25 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
25 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Banking Shakeup - Good for the Economy?

by Mark Andrews Banned
21 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
Proposals are under way in the UK to shake up the British banking system. Essentially creating a two tier banking system where retail banking is held in one sector and the riskier investment banking sector held in another.

This is to avoid tax payers having to foot the bill in the case of a future banking meltdown similar to that which occurred in 2008.

The idea is to place a very high ring fence (firewall) around retail business banking. And investment banking won't be allowed to access the funds held in this part of the bank.

Billed as the biggest shakeup of British banks in more than a century, the idea looks good on paper but what do you think?

For further information, please visit...

BBC News - Banks face biggest shake-up for decades
#banking system #banks #banks shakeup #british banks ring fence #economy
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    So taxpayers don't have to foot the bill for crooks? Go figure. How nice of the elite to see that we're not real agreeable with paying for corporate fraud and problems out of our pockets.

    I just don't expect that if an investment bank starts to fail, that we will see it be allowed to fail without further intervention. Those guys have too much hold in our political sectors to not have their pals intervene on their behalf. If we had been able to assure that none of our leaders that voted for a bailout had financial concerns with the corporations that were being bailed out, I'm betting the bail out never would have happened.

    Looks good on paper though, doesn't it?
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4669625].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mark Andrews
      Banned
      Somehow, I just knew you'd be the first one to nibble interest Heysal. Darn it my fishing is just getting better all the time! (Pete grins)

      The idea is that the banks will have to keep 20% of their profits / assets aside (correct me if I'm wrong folks) as a safety security measure in case of any future banking or economic collapse similar to the disastrous situation in 2008.

      In other words, this 20% is what'll be used to shore up the bank/s concerned in a worst case scenario so taxpayers don't get stung again and essential services within the economy can continue unabated.

      As far as I'm concerned they're all bloomin' crooked anyway. They're not called banksters for nothing. Just 'nice' crooks who won't hold a gun to your head but will take away your home in a whisker if they mess up the economy again. Personally, I've not got much time for them.

      My bank is several rather large vessels well hidden in various locations underground in the countryside. Might not get any interest on my money but at least I know it's safe. Believe you me, I know it's safe!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4669708].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Money is money, so the idea is IMPOSSIBLE! You see, in 2008, the riskier investments WERE separate! Did the US REALLY care if a place in Iceland lost its shirt? Does the working guy care that some old guy can no longer pay his bills? Who cares if a poor person not able to afford their house is suddenly exposed? BUT, you see we MUST care! And it DID affect us. I don't even think it is legal to have stock in a bank, or for a bank to actually own anything. OH, you say, I have Bank of America stock? NO YOU DON'T!!!!

    Top 50 bank holding companies Summary Page

    If you THINK you do, you REALLY own:

    Institution Profile Page

    THEY own Bank of America!

    And there ARE regulations concerning what they can own. It doesn't seem to help.

    I forget what the US reserve requirements WERE, but they had them. HECK, they violated Glass Steagle BEFORE it was overturned!

    You want to protect things? In the US, we would have to REDUCE the money supply, PEG it to something of value, deal FAIRLY on credit, REMOVE the institutional employee exemption, bring back the uptick rule, reinstate glass steagle, and have the SEC *******DO ITS JOB*******! If ANY such person DARES to even complain about the regulations, those responsible should be HEAVILY fined, maybe thrown in jail for a month, and removed from ANY financial duties FOREVER! They shouldn't even be allowed to SELL securities, or work as a teller in a bank.

    The UK should do something similar. You can bet the garbage would stop.

    For the record though, last I knew, european banks DID tend to do more than US ones now. US ones were banned from a number of things since the 1930s, until 1999.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4669947].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mark Andrews
      Banned
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      Money is money, so the idea is IMPOSSIBLE! You see, in 2008, the riskier investments WERE separate! Did the US REALLY care if a place in Iceland lost its shirt? Does the working guy care that some old guy can no longer pay his bills? Who cares if a poor person not able to afford their house is suddenly exposed? BUT, you see we MUST care! And it DID affect us. I don't even think it is legal to have stock in a bank, or for a bank to actually own anything. OH, you say, I have Bank of America stock? NO YOU DON'T!!!!

      Top 50 bank holding companies Summary Page

      If you THINK you do, you REALLY own:

      Institution Profile Page

      THEY own Bank of America!

      And there ARE regulations concerning what they can own. It doesn't seem to help.

      I forget what the US reserve requirements WERE, but they had them. HECK, they violated Glass Steagle BEFORE it was overturned!

      You want to protect things? In the US, we would have to REDUCE the money supply, PEG it to something of value, deal FAIRLY on credit, REMOVE the institutional employee exemption, bring back the uptick rule, reinstate glass steagle, and have the SEC *******DO ITS JOB*******! If ANY such person DARES to even complain about the regulations, those responsible should be HEAVILY fined, maybe thrown in jail for a month, and removed from ANY financial duties FOREVER! They shouldn't even be allowed to SELL securities, or work as a teller in a bank.

