It is hard to imagine he wasn't aware...MuttleyCAFC Well Diamond has claimed that he was unaware to the select commitee. He has also said that he has no reason to believe that he is under investigation by either the USA or GB for criminal behaviour. 29 Oct 2008 Diamond had a conversation with Tucker of the B of E, and his COO seems to have 'misunderstood' the results of that conversation ...... for 18 months.
But if he wasn't aware- he should have resigned through incompetence as didn't he work in that part of th ebank for a long time? SUrely he'd understand everything which went on
But if he wasn't aware- he should have resigned through incompetence as didn't he work in that part of th ebank for a long time? SUrely he'd understand everything which went on
He apparently did not know till a few days before the FSA report last week......... Subsequently he of course did resign. His colleague Jerry Del Missier understood. Incompetent, or untruthful......... Personally I think it does take a very accepting person to believe this, but that is his story. If in time facts come out saying otherwise woe betide Bob Diamond.
We need to invent some new rules - we now communism doesn't work but we also must realise that unchecked capitalism doesn't either. People are greedy and you need safeguards - more regulation is the only way and make the crimes that rich people commit, just a punishable as when porrer ones digress.
But if he wasn't aware- he should have resigned through incompetence as didn't he work in that part of th ebank for a long time? SUrely he'd understand everything which went on
He apparently did not know till a few days before the FSA report last week......... Subsequently he of course did resign. His colleague Jerry Del Missier understood. Incompetent, or untruthful......... Personally I think it does take a very accepting person to believe this, but that is his story. If in time facts come out saying otherwise woe betide Bob Diamond.
Well that's what he said. I was shocked when he said it. The FSA issued its "Final Notice" with the penalty on 27 June. The penalty was discounted because of Barclays full co-operation in the investigation (and, presumably because it chose not to appeal the FSA's findings before a Tribunal). If anybody wants a read the link is fsa.gov.uk/static/pubs/final/barclays-jun12.pdf It's only 44 pages long. Some of the figures are mind-blowing. However, and here's the interesting bit, the FSA's position would not have come as any surprise to Barclays. The clue is in the phrase "final notice". And yes, there is indeed a "Warning Notice" that goes out well beforehand and allows the miscreant time to consider what is being alleged, what the proposed penalty is and whether there are any "facts" in the notice that might need amending, or any typos not noticed by the FSA. So is Diamond really saying that no one at Barclays bothered to show him a copy of the Warning Notice? Did he just not read it? So, was he not up to the job, an irrelevance to his co-workers, or was he being economical with the truth before the select committee?
But if he wasn't aware- he should have resigned through incompetence as didn't he work in that part of th ebank for a long time? SUrely he'd understand everything which went on
Dont forget he started life as a money market trader! It's as likey as finding inteligent life in Zamper Road!
I saw a graphic last night prodced by Newsnight that showed Barclays quoted rate against the mean rate offered by the other banks. Unitl the Northern Rock story broke they were on par, after and as BOE were distributing emergency funds at preferential rates Barclay rose relative to other banks (quite dramatically too). That funding was anonymous so we cant know who was taking it but, Lloyds were HBOS free at that time as far as I'm aware the reset had problems and Barclay could not assertain the risk involved in any position. I'd like to see the same graphic with lloyds quoted rates.
Loco - Barclays reportedly spoke to the regulators about this at the time. Lehmans had gone under at that stage and the Bank's submissions for US Libor also rose sharply compared to other banks. There was a belief that those banks were understating the risk, but the regulators did not act on this.
Over this period, Barclays submissions were generally in the top 3 put forward. This meant that they were omitted from the calculation in any case - generally top and bottom four quotes discounted and the Libor rate is then the average of the remaining middle submissions.
The part of this which is more reprehensible is the period in which rates were being set before the crash. At that point it seems that the bollinger boys were in it for themselves and if stories of "requests" being shouted across floors are true, then not only those involved, but those that said nothing about it should be the subject of SFO action.
Loco - Barclays reportedly spoke to the regulators about this at the time. Lehmans had gone under at that stage and the Bank's submissions for US Libor also rose sharply compared to other banks. There was a belief that those banks were understating the risk, but the regulators did not act on this.
Over this period, Barclays submissions were generally in the top 3 put forward. This meant that they were omitted from the calculation in any case - generally top and bottom four quotes discounted and the Libor rate is then the average of the remaining middle submissions.
