I think that's a given isn't it? No one is blaming the staff behind the counter for what's gone on BUT I would point out that it was not their investment arms that were dumping useless, expensive PPI on their customers or advising small businesses to get involved in mis-sold interest rates swap deals. I see also this week that the FSA may take into account fixed rate deals into the investigation into rate swaps meaning that up to 100,000 businesses in the UK may have been taken for a ride by the banks on that alone.
I completely understand why those in banking fight their corner like #cafcfan do, I would do the same I expect, but what I don't get is the surprise/indignation that those of us left paying for it might feel slightly resentful that those bankers responsible have 1. not faced criminal proceedings and 2. are still picking up effing bonuses even when the bank is losing money. For example I'm not convinced by his point that it's "merely convenient to blame a couple of bank failures for the perceived down-turn in the economy". Perceived???
I have never agreed with pressurised selling of anything BA especially PPI but its the Sales / Marketing Directors you should be singling out not the branch interface staff who had targets to meet or else! Isn't it ironic that all the billions in invisible earnings to the benefit of the economy and not to mention taxes that these financial institutions and their staff have ploughed into the treasury coffers down the years one way and another conveniently goes unmentioned. Big fat bonuses for 'Nick Leeson' type wide boys P*sses me off as much as you but having said that how does the government owned banks now attract those investment bankers who are able to make sufficient profits so that the govt can make them attractive to private ownership once again? Certainly not with peanuts, Oh and yes Fred the Shred should have gone to jail!
Interest rates fell to their all time low on the day that we paid off our mortgage. Since then, the economy has got continually worse, and we've increasingly found ourselves using our savings to make ends meet. I can confidently predict that rates will very soon go through the roof as our savings have nearly all gone.
I think that's a given isn't it? No one is blaming the staff behind the counter for what's gone on BUT I would point out that it was not their investment arms that were dumping useless, expensive PPI on their customers or advising small businesses to get involved in mis-sold interest rates swap deals. I see also this week that the FSA may take into account fixed rate deals into the investigation into rate swaps meaning that up to 100,000 businesses in the UK may have been taken for a ride by the banks on that alone.
I completely understand why those in banking fight their corner like #cafcfan do, I would do the same I expect, but what I don't get is the surprise/indignation that those of us left paying for it might feel slightly resentful that those bankers responsible have 1. not faced criminal proceedings and 2. are still picking up effing bonuses even when the bank is losing money. For example I'm not convinced by his point that it's "merely convenient to blame a couple of bank failures for the perceived down-turn in the economy". Perceived???
Some poor sods at RBS have to get by on 4 figure bonuses. They're the real victims in all this. Nobody ever says anything about all the grubby oiks that didn't pay back their credit cards/mortgages. Which is why everyone has to pay more now.
I completely understand why those in banking fight their corner like #cafcfan do, I would do the same I expect, but what I don't get is the surprise/indignation that those of us left paying for it might feel slightly resentful that those bankers responsible have 1. not faced criminal proceedings and 2. are still picking up effing bonuses even when the bank is losing money. For example I'm not convinced by his point that it's "merely convenient to blame a couple of bank failures for the perceived down-turn in the economy". Perceived???
For the record, I'm not in the banking industry and have never worked for a commercial bank. Following poor treatment by Midland Bank (remember them) back in the early 1970s, I have also never banked with any of the major high street banks. Of course there are other issues regarding banks' behaviour but none of them are responsible for the current economic situation. I'll repeat what I said in a post on another topic that the sooner political parties come clean and explain to their voters that never-ending economic growth is just not attainable the better. (I'm not holding my breath.) As far as compulsory interest rate swaps and libor fixing is concerned - the banks need a big slap. With PPI, I'm not quite so sure. Did not every punter get precise terms and conditions of what they were buying? If they didn't read, understand or ask about what they were buying, then sorry, but it's their own fault and they are very lucky indeed to get their money back. (Using Apple again as an example, why aren't people demanding compensation for being sold stuff they don't need and paying over the odds prices for it? )
i presumed that the big bonuses are now paid to the punters/traders that make fortunes for the bank and they are headhunted so that they are not working for private funds etc
and the bonuses are paid and the higher rate tax is paid as well so everyones a winner
anbody know why, for example a lender can offer a 2.99% fixed rate to a new customer but can only offer a 3.99% rate to an existing customer?
obviously to attract business but how are they allowed to do it?
The first seven words of Bournemouth Addicks reply above yours is the answer to most question on this topic.
In addition Bank's are having to set aside more money to improve their capital ratios at the Govt. and FSA's behest...
Yep this is true of course and no bad thing either given what happened to the banking system when the whole house of cards started tumbling.
Of course it would be easier to recapitilise when you are not having to set aside £b's to compensate those customers you have ripped off on PPI or those business who took out the banks equally dodgy interest rate swap deals...or pay the fines for rigging the Libor...or pay massive money laundering fines for dealing with decidely iffy geezers in South Americs or countries under financial sanction. We won't even mention the investigation into the assistance given to criminals to set up off shore accounts recently...
I suppose these scandals were all the fault of the punters too?
good point just criminals in suits hoping not to get caught.
I completely understand why those in banking fight their corner like #cafcfan do, I would do the same I expect, but what I don't get is the surprise/indignation that those of us left paying for it might feel slightly resentful that those bankers responsible have 1. not faced criminal proceedings and 2. are still picking up effing bonuses even when the bank is losing money. For example I'm not convinced by his point that it's "merely convenient to blame a couple of bank failures for the perceived down-turn in the economy". Perceived???
For the record, I'm not in the banking industry and have never worked for a commercial bank. Following poor treatment by Midland Bank (remember them) back in the early 1970s, I have also never banked with any of the major high street banks. Of course there are other issues regarding banks' behaviour but none of them are responsible for the current economic situation. I'll repeat what I said in a post on another topic that the sooner political parties come clean and explain to their voters that never-ending economic growth is just not attainable the better. (I'm not holding my breath.) As far as compulsory interest rate swaps and libor fixing is concerned - the banks need a big slap. With PPI, I'm not quite so sure. Did not every punter get precise terms and conditions of what they were buying? If they didn't read, understand or ask about what they were buying, then sorry, but it's their own fault and they are very lucky indeed to get their money back. (Using Apple again as an example, why aren't people demanding compensation for being sold stuff they don't need and paying over the odds prices for it? )
Fair enough #cafcfan I made an assumption based on this and similar threads that was wrong. Apologies for that.
As it happens I also have some sympathy for your view re:PPI but working with the public as I do many that I meet would struggle with a shopping list let alone a side of close typed A4 so it's not a surprise that so many didn't have a clue what they were signing up to.
I guess this is one of those agree to disagree jobbies...
I completely understand why those in banking fight their corner like #cafcfan do, I would do the same I expect, but what I don't get is the surprise/indignation that those of us left paying for it might feel slightly resentful that those bankers responsible have 1. not faced criminal proceedings and 2. are still picking up effing bonuses even when the bank is losing money. For example I'm not convinced by his point that it's "merely convenient to blame a couple of bank failures for the perceived down-turn in the economy". Perceived???
For the record, I'm not in the banking industry and have never worked for a commercial bank. Following poor treatment by Midland Bank (remember them) back in the early 1970s, I have also never banked with any of the major high street banks. Of course there are other issues regarding banks' behaviour but none of them are responsible for the current economic situation. I'll repeat what I said in a post on another topic that the sooner political parties come clean and explain to their voters that never-ending economic growth is just not attainable the better. (I'm not holding my breath.) As far as compulsory interest rate swaps and libor fixing is concerned - the banks need a big slap. With PPI, I'm not quite so sure. Did not every punter get precise terms and conditions of what they were buying? If they didn't read, understand or ask about what they were buying, then sorry, but it's their own fault and they are very lucky indeed to get their money back. (Using Apple again as an example, why aren't people demanding compensation for being sold stuff they don't need and paying over the odds prices for it? )
Fair enough #cafcfan I made an assumption based on this and similar threads that was wrong. Apologies for that.
As it happens I also have some sympathy for your view re:PPI but working with the public as I do many that I meet would struggle with a shopping list let alone a side of close typed A4 so it's not a surprise that so many didn't have a clue what they were signing up to.
I guess this is one of those agree to disagree jobbies...
I know that when I took a loan some years back in very small print it told me to opt out of PPI (which I did) or else it would be assumed that I wanted it.
Not an ethical method of selling in my opinion but then this country and most of the world is morally bankrupt anyway.
Hence why scum are treated like royalty and lawabiding fans locked in at football matches to give just one topical example!
I had PPI on an M & S store card years and years ago. I used to pay off the minimum every month; when I lost my job they paid off about 30% of the total outstanding plus the interest every month. Virtually cleared it by the time I got another job!
Your intelligent defence of banks are well worth reading and pondering, however you haven't convinced me. Especially your comparison with Apple.
Remember I mentioned how my Czech (Austrian parent) bank is charging me £40 for incoming international transfers?
So. The top bankers pay themselves these bonuses and one of their defences is that these bonuses are in line with those paid in other sectors of business. And you mentioned that HSBC have lower margins than Apple.
However Apple have such margins because they create high value products which people want to buy -and as someone says above, no one forces them to buy them Whatever you think of Apple overall, you must concede that the design and technical work that has gone into this is of the highest level. As it is with Samsung as well. They deserve the profits they make, and as Nokia found out, it could all disappear if they dont stay right on top of their game.
In contrast my Czech bank makes its margins by deducting ridiculous amount from automatic incoming transfers, as well as making money on the currency conversion and the interest on the incoming money which sits in my account. Where's the added value in that? Why should a CEO get a bonus of a penny for a business model which relies on that kind of near-theft?
Your intelligent defence of banks are well worth reading and pondering, however you haven't convinced me. Especially your comparison with Apple.
Remember I mentioned how my Czech (Austrian parent) bank is charging me £40 for incoming international transfers?
So. The top bankers pay themselves these bonuses and one of their defences is that these bonuses are in line with those paid in other sectors of business. And you mentioned that HSBC have lower margins than Apple.
However Apple have such margins because they create high value products which people want to buy -and as someone says above, no one forces them to buy them Whatever you think of Apple overall, you must concede that the design and technical work that has gone into this is of the highest level. As it is with Samsung as well. They deserve the profits they make, and as Nokia found out, it could all disappear if they dont stay right on top of their game.
In contrast my Czech bank makes its margins by deducting ridiculous amount from automatic incoming transfers, as well as making money on the currency conversion and the interest on the incoming money which sits in my account. Where's the added value in that? Why should a CEO get a bonus of a penny for a business model which relies on that kind of near-theft?
Why don't you change banks or the method of making transfers.
Your intelligent defence of banks are well worth reading and pondering, however you haven't convinced me. Especially your comparison with Apple.
Remember I mentioned how my Czech (Austrian parent) bank is charging me £40 for incoming international transfers?
So. The top bankers pay themselves these bonuses and one of their defences is that these bonuses are in line with those paid in other sectors of business. And you mentioned that HSBC have lower margins than Apple.
However Apple have such margins because they create high value products which people want to buy -and as someone says above, no one forces them to buy them Whatever you think of Apple overall, you must concede that the design and technical work that has gone into this is of the highest level. As it is with Samsung as well. They deserve the profits they make, and as Nokia found out, it could all disappear if they dont stay right on top of their game.
In contrast my Czech bank makes its margins by deducting ridiculous amount from automatic incoming transfers, as well as making money on the currency conversion and the interest on the incoming money which sits in my account. Where's the added value in that? Why should a CEO get a bonus of a penny for a business model which relies on that kind of near-theft?
Why don't you change banks or the method of making transfers.
I am doing exactly that. I have started using Moneybookers. However most of my week has been taken up with persuading Moneybookers that I am not a money launderer. There's another problem with Moneybookers too, even after I finally got through that. If you want to use them to send money to anyone else, e.g deposits for apartments in Croatia, those people have to register with Moneybookers in order to get the money. The two I have tried have both resisted.
You also know, as do the banks, that changing banks is a hassle. And there isn't a co-op bank, or anything like it, in the Czech Republic.
Those so keen to defend Apple seem to fail to mention that they make a fortune by selling products at the highest margin in their industry yet employ very few people, and therefore pay little Tax and NI (or what ever the equivalent is in the US) in the countries that have suffered due to the recession.
The margins they enjoy would make it more than feasible for them to manufacture their goods in the US which would ensure that there was significantly less money flowing out of their country to the super wealthy Chinese.
I'm not, really, bothered either way but let's not pretend that pretty much everyone isn't interested in their own greed. The bankers that get so slated now were the ones that helped so many people make the kind of money in the western world that allowed us all to go out and buy the Apple products that our parents would have only been able to dream about.
I'm sorry if this offends but I can't help thinking that it's just jealousy that makes these threads keep turning into 'bash the rich bankers'. There are probably a lot of people that have more money than they need (not as much as they want - clearly) but are more interested in getting more than giving some of what they don't, actually, need to those that are in poverty. To then complain that you can't afford to go out to restaurants as often as you'd like when others can just makes you all look bitter and jealous.
I don't doubt that there are some on here that have really struggled. The credit crunch has probably cost me, personally, close to half a million pounds that I didn't have sitting in a bank account that I didn't know what to do with. We all have to make changes when things get tough in the same way that we can all go out and splash our cash when things go well. Blaming someone else is just too simple. Blaming the bankers that have made this country billions and billions and billions in the past just seems too simplistic to me.
Your intelligent defence of banks are well worth reading and pondering, however you haven't convinced me. Especially your comparison with Apple.
Remember I mentioned how my Czech (Austrian parent) bank is charging me £40 for incoming international transfers?
So. The top bankers pay themselves these bonuses and one of their defences is that these bonuses are in line with those paid in other sectors of business. And you mentioned that HSBC have lower margins than Apple.
However Apple have such margins because they create high value products which people want to buy -and as someone says above, no one forces them to buy them Whatever you think of Apple overall, you must concede that the design and technical work that has gone into this is of the highest level. As it is with Samsung as well. They deserve the profits they make, and as Nokia found out, it could all disappear if they dont stay right on top of their game.
In contrast my Czech bank makes its margins by deducting ridiculous amount from automatic incoming transfers, as well as making money on the currency conversion and the interest on the incoming money which sits in my account. Where's the added value in that? Why should a CEO get a bonus of a penny for a business model which relies on that kind of near-theft?
Why don't you change banks or the method of making transfers.
I am doing exactly that. I have started using Moneybookers. However most of my week has been taken up with persuading Moneybookers that I am not a money launderer. There's another problem with Moneybookers too, even after I finally got through that. If you want to use them to send money to anyone else, e.g deposits for apartments in Croatia, those people have to register with Moneybookers in order to get the money. The two I have tried have both resisted.
You also know, as do the banks, that changing banks is a hassle. And there isn't a co-op bank, or anything like it, in the Czech Republic.
Your intelligent defence of banks are well worth reading and pondering, however you haven't convinced me. Especially your comparison with Apple.
Remember I mentioned how my Czech (Austrian parent) bank is charging me £40 for incoming international transfers?
So. The top bankers pay themselves these bonuses and one of their defences is that these bonuses are in line with those paid in other sectors of business. And you mentioned that HSBC have lower margins than Apple.
However Apple have such margins because they create high value products which people want to buy -and as someone says above, no one forces them to buy them Whatever you think of Apple overall, you must concede that the design and technical work that has gone into this is of the highest level. As it is with Samsung as well. They deserve the profits they make, and as Nokia found out, it could all disappear if they dont stay right on top of their game.
In contrast my Czech bank makes its margins by deducting ridiculous amount from automatic incoming transfers, as well as making money on the currency conversion and the interest on the incoming money which sits in my account. Where's the added value in that? Why should a CEO get a bonus of a penny for a business model which relies on that kind of near-theft?
Why don't you change banks or the method of making transfers.
I am doing exactly that. I have started using Moneybookers. However most of my week has been taken up with persuading Moneybookers that I am not a money launderer. There's another problem with Moneybookers too, even after I finally got through that. If you want to use them to send money to anyone else, e.g deposits for apartments in Croatia, those people have to register with Moneybookers in order to get the money. The two I have tried have both resisted.
You also know, as do the banks, that changing banks is a hassle. And there isn't a co-op bank, or anything like it, in the Czech Republic.
Change where you live? :-)
Not met Czech women nor drunk Czech beer then Pete? :-)
so much I don't agree with I hardly know where to start. But since you recall bankers past work, let's focus on that. If banks still operated to some of the values they had in the past we wouldn't be in this mess. I remember having a bank manager. I remember going through some hoops to get a credit card, and even more to get a mortgage. They lost all those cautious values, and consumed us all with their own greed
so much I don't agree with I hardly know where to start. But since you recall bankers past work, let's focus on that. If banks still operated to some of the values they had in the past we wouldn't be in this mess. I remember having a bank manager. I remember going through some hoops to get a credit card, and even more to get a mortgage. They lost all those cautious values, and consumed us all with their own greed
Yes they did, but they never made people take credit cards and spend money they hadn't earned yet. There is no doubt that bankers are greedy, and that their salary and bonus packages promoted high risk strategies. Where I disagree with some of the 'banker bashing' is that, despite the fact that most would deny it, almost all individuals make decisions that are in their own best interests. If the approach that you describe still existed many, many people would not have been able to consume (as in buy stuff they wanted) like they have been able to. That is a much harder sell than many realise.
If you'd said to Joe Public fifteen years ago that they would not be able to buy a new phone, TV, clothes, car and have the holidays they wanted they would have slapped you.
My point (and I have no sympathy for the bankers) is that Apple employees, just like the rest of us do what ever they can to make as much money as they can. The bankers took risks that cost their employers a fortune and Apple sanctioned production of their, massive margin, products overseas.
We all (most of us) were happy to keep taking credit to buy things that we didn't need (be it an expensive purchase like a house or a car or another night out drinking and eating) when we knew, or should have as there were no shortage of those telling us, that when the music stopped the cheap credit would dry up and the assets that we have been borrowing against would fall in value.
I just don't know why there is so much resentment against bankers earning a fortune when there doesn't seem to be the same resentment when a, say, recruitment consultant earns a lot of money. People don't seem to be complaining at the prices of iPhones and iPads when those that make them are earning an absolute fortune yet people seem to be angry at the very small proportion of bank employees that earn a lot of money. As has been said above,most employees in banks earn less than the average income in the UK. Sure there are a few that earn a lot but that is, generally, because they can influence their clients (who earn the bank the money) to move from one bank to another.
