Banks Prank Stank - Barclays in Hot Water

[Hermit]

"LONDON (Reuters) - Financial firms saw strong growth in the second quarter but have become less optimistic about longer-term prospects owing to regulatory concerns, according to a survey on Friday. Some 59 percent saw sales volumes rise in the three months to June, representing a ninth consecutive quarter of growth, a survey by the Confederation of British Industry and accounting and consultancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers found, with 21 percent reporting a fall. 'The financial services sector has seen another quarter of robust growth, with business volumes, income and profitability all rising solidly once again,' CBI chief economic adviser Ian McCafferty said. The CBI said regulatory compliance had been a key factor behind financial services firms' capital expenditure planning. The number of firms anticipating having to spend more on regulatory compliance in the next year rose to 77 percent from 58 percent in the last quarter. 'Businesses are less optimistic than in the previous survey, have reduced headcount and are reappraising investment plans. Regulatory compliance is an increasing factor shaping investment, activity and intentions,' said McCafferty.(Reporting by Matt Scuffham; Editing by Dan Lalor)"
..

Who was it that was posting a wee while ago, saying that all that needed to happen for capitalism was for regulation to be in place?

Aye, right!

Put regulation in until the pips squeak and all that happens is those slippery bastards find ways of avoiding it. Poor wee souls - having to comply with RULES ffs!

Chairman of the International Banking Cartel, Pip MacSqueal, released the following press release: "Government regulations place an additional layer of bureaucracy, and therefore cost, on the financial industry, which will of course have to be passed on to the consumer. The IBC is of the view that the consumer's interest is better served by relying on the natural laws of capitalist competition. The self interest of each and every company ensures that no collusion ever happens." Asked why we should believe him, he replied: "You can trust me. I am a banker."

[John_fi_Skye]

"LONDON (Reuters) - Financial firms saw strong growth in the second quarter but have become less optimistic about longer-term prospects owing to regulatory concerns, according to a survey on Friday. Some 59 percent saw sales volumes rise in the three months to June, representing a ninth consecutive quarter of growth, a survey by the Confederation of British Industry and accounting and consultancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers found, with 21 percent reporting a fall. 'The financial services sector has seen another quarter of robust growth, with business volumes, income and profitability all rising solidly once again,' CBI chief economic adviser Ian McCafferty said. The CBI said regulatory compliance had been a key factor behind financial services firms' capital expenditure planning. The number of firms anticipating having to spend more on regulatory compliance in the next year rose to 77 percent from 58 percent in the last quarter. 'Businesses are less optimistic than in the previous survey, have reduced headcount and are reappraising investment plans. Regulatory compliance is an increasing factor shaping investment, activity and intentions,' said McCafferty.(Reporting by Matt Scuffham; Editing by Dan Lalor)"
..

Who was it that was posting a wee while ago, saying that all that needed to happen for capitalism was for regulation to be in place?

Aye, right!

Put regulation in until the pips squeak and all that happens is those slippery bastards find ways of avoiding it. Poor wee souls - having to comply with RULES ffs!

Chairman of the International Banking Cartel, Pip MacSqueal, released the following press release: "Government regulations place an additional layer of bureaucracy, and therefore cost, on the financial industry, which will of course have to be passed on to the consumer. The IBC is of the view that the consumer's interest is better served by relying on the natural laws of capitalist competition. The self interest of each and every company ensures that no collusion ever happens." Asked why we should believe him, he replied: "You can trust me. I am a banker."

That'll be "banker" with a "w".

[mistermack]

I made this point in an earlier thread.

Do you think this would have happened, if bonuses were outlawed in the financial sector?
Or would there be bad loans, if there were no bonuses?

If your JOB was what you valued, rather than your bonus, you wouldn't put short-term gain over long-term security. You wouldn't risk your job, if there was no chance of a fat bonus making the risk worthwhile.

And I don't believe all that crap about the talented people going elsewhere. Look where the "talented people" have got us. I would rather they fuck off, and promote some more staid ones in their place.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

Punitive fines hurt the innocent share holders, jail terms hurt the guilty party.

"Innocent" share holders? If you buy shares in a company, that ought to be seen as buying some responsibility for that company.

[Coito ergo sum]

U.S. and British officials are considering criminal charges against individuals and British investigators are probing other major banks including Citigroup in the United States, Switzerland's UBS, Britain's HSBC and Royal Bank of Scotland.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/b ... ine29.html

They have to "consider" very carefully criminal charges, just to make sure that none of the "dudes" can throw any of the "regulators" under the bus in the process. I'd bet dollars to donuts that there is government payola involved here. That's what usually gets these thingies resolved with a fine and not much else.

[Audley Strange]

..

Who was it that was posting a wee while ago, saying that all that needed to happen for capitalism was for regulation to be in place?

Aye, right!

Put regulation in until the pips squeak and all that happens is those slippery bastards find ways of avoiding it. Poor wee souls - having to comply with RULES ffs!

Yeah that might might have been me, John. If you regulate such things you can make them illegal which means you can fine, arrest or drag them and their families up against the wall and shoot them if you want.

Whether it be laws, game rules or corporate contracts, they will find a way to exploit them. That doesn't mean rules are useless though because without them you have no way to convict those engaged in such Financial Terrorism.

