Jeremy Warner's Outlook: A banking bail-out that sticks in the craw even if economic

[scoobydoo]

Re: Jeremy Warner's Outlook: A banking bail-out that sticks in the craw even if econo

How rude argentarius

I think there have been open discussions,answers and coments to your points some agreeing and some disagreeing and no threads have disintergrated to levels of some other sites ( where I am sure I have read your comments before ) If you are trying to stir things up then dont bother. If you believe the banks are squeaky clean in all this then that is your opnion. If they had made no mistakes then they would not be in the position of having to announce record losses and restricting lending would they?. I have never proffessed to be any kind of expert - and personally I have commented that falling house prices are not always a bad thing - and also if this credit crunch makes us all think about our spending /borrowing etc that also may not be adverse.
If property prices fall it will be the banks that suffer as well - the wider the gap to buy the next house up the ladder the more the public have to borrow and the more banks make in interest - so I still feel that increasing house price are in the banking industries interest. That is why I think they have fueled the increases by allowing larger loans. Of course its not all banks that are responsibleand of course not all banks BS are unhelpul or unsympathetic .

But all banks are normally out for profit - they are a business and I can say one thing in my experience ( only mine!!!) Targets and selling to the customer took over from customer service in the late 80s - And that is a fact for the Halifax at least as I was an employee then and was so upset by the changes that I left .

I was trained to help the customers and then they would return - not to take every opportunity of every conversation to sell something.

I may not have the knowledge that you have and I am not going to let you wind me up - but I for one wont be put off all forms of discussin on this forum and I am quite willing to gain information from somebody wiser than myself.

However funnily enough not much of what you have said has changed my mind. But I am still listening

[scoobydoo]

Re: Jeremy Warner's Outlook: A banking bail-out that sticks in the craw even if econo

Also

I woud just like to add that of course we are all aware that all the problems are not just being caused by the interest rates. It is being compounded by the extreme rises in energy and fuel costs. When I purchased my property I did my sums and worked out my bills and whether I could pay at an increased interst rate if they increased - however it is the fuel bills that are making things difficult and increased fuel costs for transport - but I am not moaning and have more sympathy for those on low income and pensioners who really can not afford these costs.

So thats why I think this site offers help and maybe some ideas for future campaigns rather that rubbishing all posts.

[argentarius]

Re: Jeremy Warner's Outlook: A banking bail-out that sticks in the craw even if econo

Thanks, stevo, and I agree with what you say.

righty - there's a difference between providing capital and providing funding. It's realistic for banks (e.g. RBS/Natwest) to ask their shareholders to provide extra capital through a rights issue, but there's no way that their shareholders can provide the funding they need. Funding is many, many times bigger than capital. Hence the government's attempts to resolve the funding crisis rather than expecting it to be possible for shareholders to do it - because it genuinely isn't possible.

scooby - I am pleased to say that I have never had threads on other forums descend to the levels of some threads here on LB, but sorry that this has led me to make the comment I made about LB. Stevo refers to narrow-minded treatment of customers by banks, and suggests (if I interpret this correctly) that this may explain people being narrow-minded/making unfair assumptions about anything else to do with banks in return. Whilst that may be the explanation, it still doesn't make those unfair assumptions true.

The banks (in the main) have announced losses on their treasury-relating businesses, chiefly because of them buying dodgy US-mortgage based investments. That's obviously their own fault - they made a poor investment decision. But their shareholders have already borne the impact of those write-downs. It's a side-effect that has caused the funding crisis which is in turn affecting the UK mortgage market, and it's in nobody's interests for the constipation in that market to continue.

Most UK mortgage lending (particularly by the larger lenders) is pretty sensible lending at the core and mortgage arrears (and repossessions) are at historically low levels which confirms that. Whilst I can see why you think it benefits mortgage lenders for prices to keep rising - and it does, both because losses on repossessions are smaller, and because the mortgage market is bigger so there's more lending to be done - I don't believe that lenders particularly like excessive price growth or do their bit to fuel it by over-lending.


As a general point, I'm not trying to argue a "banks are perfect" gospel. But I also don't accept a "banks are evil and everything they do is wrong" belief structure. There is good and bad in everyone, to quote the song.

[righty]

Re: Jeremy Warner's Outlook: A banking bail-out that sticks in the craw even if econo

Well if it ain't possible for shareholders to fund their own business then like every other private company it should either be sold to the highest bidder failing which go into receivership.

[argentarius]

Re: Jeremy Warner's Outlook: A banking bail-out that sticks in the craw even if econo

But shareholders don't fund most private companies. The vast majority of private companies have very small capitalisations - £100 is not atypical - and lots of bank borrowing. Rather like banks.

[scoobydoo]

Re: Jeremy Warner's Outlook: A banking bail-out that sticks in the craw even if econo

Thanks, stevo, and I agree with what you say.

As a general point, I'm not trying to argue a "banks are perfect" gospel. But I also don't accept a "banks are evil and everything they do is wrong" belief structure. There is good and bad in everyone, to quote the song.

I totally agree and as I say as an ex-employee I do try to look at both sides.

[Niklowe]

Re: Jeremy Warner's Outlook: A banking bail-out that sticks in the craw even if econo

Personally I consider the the banks were down right greedy. We see that in the penalty charges. All big business will take liberties to the wire till it goes sour. I would hope now that the financial institutions will be a little more circuspect in their practices. INMHO the banks have no exscuse for their practises in recent years. Remember the Lloyds Fiasco in Mexico?

[righty]

Re: Jeremy Warner's Outlook: A banking bail-out that sticks in the craw even if econo

Argon I can see your nit picking.

As you must be well aware or should be I was referring to 'private' public companies owned by their shareholders

[argentarius]

Re: Jeremy Warner's Outlook: A banking bail-out that sticks in the craw even if econo

I'm not sure I understand your point. Every company is owned by its shareholders. But like I said, most companies rely on capital subscribed by their shareholders and a far larger amount of funding provided by their banks. That's simply how most businesses work.

Your assertion that banks ought to fund their entire businesses from capital subscribed by shareholders is illogical. No bank works like that. No bank would make enough return for its shareholders if it did so, and banks wouldn't exist.

[stevokenevo]

Re: Jeremy Warner's Outlook: A banking bail-out that sticks in the craw even if econo

can that be an end to it? lol :okay: