. Indeed, I am open-minded to the possibility that anyone anywhere knows more about anything than me. What I certainly don't know is everyone's jobs.

                                Having said that, dglh provided an example rather than actual figures that this has happened in this instance so I think I have reason to doubt that this was actually the case.

                                Also, and I think that this may be the root of, what seems like, an overly pedantic attitude that you have to some of my points in particular is that I treat most debates on here as a community of enquiry rather that some of polemical debating society. As such, as well as, of course, consensus and compromise, you need a certain amount of challenging and argumentation to clarify claims, build upon ideas and extend the discourse. Mikhail Bakhtin said ""If an answer does not give rise to a new question in itself , it falls out of the dialogue". This is why threads like this are different from the tedious BRC threads on 'Football'

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  Ranting into the ether about banks

                                  Additionally, I think we have got into a lot of trouble thinking that the banks know what they are doing and shouldn't have to stand up to too much public scrutiny from outside the industry so forgive me if I test any theory to destruction. I am not saying that dglh is lying or disingenuous, I am saying, you know, If what I say isn't the case, you have to convince me further.

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    Ranting into the ether about banks

                                    Bored, it may strike you as pedantic, but my view is that a community of enquiry is better served by questions being phrased as such, rather than as dismissive snark.

                                    In that spirit, here are a couple of dozen pieces on thousands of people being fired from investment banks.

                                    And here's an article on one type of desk that has been regularly generating "billions of dollars" for such firms (when they don't screw things up).

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      Ranting into the ether about banks

                                      Bored of Education wrote:
                                      Having said that, dglh provided an example rather than actual figures that this has happened in this instance so I think I have reason to doubt that this was actually the case.
                                      If I were to provide actual figures from this instance (if I were able), I would lose my job pretty quickly.

                                      Also, banks are very aware that they are subject of public scrutiny, which makes it even less likely that these rewards were considered to be pretty necessary and in the best interest of the firm.

                                      There can be profitable enterprises in a loss making bank just the same as there can be high quality teachers at a school on special measures. Both will do their upmost to keep those members of staff. There is also the weird one in finance - how do you reward the guy who saved you from losing another billion?

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        Ranting into the ether about banks

                                        I appreciate that you aren't able to give exact figures, dglh, which is why it is next to useless to give the sort of figures that you have. As I say, I didn't realise that you are in banking so, despite what UA says, I do appreciate that you have more insight than people like me but that, in some ways, is my point. You now have to get your points across to people like me because we are now funding, well if not your band, the one in question.

                                        UA, if you think that my answer was dismissive snark then you are leading a sheltered life. Although I appear to be a minority from the reaction a lot of these announcements get, I am furious about this which may have coloured my response somewhat. There again, I can see what the results of saving this bank has had and will have on cuts in the public services which have got nothing to do with abstract financial dealings and economic theories but everything to do with the gap between the rich and the poor (and the everyday effects on this)

                                        While dglh's response makes sense within the banking structure, the way the banks have been allowed to be built into that structure and the way we have had to make sacrifices for that doesn't. If a company had got into that much debt and was in that much hock to one of these banks and announced it was spending out this much relatively on bonuses, would the bank stand for it? Actually, considering the trouble we are in, perhaps they would if the company was in.

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          Ranting into the ether about banks

                                          Bored, if the company in question was able to meet all of its financial covenants to the bank* while awarding the bonuses, the bank wouldn't have an issue with the bonuses.

                                          I appreciate your anger and share it to a certain extent (and likely stand shoulder to shoulder with you on the income inequality question). That said, I think it is always more productive to argue from as an informed a basis as possible, and disagree with your characterisation of dglh's description as "next to useless", given that I've given you data that supports his underlying assertion.

                                          * contractual provisions that require the borrower to meet certain financial ratios in order to be able to keep borrowing/keep the loan outstanding. It's worth noting that a significant number of corporate loans don't have any such covenants at all.

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            Ranting into the ether about banks

                                            Your point about the information you have given does support dglh's underlying assertion except that it doesn't relate to that bank and doesn't relate to a bank that is part-owned by our taxes. Your point is pertinent about the covenants as perhaps these should made in this deal. Indeed, perhaps they were.

                                            Look, I am not belittling dglh's point. Of course, I am not and, even if he is the OTF voice of the banks, he shouldn't be answerable for the banks, their labyrinthine structures, or, perhaps more importantly, the successive governments that have let them get that way through inadequate deregulation. I am just somewhat taken aback that you think my questioning of his account is out of order.

                                            Sure, I should probably be more informed. The salient point about this, however, is that the reason we are in the state that we are is because the financial markets are so convoluted that industry people themselves only have a vague grip of what has been going on in many of these dealings. It didn't appear that I needed to be that informed for my tax money to be used for bailing out RBS, I think, therefore, that I can comment upon and interrogate explanations of how the banking bonus system can work from an equally uninformed position

                                            Comment


                                              #23
                                              Ranting into the ether about banks

                                              Bored, here's one on the 3500 investment banking redunancies RBS has announced last month. Those are on top of the 2000 sackings they announced last year.

                                              RBS' investment bank will have sacked a quarter of their workforce by the time these are done (and they are likely to be more down the road).

                                              Perhaps I over-reacted to your tone of "amazement", but the situation that dglh describes really is very, very well known to anyone familiar with investment banking.

                                              None of which in any way undermines the validity of your complaints about the failure of regulation and the lack of transparency about the process of the takeover.

                                              Comment


                                                #24
                                                Ranting into the ether about banks

                                                The situation that dglh describes really is very, very well known to anyone familiar with investment banking.
                                                ...and accepted, I am sure. Don't get me wrong, I don't want anyone made redundant unnecessarily, not least because, if Gove has his way, they and soldiers will be jostling with me for teaching jobs after being fast-tracked.

                                                I just want these bonuses sorted out. I realise that it is to do with the worldwide financial economy and the ease with which people could get jobs abroad but I want worldwide banking sorted out as well.

                                                Or, you know, dismantled and the money go into education and health

                                                Comment


                                                  #25
                                                  Ranting into the ether about banks

                                                  The problem is that the focus on the bonuses is a very short-term view (ironically much like the reward process) whereas now the bonuses are relatively long-term awards and highly restrictive.

                                                  The banks are looking to earn their way out, which is an interest they share with the government getting out even (or up). There are a good ten banks in the City that don't have this constraint and will target earning teams - sending deal lists and P&L records is pretty common for valuable people moving.

                                                  I get that it doesn't sit well, but paying the right people enough to stay is really important if you don't want that 90% share of RBS (or 40% odd share of Lloyds) to turn into a very big hole indeed.

                                                  Comment

                                                  Working...
                                                  X