This is starting to get a little scary Page 363

  • Page

    of 385 First / Last

  • Khanivor 24 Sep 2012 16:46:26 41,485 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    In the long run it is indeed reasonable for all of those people. Unless you think depositors and employees of the bank will see their personal financial situation booming when the economy only employs a few thousand people handling paperwork for things being sold overseas, as the UK has no consumers left to purchase anything because all businesses deemed not 'safe as fuck' have gone down the toilet due to absence of credit.

    I know taking a long-term perspective is anathema to your lot but...
  • disusedgenius 24 Sep 2012 16:47:44 5,714 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    I've given you the reasons why I think banks aren't being too risk averse.
    Sure, which is fine if they're right. Seems like a good idea to spend a relatively small amount of money trying to see whether they're wrong though.
  • disusedgenius 24 Sep 2012 16:54:27 5,714 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    They ARE right. Banks aren't withholding loans because they're being dog-in-the-manger bastards, this is how they make money.
    Making money and being a dog-in-the-manger bastard isn't mutually exclusive, you know. :)

    Either way, I'm not sure why you think that was my point. If anything they just seem to be a bit conservative and so have reached a level of consensus which could do with a bit of a shake up. That's all.
  • disusedgenius 24 Sep 2012 16:57:39 5,714 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    In a nutshell, it isn't a riskier bank, but that's OK, because it isn't really a bank at all and doesn't do any of the things McM, DG, Khani etc hope it will.
    I'm confused by what you think I think, you're the one arguing that it is really a bank.
  • Khanivor 24 Sep 2012 16:59:39 41,485 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I was just arguing against the points you were making LB. Not my fault if our resident financial expert hadn't actually bothered to look into the basic facts of what he was saying was a stupid idea that couldn't work.
  • Bremenacht 24 Sep 2012 17:03:39 20,067 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Sorry! THought 'Cable Bank!' sounded catchy.

    : (

    Je suis Burkey

  • Bremenacht 24 Sep 2012 17:09:26 20,067 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    FWIW - I kind of assumed peeps would read the article linked.

    Je suis Burkey

  • Khanivor 24 Sep 2012 17:11:32 41,485 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Having a quick gander of the linked Fact Sheet and it seems to suggest that banks would indeed find it more appealing to approve loans, if they know the government will then step in and buy those loans. In fact, sounds at face value like an awesome way for banks to get back on the horse they rode over the last cliff; approving loans to shitty prospects then repackaging them and selling the turd off onto an unsuspecting mug.
  • mcmonkeyplc 24 Sep 2012 17:17:17 39,665 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    I've given you the reasons why I think banks aren't being too risk averse.

    Would you like to tell me why they are? Please don't just say 'because not enough small businesses cam get loans' - banks aren't in the business of growing other businesses, they're in the business of investing in the interests of their stakeholders.

    And yeah, sure, this new bank is being transparent. Why then was I the only one in this thread to highlight this? Will any of you be switching to this new bank, with its higher risk of losing your money?

    *obviously you'll say yes because of government insurance and the need to pique me, but do you at least see my point?
    I do see your point but you have to see the point of this bank isn't profit for it's self it is in fact as you said in the business of growing other businesses.

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • Khanivor 24 Sep 2012 17:36:57 41,485 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I thought your point is no one would want to invest their money in riskier prospects if the rate of return they were going to get was the same as for safe ones. As if investing based on something other than pure profits was totally unheard of...

    Warning of a non-risk averse bank is one thing. Warning of a non-risk averse bank which will repackage those things and claim they are rock solid, so of course we aren't actually risky at all! is another thing altogether.
  • Bremenacht 24 Sep 2012 17:38:29 20,067 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Something worth quoting from the article I linked, for clarity

    The new bank's cash will not be channelled directly to companies but through "challenger" banks such as the Co-operative, Handelsbanken and Aldermore. It will be run at arm's length from the Treasury.
    I don't know much about co-op or anything about Aldermore, but I have followed Handelsbank for some years. Look at what it Says about itself.

    It's a proper boring old retail bank. Proper, boring old branch managers having meetings with customers to discuss loans etc. Charging a boring rate of interest. Charging for bank services. Good old risk-aversive banking.

    Our major banks seem to operate on either a floodgates-on or floodgate-off risk basis. I'd rather have a loan request assessed by a human who understands my accounting than some call-centre bod with a big checksheet.

    Je suis Burkey

  • Bremenacht 24 Sep 2012 18:26:50 20,067 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    By employing people trying to flog you crap financial products and outsourcing assessment of your business case/accounts to PWC or their kind, because they no longer have an in-branch or in-house ability to do so? I don't think so.

    These banks have been tagged exactly because they are unlike the usual high-street mob.

    Je suis Burkey

  • RobTheBuilder 25 Sep 2012 01:14:43 6,521 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Banking in 2012, a summary:

    Government: "You MUST lend to businesses as we bailed you out"
    Banks: "ok"
    Banks don't increase lending

    Government: "You MUST lend to businesses, here's some low interest loans to help you"
    Banks: "Ok"
    Banks don't increase lending

    Government: "You MUST lend to businesses or we will get very cross"
    Banks: "Ok"
    Banks don't increase lending

    Government: "We're going to work with you through our own bank set up to increase lending to businesses"
    Banks: "ok"

    ...
  • Psychotext 25 Sep 2012 01:25:58 55,732 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Mostly.
  • whatfruit 28 Sep 2012 11:35:14 1,741 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19748613

    What are the chances that any of them will see serious prison time?

    bobomb wrote:
    so it's not really on her terms, it's on his terms, because she isn't real.

  • sport 28 Sep 2012 12:03:11 12,862 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Problem with that is they didn't actually do anything illegal. They merely stretched their interpretation of the FSA regulations whilst staying within the letter of the law.

    A fine seems the most appropriate response, anyway.
    Exactly what a filthy banker would say!!
  • Page

    of 385 First / Last

Log in or register to reply