Should we ban football because some of players and fans are violent racist homophobic thugs or should we charge the fuckers when they commit crimes?

[John_fi_Skye]

..

Who was it that was posting a wee while ago, saying that all that needed to happen for capitalism was for regulation to be in place?

Aye, right!

Put regulation in until the pips squeak and all that happens is those slippery bastards find ways of avoiding it. Poor wee souls - having to comply with RULES ffs!

Yeah that might might have been me, John. If you regulate such things you can make them illegal which means you can fine, arrest or drag them and their families up against the wall and shoot them if you want.

Whether it be laws, game rules or corporate contracts, they will find a way to exploit them. That doesn't mean rules are useless though because without them you have no way to convict those engaged in such Financial Terrorism.

Should we ban football because some of players and fans are violent racist homophobic thugs or should we charge the fuckers when they commit crimes?

I'd be much happier if football players never tried to gain unfair advantage by foul play. (Though I don't think rugby union's as good a game as fitba, I wish footballers behaved more like the rugger buggers do.) But although I like football, it's not as important to me as how humans get on together in society. That's why I don't bother posting on here about it. Yes - shut it down entirely if you like because of the thuggery. Fair enough. I'll have more free evenings to do other things.

And I understand the analogy you're making, and I'd rather have regulation rather than none, and I'd rather have effective regulation if possible. But the exploitation you're referring to is going to go on as long as people are motivated by materialism and not by altruism.

[Calilasseia]

I have an interesting solution to this problem.

"Hello, bankers ... next time you screw up the economy whilst protecting your own arses with fat bonuses salted away in offshore tax havens, you'll be introduced to my pet Cochliomyia hominivorax ..."

[Tyrannical]

Punitive fines hurt the innocent share holders, jail terms hurt the guilty party.

"Innocent" share holders? If you buy shares in a company, that ought to be seen as buying some responsibility for that company.

Most people "own" stock through various pension and retirement funds.

[John_fi_Skye]

I have an interesting solution to this problem.

"Hello, bankers ... next time you screw up the economy whilst protecting your own arses with fat bonuses salted away in offshore tax havens, you'll be introduced to my pet Cochliomyia hominivorax ..."

Harsh, but just.

[Tyrannical]

I have an interesting solution to this problem.

"Hello, bankers ... next time you screw up the economy whilst protecting your own arses with fat bonuses salted away in offshore tax havens, you'll be introduced to my pet Cochliomyia hominivorax ..."

Yeah, you telle'm what Hitler did to the greedy bankers

[MrJonno]

Punitive fines hurt the innocent share holders, jail terms hurt the guilty party.

"Innocent" share holders? If you buy shares in a company, that ought to be seen as buying some responsibility for that company.

Most people "own" stock through various pension and retirement funds.

Err no they don't not in the UK at least , most of us have only have state pensions. A significant minority may have shares but in no way is this a majority

[Rum]

The Chair of Barclays has resigned today. Not Bob Diamond, mind you, who was in charge of the department that fiddled the interest rate.

'Justice' of a sort.

The lot of them stink.

I am with HSBC and have been for something like 25 years. I am seriously thinking of switching to the Coop. Anyone any experience of a non-shareholder bank?

[John_fi_Skye]

The Chair of Barclays has resigned today. Not Bob Diamond, mind you, who was in charge of the department that fiddled the interest rate.

'Justice' of a sort.

The lot of them stink.

I am with HSBC and have been for something like 25 years. I am seriously thinking of switching to the Coop. Anyone any experience of a non-shareholder bank?

Remember building societies? They were "friendly societies". And then they were - what was the term - "de-mutualised"? Because the same type of people as we've been talking about reckoned they could get more money out of them by converting them into banks. And the rest, of course, is history.

But obviously it's another aspect of capitalism that it always tends to reduce customer choice. So, it wouldn't do if we were able to choose amongst too many different types of financial institutions.

It'll be really interesting to hear if your experience with the Co-op is any better, Rum.

[Audley Strange]

The Chair of Barclays has resigned today. Not Bob Diamond, mind you, who was in charge of the department that fiddled the interest rate.

'Justice' of a sort.

The lot of them stink.

I am with HSBC and have been for something like 25 years. I am seriously thinking of switching to the Coop. Anyone any experience of a non-shareholder bank?

Remember building societies? They were "friendly societies". And then they were - what was the term - "de-mutualised"? Because the same type of people as we've been talking about reckoned they could get more money out of them by converting them into banks. And the rest, of course, is history.

But obviously it's another aspect of capitalism that it always tends to reduce customer choice. So, it wouldn't do if we were able to choose amongst too many different types of financial institutions.

It'll be really interesting to hear if your experience with the Co-op is any better, Rum.

Well no John, that's inaccurate. Most of them converted to banks because it was the will of the members of such mutual societies to get an extra grand or so on their pocket by allowing them to float on the market. This was a decision not made only once or twice but by nearly all the remaining building societies which did not have shareholders or finance necromancers draining the lifeblood from it's poor customers. "The same time of people" as you vilify were those who kept them going for years who gave it up for short term gain, don't blame the financiers for the short sightedness and greed of oh wait... every-fucking-body.

Only a moron turns down free money.


I