I am happy for you to disagree with me, but I have to be honest and say that having read, literally, dozens of comments on CL about bankers I'm still to be convinced that those making the comments would have behaved any differently if they'd been in the bankers shoes.
Is the comparison between the banks and Apple actually supposed to be serious? Ridiculous to compare the two.
It was, initially, just supposed to be thought-provoking and to try to promote a little less-blinkered commentary.
My view for what it's worth is that, with the British public's abject complicity, bankers have screwed their customers for a bit of money. Meanwhile, Apple's supply chain's (now admitted) use of child labour while ripping off just about everyone could actually be considered to demonstrate an even lower level of moral behaviour than bankers. But, hey, Apple's promised to erradicate "the problem" so that's okay then. It is just that the banker bashing, while initially justified and useful for the politicians, is, now, grossly overdone. If it wasn't for the financial services sector in the UK, this country would be well and truly buggered. Much like Apple's suppliers' child labour force.
I can tell you why there is resentment, because top bankers do f**k all real work to earn their money KHA. Recruitment consultants find people jobs, people who invent and design I-pads enable me to write this post. All bankers do is make more money for people who are rich already, often at the expense of the rest of us, and when they cock up they still get paid extraordinary amounts of money. The government has given them our money to invest in business and boost the economy, and for the most part they have kept it. They may be few in number, but while they are paying themselves more and more money, they are making people redundant, outsourcing jobs to cheaper markets and then have the brass neck to tell us that it is " for the benefit of the customer". They are shameless unrepentant greedy bastards. They still take enormous "bonuses" even when their companies lose money. Has ANYONE on this forum ever been paid a bonus for making a pigs ear of their job?
I for one would NOT have behaved the way they have, you might, and judging by some of the comments on subjects such as footballers salaries, quite a few others would, but I personally know several people who are contributors to this forum who certainly would not either.
Those so keen to defend Apple seem to fail to mention that they make a fortune by selling products at the highest margin in their industry yet employ very few people, and therefore pay little Tax and NI (or what ever the equivalent is in the US) in the countries that have suffered due to the recession.
The margins they enjoy would make it more than feasible for them to manufacture their goods in the US which would ensure that there was significantly less money flowing out of their country to the super wealthy Chinese.
I'm not, really, bothered either way but let's not pretend that pretty much everyone isn't interested in their own greed. The bankers that get so slated now were the ones that helped so many people make the kind of money in the western world that allowed us all to go out and buy the Apple products that our parents would have only been able to dream about.
I'm sorry if this offends but I can't help thinking that it's just jealousy that makes these threads keep turning into 'bash the rich bankers'. There are probably a lot of people that have more money than they need (not as much as they want - clearly) but are more interested in getting more than giving some of what they don't, actually, need to those that are in poverty. To then complain that you can't afford to go out to restaurants as often as you'd like when others can just makes you all look bitter and jealous.
I don't doubt that there are some on here that have really struggled. The credit crunch has probably cost me, personally, close to half a million pounds that I didn't have sitting in a bank account that I didn't know what to do with. We all have to make changes when things get tough in the same way that we can all go out and splash our cash when things go well. Blaming someone else is just too simple. Blaming the bankers that have made this country billions and billions and billions in the past just seems too simplistic to me.
Those so keen to defend Apple seem to fail to mention that they make a fortune by selling products at the highest margin in their industry yet employ very few people, and therefore pay little Tax and NI (or what ever the equivalent is in the US) in the countries that have suffered due to the recession.
The margins they enjoy would make it more than feasible for them to manufacture their goods in the US which would ensure that there was significantly less money flowing out of their country to the super wealthy Chinese.
I'm not, really, bothered either way but let's not pretend that pretty much everyone isn't interested in their own greed. The bankers that get so slated now were the ones that helped so many people make the kind of money in the western world that allowed us all to go out and buy the Apple products that our parents would have only been able to dream about.
I'm sorry if this offends but I can't help thinking that it's just jealousy that makes these threads keep turning into 'bash the rich bankers'. There are probably a lot of people that have more money than they need (not as much as they want - clearly) but are more interested in getting more than giving some of what they don't, actually, need to those that are in poverty. To then complain that you can't afford to go out to restaurants as often as you'd like when others can just makes you all look bitter and jealous.
I don't doubt that there are some on here that have really struggled. The credit crunch has probably cost me, personally, close to half a million pounds that I didn't have sitting in a bank account that I didn't know what to do with. We all have to make changes when things get tough in the same way that we can all go out and splash our cash when things go well. Blaming someone else is just too simple. Blaming the bankers that have made this country billions and billions and billions in the past just seems too simplistic to me.