The part of this which is more reprehensible is the period in which rates were being set before the crash. At that point it seems that the bollinger boys were in it for themselves and if stories of "requests" being shouted across floors are true, then not only those involved, but those that said nothing about it should be the subject of SFO action.
Have to admit Diamond got away with an awful lot yesterday. And if you did not get the message it really loves Barclay's and is very angry, and it is abhorrent, and so forth. Besides the two woman I thought he dealt with the questions very well from his perspective. And that is the issue with the parliamentary angle instead of trying to nail him down on a couple of points it was like nailing jelly down. He deflected the blame on to Jerry De Missier, and the desk supervisors. Not convinced he will go down for this. Not with this quality of questioning.........
I think we saw in the House today precisely why it should be a judicial enquiry if we must have one. They'll spend all their time scoring points rather than getting to the bottom of it. I think the govt has got their backside kicked by Levinson and are too worried the same will happen again.
Bank of Dave, on C4 tonight. Should be interesting.
How driven was he? Good luck to the guy, fought to get a CCL, keeps fighting for an appointment with the FSA so he can try and get bank status.....having worked in that industry for some 20 years until 1999, I believe this guy could, if given the chance, show up some of the institutions and old boys clubs!! He has lent his own money now to people in his home town so they can potentially expand and give jobs to local people hence drive the local economy, they pay him back he lends more to others.....its a kind of 1 man credit union so far......BUT if he can get his Banking licence he can then take money on deposit .....use that to lend and again the local economy will benefit. There are of course 'prudent' checks to be made of anyone 'starting a bank' after-all we don't need new small players screwing the economy like the big players have, but something he has done is set up a bank premises for circa £10k, I believe, and has generated a 'buzz' around his home town. With all of the 'quantative easing' that has gone on over the last few years even now the institutions are not lending in any great quantity to SME's....so what are they doing with it......leaving it sitting on deposit, so if the current banks wont help then perhaps people like Dave can get something going......and we can tell the likes of Barclays, Lloyds et-all where to go!!! Sadly I think his chance of success will be curtailed by 'the old boys' network......unless someone already knows how this has panned out of course?
Redmidland - sorry to disappoint - there is no "old boys" network. In a nutshell, the FSA would just check a firm's attributes against criteria set down by Government. If a business passes the tests, it's in, if it doesn't it is not.
I didn't watch the programme but here are some relevant issues: capital adequacy; contributions to the FSCS; infrastructure; and that the individuals involved are "fit and proper". One issue would be that there would have to be more than one individual having oversight of the business. You can't have a bank with just one person running it. What would happen if he got sick and there was no one around to pay out cash? Most banks have to employ at least one person full time just to fill in the FSA's and Bank of England's regular reporting forms! You saw the programme, taking into account all such issues would you have authorised Dave to accept deposits?
A few years back, an individual set up his own deposit-taking business, issued passbooks and lent money to people who asked him for it. Trouble was he didn't have the wherewithal to check whether anyone would actually pay him back. Guess what - they didn't - and all his depositors lost their life savings because he wasn't authorised.
And, if you care to look, there are large numbers of deposit-taking organisations out there. (At least a couple of thousand if you include friendly societies). A fairly recent addition is the Islamic Bank of Britain which says it has exacting ethical standards. It's a very competitive market. You've had the ability to tell Barclays and the like where to go for ages - so why not just do it?
Loco - Barclays reportedly spoke to the regulators about this at the time. Lehmans had gone under at that stage and the Bank's submissions for US Libor also rose sharply compared to other banks. There was a belief that those banks were understating the risk, but the regulators did not act on this.
Over this period, Barclays submissions were generally in the top 3 put forward. This meant that they were omitted from the calculation in any case - generally top and bottom four quotes discounted and the Libor rate is then the average of the remaining middle submissions.
The part of this which is more reprehensible is the period in which rates were being set before the crash. At that point it seems that the bollinger boys were in it for themselves and if stories of "requests" being shouted across floors are true, then not only those involved, but those that said nothing about it should be the subject of SFO action.
Have to admit Diamond got away with an awful lot yesterday. And if you did not get the message it really loves Barclay's and is very angry, and it is abhorrent, and so forth. Besides the two woman I thought he dealt with the questions very well from his perspective. And that is the issue with the parliamentary angle instead of trying to nail him down on a couple of points it was like nailing jelly down. He deflected the blame on to Jerry De Missier, and the desk supervisors. Not convinced he will go down for this. Not with this quality of questioning.........
