Which is actually a hell of a lot better than the doommongers who shouted about how bailing out the bank was actually throwing good money after bad and cost everyone £22bn (or whatever it was). If (and it's a very big if) those figures and predictions are proved true, it will cost the taxpayer nothing and saved a bank in the meantime. I call that a pretty good result, regardless of whether that was the intention.

Your last post demonstrates that you know significantly more than I do.

£0 profit/c.0% net rate of return is rather different from "£32-34 billion profit" or "it equates to a 4.5% rate of return", that's the point.

As for your point about "it will cost the taxpayer nothing" I couldn't disagree more; even if as you (and I) have said about taking these predictions at face value, I would argue that the terrible damage to the economy, loss of business confidence, loss of credit lines to business and all the rest have caused *immense* cost to the taxpayer, even if the bailout itself ends up being cost neutral after 15-20 years. But that is an entirely separate argument/discussion.

Don't worry, i'm not going to flounce out or anything

In other banking news, I note the ECB flooding a trillion Euros in 1% loans to banks, as a proxy for bankrupt states (it cannot legally lend direct to governments). So, that'll be more kicking the can down the road without solving any of the inherent, systemic, catastrophic flaws of either the current parlous situation or indeed of the Euro itself. It'll all end in tears.

Meh. Well, it's not as though I claim to be anything other than ridiculous. So that's alright then.

In other banking news, I note the ECB flooding a trillion Euros in 1% loans to banks, as a proxy for bankrupt states (it cannot legally lend direct to governments). So, that'll be more kicking the can down the road without solving any of the inherent, systemic, catastrophic flaws of either the current parlous situation or indeed of the Euro itself. It'll all end in tears.

Not sure whether I posted David McWilliams' Punk Economics video on here. Part 1 is on YouTube (can't access it from work) and it is very good.

It does nicely put off the impending disaster by three years, by which time half the politicians will be out of power and able to blame the new incumbents.

None of this takes anything away from the fact that many member states (including UK under Labour) have been spending vastly too much borrowed public money in good times, though...

And there's the rub! Surely Keynesian deficit spending during recessions is largely dependent on running a surplus during the good years, lowering the debt, possibly building up a bit of a war chest, all ready to chuck cash about on railway bridges and new aircraft carriers and refurbishing hospitals and erecting giant gold statues of Dimrill cupping a horse's chin. We, and especially people like Greece, did not do that part of it.

Blimey, this thread is pulling everyone in <waves at AE>

Not sure whether I posted David McWilliams' Punk Economics video on here. Part 1 is on YouTube (can't access it from work) and it is very good.

LIBOR is interesting at the moment due to everyone being investigated for rigging it!

Halifax has argued that the cost of funding its mortgages is forcing it to increase the cap on the SVR, but if other lenders come to the same conclusion, millions of people could struggle.

So can someone explain this to me then please:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/pers ... -suit.html



Isn't the whole point of someone going to a bank to get a mortgage as follows?

1) Person wants house
2) House costs £150,000, person doesn't have £150,000
3) Person goes to bank because bank has £150,000
4) Bank lends £150,000 to person to buy the house with
5) Person pays back the £150,000 with interest, person gets house, bank gets rich
6) Everyone's happy

So referring to the quotation above, that mortgage has already been made, the money has already been lent, how can the cost of that mortgage 'increase' when it was potentially made years ago? What's effectively happening is the bank is going back to the borrower and saying 'Yeah we know we lent you that money five years ago, but we've decided that we're not charging you enough, give us an extra £100 per month or we'll take the house off you, and we'll keep all the money you've paid us back so far as well.'

I understand that variable rates can go up as well as down, and also that it's possible to fix a rate too, but the rates at which mortgages are fixed are (a) Very high and (b) Usually attract an exorbitant 'arrangement fee' as well (certainly the HSBC were happy to gouge us for £1000 for the 'security' of fixing at 5.75% just over five years, which we've only just come off and have finally been able to go down to the SVR, just as they start talking about increasing the SVR even though the base rate remains unchanged).

In summary, banks cover themselves so that no matter what the economy does, they are making money out of your mortgage.

In Britain the only growth the Treasury has recognised so far has been to turn to the banks. It is like asking the mafia to promote honesty in local government. Ministers pleaded with bankers to lend more to real people, and even printed the money for them to lend. The banks simply carted the loot from the mint and used it to pay off their gambling debts. There is no evidence that one penny of the hundreds of billions of pounds made available "leaked" into the productive economy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/08/osborne-growth-detroit-uk-double-dip

George Osborne's growth policy is turning British cities into Detroit UK.

I was speaking to my dad a few nights ago, he says that the situation up his neck of the woods (North Manchester) is absolutely dire, far worse than the Thatcher destruction of the 80s even.

The banks have too much power, and they know it. Nobody really knows what the true exposure is on the complex bonds and other stuff they created post crisis.
From what little I understand, a lot of it is selling fresh air, which somehow those greedy unregulated fuckers managed to make money from.

If we have currency failure then that is a huge impact and the banks know it. They can’t lose. They make money in the good times and the state prints them more money when they fuck up.

The population of the UK is recapitalising the banks, via .5% borrowing for them and no change in mortgage, loan and credit card rates for the rest of us.

What I take exception to is the fact that the banks are from a management perspective fucking idiots. In the good times they would lend money to anybody. Now is the complete opposite and they all of a sudden have strict criteria.

There are loads of sensible potential home owners and small to medium business being denied loans by these idiots. This is where the government should step in and force these wankers to actuality do something to help the economy and housing market.

There must surely be a reckoning one day for the loss and agony that the credit crunch has inflicted – and is still inflicting – on millions of innocent victims. But as we seek out the guilty men, we should know that as long as banking retains its stranglehold on policy, the disaster will continue.

From the credit crisis to the present day, the one profession with open access to Downing Street is banking. It lobbies successfully on everything from bailouts to bonuses, non-doms to Tobin taxes, euro regulation to "quantitative easing". When told to lend to small businesses, it refuses. When given money to do so, it buries the money. When ministers plead for lower salaries, it increases them. The government takes over a bank, RBS, and its computers crash. Bankers get ribbed in the press – but so what, when the bonus is in the safe and few are ever called to account, banned from trading, or sent to jail?

Tony Robinson sums things up succinctly.

“Poor quality universities like ours offer diverse non-traditional courses, like Shopping Centre Studies, Kite Worship and Lesbian Wolf Husbandry, that suit the needs of indolent minds who want to avoid proper work for three years while doing the odd DJ night in shit pubs.

“Actually, BA Hons 'Running Odd DJ Nights in Shit Pubs' is just £9,000 a year.”

I ended up having to do a CBT course

Now there's a complete change of career.

It's funny, I never considered that my mind might be more filthy than yours.

It's funny, I never considered that my mind might be more filthy than yours.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18685040

Bobs off!

About time, this tosser was in charge of the trading arm that did all the lying.