It's a relative figure though. Just beacuse they pay a lot doesn't mean they don't look for ways to cut their costs that are detrimental to the US workforce and the US ecomony.
In fact the link you gave is to an article that goes out of its way to point out that they have a lot of money overseas to reduce their tax bill.
You need to remember that they are one of the richest companies on the whole planet - I would be horrified if you couldn't find a fact that showed they payed a lot of tax.
They have $82.6 billion offshore so that they are not charged US taxes on the interest they receive for it. Even at 2% interest that would leave $1.652 billion of income that would be liable for tax - yet they leave that money offshore!
I can tell you why there is resentment, because top bankers do f**k all real work to earn their money KHA. Recruitment consultants find people jobs, people who invent and design I-pads enable me to write this post. All bankers do is make more money for people who are rich already, often at the expense of the rest of us, and when they cock up they still get paid extraordinary amounts of money. The government has given them our money to invest in business and boost the economy, and for the most part they have kept it. They may be few in number, but while they are paying themselves more and more money, they are making people redundant, outsourcing jobs to cheaper markets and then have the brass neck to tell us that it is " for the benefit of the customer". They are shameless unrepentant greedy bastards. They still take enormous "bonuses" even when their companies lose money. Has ANYONE on this forum ever been paid a bonus for making a pigs ear of their job?
I for one would NOT have behaved the way they have, you might, and judging by some of the comments on subjects such as footballers salaries, quite a few others would, but I personally know several people who are contributors to this forum who certainly would not either.
If you had an employment contract that entitled you to a bonus based on some kind of performance and you achieved it, but somewhere else in the company someone lost more than you made, would you agree to let the company keep your bonus?
I think the point that people miss is that money these high performers earn a percentage of what they make. They just make a lot of money.
If you run a market stall and make £5 on every item you sell if you sell a hundred a week you make £500 a week.
If you bring in business to your bank and you get ten percent of what you being in and you bring in £100m then you have earned £10m.
I know the numbers seem obscene, but it's just scaling of 'profit share'.
Anyway I have no particular love for bankers and some of the comments are starting to feel a little aimed at me personally so I think I'll stop posting and allow those that hate bankers carry on without me.
The resentment is there not through jealousy that these people make a lot of money. It is because for one reason or another, most likely greed, they have cost a lot of peoples livelihoods. And then are still there after being propped up by public money being pad obscene amounts for not performing
Clearly it's time for all those experts that believe the banks are to blame for everything and should be shut down to lead by example and stop using money and only barter for everything they need whether it be food, a home, electricity, tickets for football, and everything else...the sooner everybody stops listening to politicians trying to deflect blame for something they put in place so they could spend the taxes it brought in and journos creating easy copy and accepts the banks were not the only problem the sooner the mess will be sorted out...of course don't rush into forgiving the banks just yet, I've never earned as much as I do now as a result of everybody trying to 'fix' the banks...
so much I don't agree with I hardly know where to start. But since you recall bankers past work, let's focus on that. If banks still operated to some of the values they had in the past we wouldn't be in this mess. I remember having a bank manager. I remember going through some hoops to get a credit card, and even more to get a mortgage. They lost all those cautious values, and consumed us all with our own greed
Prague - sorry, you talk a lot of sense on other threads, but this is ridiculous. I've changed one word in your post, because it makes just as much sense as the one you used.
I got myself into a cycle of debt & credit cards when I was starting work in the mid-80s and took 7 years to really get myself sorted out. I had forgotten how I had been brought up...to save for the things that I wanted. I got myself back to that, have no debt or credit cards and enjoy my life.
I find myself now sitting down with the "youngsters" I work with trying to get them to understand why they spend all day moaning about the fact they have no money a day after the monthly pay day. Thinking nothing of all the credit & store cards they are using to purchase things they want...NOT things they need!!
I remember my dad being on 3 day weeks at Ford. He got himself work labouring & picking up shifts in bars just to put food on the table. We weren't badly off, we were healthy & we had food & clothes for school. We didn't have the toys every kid wanted, but we had what we could afford.
We had too many years of sustained growth. Too many people, globally, believed that they had a god-given right to go out and spend money they didn't have on "things".
Sorry...but the masses, which did include me for a while, are as much to blame as anyone.
Im not daft, clearly they are not to blame for the entire mess but they set the wheels in motion and were incapable of self regulation.
The thousands of people who got themselves into huge debt and just went bankrupt created a massive black hole but how did they get access to the sort of credit to get in such a pit in the first place. It wasn't a receptionist at the council earning sod all that was to blame yet it is people like that who have suffered because of something not of their doing
I can tell you why there is resentment, because top bankers do f**k all real work to earn their money KHA. Recruitment consultants find people jobs, people who invent and design I-pads enable me to write this post. All bankers do is make more money for people who are rich already, often at the expense of the rest of us, and when they cock up they still get paid extraordinary amounts of money. The government has given them our money to invest in business and boost the economy, and for the most part they have kept it. They may be few in number, but while they are paying themselves more and more money, they are making people redundant, outsourcing jobs to cheaper markets and then have the brass neck to tell us that it is " for the benefit of the customer". They are shameless unrepentant greedy bastards. They still take enormous "bonuses" even when their companies lose money. Has ANYONE on this forum ever been paid a bonus for making a pigs ear of their job?
I for one would NOT have behaved the way they have, you might, and judging by some of the comments on subjects such as footballers salaries, quite a few others would, but I personally know several people who are contributors to this forum who certainly would not either.
your right its the only industry where you can get rewarded for fucking up . in the real world you have your p45.
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/rate-swap-scandal/9926601/Banks-face-huge-claims-over-fixed-rate-loans.html
I completely understand why those in banking fight their corner like #cafcfan do, I would do the same I expect, but what I don't get is the surprise/indignation that those of us left paying for it might feel slightly resentful that those bankers responsible have 1. not faced criminal proceedings and 2. are still picking up effing bonuses even when the bank is losing money. For example I'm not convinced by his point that it's "merely convenient to blame a couple of bank failures for the perceived down-turn in the economy". Perceived???
Of course there are other issues regarding banks' behaviour but none of them are responsible for the current economic situation. I'll repeat what I said in a post on another topic that the sooner political parties come clean and explain to their voters that never-ending economic growth is just not attainable the better. (I'm not holding my breath.)
As far as compulsory interest rate swaps and libor fixing is concerned - the banks need a big slap. With PPI, I'm not quite so sure. Did not every punter get precise terms and conditions of what they were buying? If they didn't read, understand or ask about what they were buying, then sorry, but it's their own fault and they are very lucky indeed to get their money back. (Using Apple again as an example, why aren't people demanding compensation for being sold stuff they don't need and paying over the odds prices for it? )
and the bonuses are paid and the higher rate tax is paid as well so everyones a winner
As it happens I also have some sympathy for your view re:PPI but working with the public as I do many that I meet would struggle with a shopping list let alone a side of close typed A4 so it's not a surprise that so many didn't have a clue what they were signing up to.
I guess this is one of those agree to disagree jobbies...
Not an ethical method of selling in my opinion but then this country and most of the world is morally bankrupt anyway.
Hence why scum are treated like royalty and lawabiding fans locked in at football matches to give just one topical example!
Your intelligent defence of banks are well worth reading and pondering, however you haven't convinced me. Especially your comparison with Apple.
Remember I mentioned how my Czech (Austrian parent) bank is charging me £40 for incoming international transfers?
So. The top bankers pay themselves these bonuses and one of their defences is that these bonuses are in line with those paid in other sectors of business. And you mentioned that HSBC have lower margins than Apple.
However Apple have such margins because they create high value products which people want to buy -and as someone says above, no one forces them to buy them Whatever you think of Apple overall, you must concede that the design and technical work that has gone into this is of the highest level. As it is with Samsung as well. They deserve the profits they make, and as Nokia found out, it could all disappear if they dont stay right on top of their game.
In contrast my Czech bank makes its margins by deducting ridiculous amount from automatic incoming transfers, as well as making money on the currency conversion and the interest on the incoming money which sits in my account. Where's the added value in that? Why should a CEO get a bonus of a penny for a business model which relies on that kind of near-theft?
You also know, as do the banks, that changing banks is a hassle. And there isn't a co-op bank, or anything like it, in the Czech Republic.
The margins they enjoy would make it more than feasible for them to manufacture their goods in the US which would ensure that there was significantly less money flowing out of their country to the super wealthy Chinese.
I'm not, really, bothered either way but let's not pretend that pretty much everyone isn't interested in their own greed. The bankers that get so slated now were the ones that helped so many people make the kind of money in the western world that allowed us all to go out and buy the Apple products that our parents would have only been able to dream about.
I'm sorry if this offends but I can't help thinking that it's just jealousy that makes these threads keep turning into 'bash the rich bankers'. There are probably a lot of people that have more money than they need (not as much as they want - clearly) but are more interested in getting more than giving some of what they don't, actually, need to those that are in poverty. To then complain that you can't afford to go out to restaurants as often as you'd like when others can just makes you all look bitter and jealous.