Tabks for clearing that up Telmc32.
I thank part of the problem from here on in is that any part of the banking industry that puts a foot wrong is going to have to contecd with lynch mobs baying for their blood.
Good news IMO, announced last night. I'm a big fan of the Co-Op bank.
BBC ''The Co-operative Group has agreed terms to buy 632 branches from Lloyds Banking Group in a deal that could create a new force in UK High Street banking.
About 4.8 million Lloyds customers will be transferred to the Co-op, giving it about 7% of the current account market.''
While I'm pretty sure this will go through, it's not yet cast in stone. It's still awaiting consent from the EC, FSA and Treasury. In particular, the FSA will be looking to make sure The Co-op has the infrastructure to run the larger customer base effectively.
Will be interesting to see what happens to my account. I live in Gravesend, and that branch isn't being sold. It's the branch that rings me if/when they need to speak to me. However, technically Greenwich is my branch, it's certainly the sort code on my account, and that branch is being sold. So will my account move or not, less than clear at the moment!
Will be interesting to see what happens to my account. I live in Gravesend, and that branch isn't being sold. It's the branch that rings me if/when they need to speak to me. However, technically Greenwich is my branch, it's certainly the sort code on my account, and that branch is being sold. So will my account move or not, less than clear at the moment!
Logic says you will be transferred to The Coop, together with the staff. They are not simply buying the premises & fixtures & fittings, but all of the account holders & staff.
If you wish to keep your accounts with LTSB I believe you would need to transfer it (probably to Gravesend). However, I'm not 100% certain.
I may move my account - only reason I stopped being a co-op bank account holder was that there wasn't a branch anywhere near me. This is great news as far as I'm concerned.
Well the account was transferred, but they don't change your sort code when they transfer you (would cause a lot of issues, and would actually make little difference, expect in this rather rare circumstance).
I'm not even sure if I want to stick or twist as it were. I work for a number of American clients, so have a Lloyds offshore dollar account, plus my mortgage is with C&G. So would be a lot easier to stick with Lloyds (not sure if the Co-op can offer the same services), but I do like the idea of the Co-op, and if they do offer the same services it might work out cheaper. I'm still upset about my offshore monthly charge changing from $5 to $25. For that extra $20 a month I do get a load of benefits, unfortunately I can't use any of them as I have the exact same set of benefits on my current account, I can't insure my phone twice, or travel insure myself twice, or get 2 AA vans to attend if I break down, etc.
Looking at the co-op website, they do do offshore currency accounts, so if I do get moved I could move all my services across, will be interesting to see what happens.
If you had previously transferred your a/c your sort code would have changed. East Greenwich & Gravesend have different sort codes. All branches have different sort codes.
Well the account was transferred, but they don't change your sort code when they transfer you (would cause a lot of issues, and would actually make little difference, expect in this rather rare circumstance).
I'm not even sure if I want to stick or twist as it were. I work for a number of American clients, so have a Lloyds offshore dollar account, plus my mortgage is with C&G. So would be a lot easier to stick with Lloyds (not sure if the Co-op can offer the same services), but I do like the idea of the Co-op, and if they do offer the same services it might work out cheaper. I'm still upset about my offshore monthly charge changing from $5 to $25. For that extra $20 a month I do get a load of benefits, unfortunately I can't use any of them as I have the exact same set of benefits on my current account, I can't insure my phone twice, or travel insure myself twice, or get 2 AA vans to attend if I break down, etc.
Looking at the co-op website, they do do offshore currency accounts, so if I do get moved I could move all my services across, will be interesting to see what happens.
Randy, look at Citibank. Their dollar accounts are based here in the UK but you get a check (sic) book for dollar denominated transactions which clears through New York but debits from your UK-based dollar account. You also get a single debit card and through a 'phone call you can switch it to be linked to your dollar account rather than your sterling one to pay for day-to-day stuff. This service costs nothing. (I say that but I believe you need to pay in a regular amount each month, which you can take straight back out again!)