      The UK should do something similar. You can bet the garbage would stop.

      For the record though, last I knew, european banks DID tend to do more than US ones now. US ones were banned from a number of things since the 1930s, until 1999.

      Steve
      I don't know if it's escaped your notice Steve, it wouldn't surprise me, but the United Kingdom is not a part of the U.S.

      We're talking about the UK here, not America. Or did that little fact somehow slip past you?

      You seem to have a great deal to say about the UK, take for example the riots thread and now this one, when patently you don't know what the system is over here. I think you must just write the first thing which springs into your mind related or not as the case may be as you think it applies to the subject matter in hand.

      It's good that you contribute (albeit less shouting) but it would be good to see your contributions actually making sense as applicable to the subject matter of choice.

      If I was talking about American banking systems - I would have brought this little fact up with my opening post.

      Best,


      Pete Walker
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4672033].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Pete Walker View Post

        I don't know if it's escaped your notice Steve, it wouldn't surprise me, but the United Kingdom is not a part of the U.S.


        We're talking about the UK here, not America. Or did that little fact somehow slip past you?

        You seem to have a great deal to say about the UK, take for example the riots thread and now this one, when patently you don't know what the system is over here. I think you must just write the first thing which springs into your mind related or not as the case may be as you think it applies to the subject matter in hand..
        GEE, maybe THAT is why I said:

        "The UK should do something similar. You can bet the garbage would stop."

        Yeah, You're right, I haven't looked at a lot of the specifics about the UK. We DO both have fiat currencies, and the UK and US are BOTH part of the G6, G7, G8, or whatever it is called today. And the UK and US were BOTH countries affected by this garbage. and YEAH, we BOTH had riots. Outside of some specifics, the two countries, relating to this discussion aren't that different in a material fashion. OK, maybe the US police are more evenly matched with a greater likelyhood to use the more dangerous, or more painful weapons. Still, there HAVE been riots here. I won't say our streets were on fire, though with rodney king they certainly WERE. Flash mobs blamed for incidents in United States, riots in UK, but causes up for debate | cleveland.com


        It's good that you contribute (albeit less shouting) but it would be good to see your contributions actually making sense as applicable to the subject matter of choice.

        If I was talking about American banking systems - I would have brought this little fact up with my opening post.

        Best,


        Pete Walker
        WHO CARES if it is UK or US? You REALLY think that makes a difference here? THAT is the cause of this WORLD WIDE PROBLEM. It has been tried before and everyone feels THIS is different. The US had a fiat currency(The continental dollar Continental Dollar: Lessons to Learn) once. It FAILED! They moved to the gold standard. Part of the US moved to a fiat currency(The confederate dollar Confederate States of America dollar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), it failed AGAIN! The US moved to a fiat currency a while back(the dollar), and it has been failing ALL ALONG! The same with the UK, Germany, etc... THAT is why they created the G7 to help support it. Every now and then you would hear about a member country buying/selling other currencies to kind of exchange value.

        The US problem affected almost every country, INCLUDING the UK! But it wasn't the ONLY thing. HECK, a lot of stock markets went down late last week because of the EU and Greece!

        Another interesting thing. Wikipedia says the UK went off the gold standard in 1914. The US went off in 1913. Interesting coincidence.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4672831].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MoneyMagnetMagnate
    So...What's the Catch?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4669985].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Thomas Wilkinson
    Three things about TARP (Troubled Asset Relief program)
    1. It had to be done to keep this country from sliding into a deep recession or even a depression.
    2. It worked.
    3. Most of the money has been repaid. TARP overall will probably cost around 14 Billion but nowhere near the 700 Billion that was predicted.

    Thomas
    Signature
    When you hear someone telling you what YOU can't do, they are usually talking about what THEY can't do.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4672226].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by Thomas Wilkinson View Post

      Three things about TARP (Troubled Asset Relief program)
      1. It had to be done to keep this country from sliding into a deep recession or even a depression.
      2. It worked.
      3. Most of the money has been repaid. TARP overall will probably cost around 14 Billion but nowhere near the 700 Billion that was predicted.

      Thomas
      Well, after inflation and all, was it REALLY repaid? And what of all the GM investors that lost EVERYTHING? I still remember the guy here that was STILL invested in GM because "It will come back". The old stock is now WORTHLESS!

      I guess carrots cure cancer because a number of people taking carrots don't have cancer. It is so easy to claim something would have happened, claim it didn't, and then claim it was due to one thing.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4672957].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author myob
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        And what of all the GM investors that lost EVERYTHING? I still remember the guy here that was STILL invested in GM because "It will come back". The old stock is now WORTHLESS!
        Oh Steve,

        GM is back! You missed the new $20 billion IPO and dump!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4679113].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by myob View Post

          Oh Steve,

          GM is back! You missed the new $20 billion IPO and dump!
          It is IMPOSSIBLE for GM to have an IPO! IMPOSSIBLE! THINK! HOW could it be INITIAL, if it happened before we were even BORN? SO, you want to know how they did it? They TRASHED the old corp! They discarded the shell as so much garbage! And they created a NEW shell and THAT had an IPO. Owners of stock in the OLD corp lost EVERYTHING! USATODAY has an article showing it all!

          Will the old General Motors stock ever be declared worthless? - USATODAY.com

          INTERESTING that they should call it "LIQUIDATION". THAT is FRAUD! Liquidation means they LIQUIDATE ALL ASSETS to get LIQUID ASSETS to pay off CREDITORS! If it WERE a liquidation, GM wouldn't exist, and the creditors would have been paid EVERY PENNY of the assets!

          Still, the fact is that the old owners have NOTHING! GRANTED, MOST probably sold it, but some DIDN'T, because they thought it would NOT be a fraud! If t WEREN'T a fraud, and GM went through a simple restructuring, THEY would be seeing their investment go up n value.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4679563].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
    I'm far less trusting in the governments of the world than many. Whenever I see something "for the people" or "for the children" I'm always suspicious that someone in power figured out a way to stuff their pockets or to stuff the pockets of someone important to them.

    A lot of things look good on paper. A few years later they often don't look anything like what they did on paper, whether because of corruption or because of unintended consequences.
    Signature

    Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4673629].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

      I'm far less trusting in the governments of the world than many. Whenever I see something "for the people" or "for the children" I'm always suspicious that someone in power figured out a way to stuff their pockets or to stuff the pockets of someone important to them.

      A lot of things look good on paper. A few years later they often don't look anything like what they did on paper, whether because of corruption or because of unintended consequences.
      You have THAT right. Cuba, China, the USSR, the US, and many other governments KNEW they basically couldn't exist, so they ALL got the PEOPLE to build them, and claimed they were for the people. I think of those I mentioned that the US was actually legitimate, but the others certainly weren't. As for unintended circumstances, a lot of this garbage was tried LONG ago. Sometimws MANY times in MANY countries.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4674874].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mark Andrews
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Pete Walker View Post

        Proposals are under way in the UK to shake up the British banking system. Essentially creating a two tier banking system where retail banking is held in one sector and the riskier investment banking sector held in another.

        This is to avoid tax payers having to foot the bill in the case of a future banking meltdown similar to that which occurred in 2008.

        The idea is to place a very high ring fence (firewall) around retail business banking. And investment banking won't be allowed to access the funds held in this part of the bank.

        Billed as the biggest shakeup of British banks in more than a century, the idea looks good on paper but what do you think?

        For further information, please visit...

        BBC News - Banks face biggest shake-up for decades
        Can we just get back to the original point please regarding the shakeup of the proposed UK banking system?

        Thank you.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4678423].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          Pete -

          You're in off topic and you want to stay on topic? Not sure that's possible
          Signature
          Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
          ***
          Live life like someone left the gate open
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4678567].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mark Andrews
            Banned
            Can't really say anything to that can I?

            Good point.

            Post black and he'll argue white. Post white and he'll argue black. Impossible. I despair.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4679014].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author MoneyMagnetMagnate
              Originally Posted by Pete Walker View Post

              Can't really say anything to that can I?

              Good point.

              Post black and he'll argue white. Post white and he'll argue black. Impossible. I despair.
              When you do that...you're getting into a grey area...:rolleyes:
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4684352].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by Pete Walker View Post

          Can we just get back to the original point please regarding the shakeup of the proposed UK banking system?

          Thank you.
          Since Steve is still posting, I'd say the odds aren't in your favor.
          Signature
          Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
          Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4679587].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Wow pete, you despair a LOT. Let's pull out a chess board!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4679599].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Originally Posted by Pete Walker View Post

    Proposals are under way in the UK to shake up the British banking system. Essentially creating a two tier banking system where retail banking is held in one sector and the riskier investment banking sector held in another.

    This is to avoid tax payers having to foot the bill in the case of a future banking meltdown similar to that which occurred in 2008.

    The idea is to place a very high ring fence (firewall) around retail business banking. And investment banking won't be allowed to access the funds held in this part of the bank.

    Billed as the biggest shakeup of British banks in more than a century, the idea looks good on paper but what do you think?

    For further information, please visit...

    BBC News - Banks face biggest shake-up for decades
    Who in their right minds could possibly be against serious rules and regulations to prevent these entities from creating havoc on a nations' economy again?


    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4686103].message }}

Trending Topics