I don't doubt that there are some on here that have really struggled. The credit crunch has probably cost me, personally, close to half a million pounds that I didn't have sitting in a bank account that I didn't know what to do with. We all have to make changes when things get tough in the same way that we can all go out and splash our cash when things go well. Blaming someone else is just too simple. Blaming the bankers that have made this country billions and billions and billions in the past just seems too simplistic to me.
so much I don't agree with I hardly know where to start. But since you recall bankers past work, let's focus on that. If banks still operated to some of the values they had in the past we wouldn't be in this mess. I remember having a bank manager. I remember going through some hoops to get a credit card, and even more to get a mortgage. They lost all those cautious values, and consumed us all with their own greed
If you'd said to Joe Public fifteen years ago that they would not be able to buy a new phone, TV, clothes, car and have the holidays they wanted they would have slapped you.
My point (and I have no sympathy for the bankers) is that Apple employees, just like the rest of us do what ever they can to make as much money as they can. The bankers took risks that cost their employers a fortune and Apple sanctioned production of their, massive margin, products overseas.
We all (most of us) were happy to keep taking credit to buy things that we didn't need (be it an expensive purchase like a house or a car or another night out drinking and eating) when we knew, or should have as there were no shortage of those telling us, that when the music stopped the cheap credit would dry up and the assets that we have been borrowing against would fall in value.
I just don't know why there is so much resentment against bankers earning a fortune when there doesn't seem to be the same resentment when a, say, recruitment consultant earns a lot of money. People don't seem to be complaining at the prices of iPhones and iPads when those that make them are earning an absolute fortune yet people seem to be angry at the very small proportion of bank employees that earn a lot of money. As has been said above,most employees in banks earn less than the average income in the UK. Sure there are a few that earn a lot but that is, generally, because they can influence their clients (who earn the bank the money) to move from one bank to another.
I am happy for you to disagree with me, but I have to be honest and say that having read, literally, dozens of comments on CL about bankers I'm still to be convinced that those making the comments would have behaved any differently if they'd been in the bankers shoes.
It was, initially, just supposed to be thought-provoking and to try to promote a little less-blinkered commentary.
My view for what it's worth is that, with the British public's abject complicity, bankers have screwed their customers for a bit of money. Meanwhile, Apple's supply chain's (now admitted) use of child labour while ripping off just about everyone could actually be considered to demonstrate an even lower level of moral behaviour than bankers. But, hey, Apple's promised to erradicate "the problem" so that's okay then.
It is just that the banker bashing, while initially justified and useful for the politicians, is, now, grossly overdone. If it wasn't for the financial services sector in the UK, this country would be well and truly buggered. Much like Apple's suppliers' child labour force.
I for one would NOT have behaved the way they have, you might, and judging by some of the comments on subjects such as footballers salaries, quite a few others would, but I personally know several people who are contributors to this forum who certainly would not either.
http://mashable.com/2013/01/05/apple-taxes-2012/
In fact the link you gave is to an article that goes out of its way to point out that they have a lot of money overseas to reduce their tax bill.
You need to remember that they are one of the richest companies on the whole planet - I would be horrified if you couldn't find a fact that showed they payed a lot of tax.
They have $82.6 billion offshore so that they are not charged US taxes on the interest they receive for it. Even at 2% interest that would leave $1.652 billion of income that would be liable for tax - yet they leave that money offshore!
I think the point that people miss is that money these high performers earn a percentage of what they make. They just make a lot of money.
If you run a market stall and make £5 on every item you sell if you sell a hundred a week you make £500 a week.
If you bring in business to your bank and you get ten percent of what you being in and you bring in £100m then you have earned £10m.
I know the numbers seem obscene, but it's just scaling of 'profit share'.
Anyway I have no particular love for bankers and some of the comments are starting to feel a little aimed at me personally so I think I'll stop posting and allow those that hate bankers carry on without me.
I got myself into a cycle of debt & credit cards when I was starting work in the mid-80s and took 7 years to really get myself sorted out. I had forgotten how I had been brought up...to save for the things that I wanted. I got myself back to that, have no debt or credit cards and enjoy my life.
I find myself now sitting down with the "youngsters" I work with trying to get them to understand why they spend all day moaning about the fact they have no money a day after the monthly pay day. Thinking nothing of all the credit & store cards they are using to purchase things they want...NOT things they need!!
I remember my dad being on 3 day weeks at Ford. He got himself work labouring & picking up shifts in bars just to put food on the table. We weren't badly off, we were healthy & we had food & clothes for school. We didn't have the toys every kid wanted, but we had what we could afford.
We had too many years of sustained growth. Too many people, globally, believed that they had a god-given right to go out and spend money they didn't have on "things".
Sorry...but the masses, which did include me for a while, are as much to blame as anyone.
The thousands of people who got themselves into huge debt and just went bankrupt created a massive black hole but how did they get access to the sort of credit to get in such a pit in the first place. It wasn't a receptionist at the council earning sod all that was to blame yet it is people like that who have suffered because of something not of their doing