Must admit the co-op bank now looks like a half decent bank, and one that I will be moving my account over after 25 years as a customer from Nat west. Quiet like the idea of a bank that at least tries to be ethical, even if the rates on there mortgages/products may not be as competitive. Hopefully they will offer a more flexiable attitude, and as Nat west closed my local branch down a number of years ago, and I do not frequent my branch in central London, the relationship I had, or thought I had which was very good a few years ago, is at best now impersonal and delegated to call centres. If I had wanted a virtual bank account I would have got an account years ago. I had this idea under review a number of weeks ago, and having had in my time both a business account, and a mortgage I am not happy about closing this account, but feel that the bank no longer wishes to offer customers like myself the service I had come expect. Will the bank be any better, possibly not. Am I cutting off my nose to spite my face, probably...... but it is my money ( although at times I have doubts about even that) This has very little to do with the recent events, and I am delighted for those of you who are happy with Nat west.
Changed 3 years back Ken, on the basis that Midland/HSBC disgusted me once too often, and after reading reports like this one
The Co-operative Bank There is only really one high street bank in the UK with an ethical policy, and that’s the Co-operative. The bank has its roots in the co-operative movement that started in the 19th century as a way of creating a fairer model of capitalism through shared ownership. The bank remains committed to those ideals, and members all receive a share of the profits.
A strict ethical policy means no investment goes to companies involved in the arms trade, fossil fuels, animal testing, and so on. Because customers vote every year on how their money is used, new concerns are regularly included, such as genetic modification or climate change. The bank has turned away over 900 million pounds worth of loan applications since it adopted its ethical policy in 1992.
Because the Co-operative is not on the stock market, it is much more stable than other banks, and has actually grown during the credit crisis.
Smile Smile is an online subsidiary of the Co-op, so all of the above is true of Smile accounts too. Smile was the first internet bank launched in the UK. Because it doesn’t support a network of branches, it has lower running costs, and these are passed on to customers in lower charges and higher rates.
Comments
Well Diamond has claimed that he was unaware to the select commitee.
He has also said that he has no reason to believe that he is under investigation by either the USA or GB for criminal behaviour.
29 Oct 2008 Diamond had a conversation with Tucker of the B of E, and his COO seems to have 'misunderstood' the results of that conversation ...... for 18 months.
Subsequently he of course did resign. His colleague Jerry Del Missier understood.
Incompetent, or untruthful......... Personally I think it does take a very accepting person to believe this, but that is his story.
If in time facts come out saying otherwise woe betide Bob Diamond.
It's only 44 pages long. Some of the figures are mind-blowing.
However, and here's the interesting bit, the FSA's position would not have come as any surprise to Barclays. The clue is in the phrase "final notice". And yes, there is indeed a "Warning Notice" that goes out well beforehand and allows the miscreant time to consider what is being alleged, what the proposed penalty is and whether there are any "facts" in the notice that might need amending, or any typos not noticed by the FSA.
So is Diamond really saying that no one at Barclays bothered to show him a copy of the Warning Notice? Did he just not read it? So, was he not up to the job, an irrelevance to his co-workers, or was he being economical with the truth before the select committee?
Over this period, Barclays submissions were generally in the top 3 put forward. This meant that they were omitted from the calculation in any case - generally top and bottom four quotes discounted and the Libor rate is then the average of the remaining middle submissions.
http://group.barclays.com/mwg-internal/de5fs23hu73ds/progress?id=NgOqbfQ0OO&dl
The part of this which is more reprehensible is the period in which rates were being set before the crash. At that point it seems that the bollinger boys were in it for themselves and if stories of "requests" being shouted across floors are true, then not only those involved, but those that said nothing about it should be the subject of SFO action.
He's appalled at banking, apparantly.
What has he been doing for the past few years?
Not convinced he will go down for this. Not with this quality of questioning.........
Should be interesting.
With all of the 'quantative easing' that has gone on over the last few years even now the institutions are not lending in any great quantity to SME's....so what are they doing with it......leaving it sitting on deposit, so if the current banks wont help then perhaps people like Dave can get something going......and we can tell the likes of Barclays, Lloyds et-all where to go!!!
Sadly I think his chance of success will be curtailed by 'the old boys' network......unless someone already knows how this has panned out of course?
I didn't watch the programme but here are some relevant issues: capital adequacy; contributions to the FSCS; infrastructure; and that the individuals involved are "fit and proper". One issue would be that there would have to be more than one individual having oversight of the business. You can't have a bank with just one person running it. What would happen if he got sick and there was no one around to pay out cash? Most banks have to employ at least one person full time just to fill in the FSA's and Bank of England's regular reporting forms! You saw the programme, taking into account all such issues would you have authorised Dave to accept deposits?
A few years back, an individual set up his own deposit-taking business, issued passbooks and lent money to people who asked him for it. Trouble was he didn't have the wherewithal to check whether anyone would actually pay him back. Guess what - they didn't - and all his depositors lost their life savings because he wasn't authorised.
And, if you care to look, there are large numbers of deposit-taking organisations out there. (At least a couple of thousand if you include friendly societies). A fairly recent addition is the Islamic Bank of Britain which says it has exacting ethical standards. It's a very competitive market. You've had the ability to tell Barclays and the like where to go for ages - so why not just do it?
I thank part of the problem from here on in is that any part of the banking industry that puts a foot wrong is going to have to contecd with lynch mobs baying for their blood.
I'm a big fan of the Co-Op bank.
BBC ''The Co-operative Group has agreed terms to buy 632 branches from Lloyds Banking Group in a deal that could create a new force in UK High Street banking.
About 4.8 million Lloyds customers will be transferred to the Co-op, giving it about 7% of the current account market.''
lloydstsb.com/media/lloydstsb2004/pdfs/Verde_transferring_branches.pdf
While I'm pretty sure this will go through, it's not yet cast in stone. It's still awaiting consent from the EC, FSA and Treasury. In particular, the FSA will be looking to make sure The Co-op has the infrastructure to run the larger customer base effectively.
Anyway, good news imo.
If you wish to keep your accounts with LTSB I believe you would need to transfer it (probably to Gravesend).
However, I'm not 100% certain.
I'm not even sure if I want to stick or twist as it were. I work for a number of American clients, so have a Lloyds offshore dollar account, plus my mortgage is with C&G. So would be a lot easier to stick with Lloyds (not sure if the Co-op can offer the same services), but I do like the idea of the Co-op, and if they do offer the same services it might work out cheaper. I'm still upset about my offshore monthly charge changing from $5 to $25. For that extra $20 a month I do get a load of benefits, unfortunately I can't use any of them as I have the exact same set of benefits on my current account, I can't insure my phone twice, or travel insure myself twice, or get 2 AA vans to attend if I break down, etc.
Looking at the co-op website, they do do offshore currency accounts, so if I do get moved I could move all my services across, will be interesting to see what happens.
This service costs nothing. (I say that but I believe you need to pay in a regular amount each month, which you can take straight back out again!)
Quiet like the idea of a bank that at least tries to be ethical, even if the rates on there mortgages/products may not be as competitive. Hopefully they will offer a more flexiable attitude, and as Nat west closed my local branch down a number of years ago, and I do not frequent my branch in central London, the relationship I had, or thought I had which was very good a few years ago, is at best now impersonal and delegated to call centres. If I had wanted a virtual bank account I would have got an account years ago. I had this idea under review a number of weeks ago, and having had in my time both a business account, and a mortgage I am not happy about closing this account, but feel that the bank no longer wishes to offer customers like myself the service I had come expect. Will the bank be any better, possibly not. Am I cutting off my nose to spite my face, probably...... but it is my money ( although at times I have doubts about even that) This has very little to do with the recent events, and I am delighted for those of you who are happy with Nat west.
The Co-operative Bank
There is only really one high street bank in the UK with an ethical policy, and that’s the Co-operative. The bank has its roots in the co-operative movement that started in the 19th century as a way of creating a fairer model of capitalism through shared ownership. The bank remains committed to those ideals, and members all receive a share of the profits.
A strict ethical policy means no investment goes to companies involved in the arms trade, fossil fuels, animal testing, and so on. Because customers vote every year on how their money is used, new concerns are regularly included, such as genetic modification or climate change. The bank has turned away over 900 million pounds worth of loan applications since it adopted its ethical policy in 1992.
Because the Co-operative is not on the stock market, it is much more stable than other banks, and has actually grown during the credit crisis.
Smile
Smile is an online subsidiary of the Co-op, so all of the above is true of Smile accounts too. Smile was the first internet bank launched in the UK. Because it doesn’t support a network of branches, it has lower running costs, and these are passed on to customers in lower charges and higher rates.
Some interesting comments (142 of them!) on Robert Preston's article here, if you are undecided
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18899185
And again good reviews from people who commented on this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/feb/10/banks-lesson-move-your-money