guest1957 Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 I've yet to see any direct evidence that consumers have been negatively impacted. Lots of 'ifs', 'buts' and 'coulds', but no hard data. Granted the people directly involved were being dishonest and shouldn't have behaved as they did, but ultimately there was little impact and the media have whipped up a storm in a teacup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catweazle Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 I've yet to see any direct evidence that consumers have been negatively impacted. Lots of 'ifs', 'buts' and 'coulds', but no hard data. Granted the people directly involved were being dishonest and shouldn't have behaved as they did, but ultimately there was little impact and the media have whipped up a storm in a teacup. If the bankers manipulating the rate made money then that money came from somewhere. Hands up who thinks it came from the banks profits ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 Really. Where? Do you know how sub prime mortgages are priced? Do you know what a Mortgage Backed Security is? Do you know anything other than what you read in the Daily Mirror? quick question far you then, IE if they did nothing wrong why did they jump? and why were they fined? or was it solely because they were honorable men? nah seems to me the big earners of the casino tactic banks ( yes I know that not the lads at the tills) should be put on the general license. KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drayman Posted July 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 Now I know the value of investments can go down as well as up. But, when you invest in a company you have, I believe, a reasonable expectation that it is being run according to the rules. The traders and, presumably their bosses, would know that if their actions ever came to light it would cause the share price to drop. It would also be expected to affect dividend income. Barclays share price crashed and reduced the paper value of individuals' assets below reasonable expectations and normal market movements. Therefore, anyone who needs to trade their shares would be out of pocket. If it is part of a pension plan then the pension pot decreases and so on. Whether manipulating the Libor rate affects the price of one mortgage up of down is not really the point - unless, I suppose, it's your mortgage. It's simply the fact that they were conducting business in an unethical (probably illegal) manner which was likely to be to the detriment of many when discovered. Keep in mind that this was being questioned and noticed several years ago and long before the current media frenzy. So anyone who has shares in Barclays has less asset value than they had before these "monkey"s got caught with their hands in the till. You have to expect better from a leading bank, although it seems most of them have been at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 quick question far you then, IE if they did nothing wrong why did they jump? and why were they fined? or was it solely because they were honorable men? nah seems to me the big earners of the casino tactic banks ( yes I know that not the lads at the tills) should be put on the general license. KW I never said they did nothing wrong simply that the impact has been massively overstated by the press, the regulators and the MP's all because it diverts attention from them. Convenient eh? To answer your questions: Why did he resign? He said it was because he had become a 'distraction'. Perhaps he had just had enough. If I had the money he had I wouldn't bother either. If he hadn't of resigned you'd be making a fuss because he hadn't! Why were they fined? Because they broke the rules (not necessarily the law by the way). I know Bob Diamond. Not well and I bet he don't know me. He can be a nasty bit of work at times and he has a temper but you don't get to where he was without it. So I suspect he knows he has been stitched up and he'll say to himself what goes around comes around. This could get very messy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 Now I know the value of investments can go down as well as up. But, when you invest in a company you have, I believe, a reasonable expectation that it is being run according to the rules. The traders and, presumably their bosses, would know that if their actions ever came to light it would cause the share price to drop. It would also be expected to affect dividend income. Barclays share price crashed and reduced the paper value of individuals' assets below reasonable expectations and normal market movements. Therefore, anyone who needs to trade their shares would be out of pocket. If it is part of a pension plan then the pension pot decreases and so on. Whether manipulating the Libor rate affects the price of one mortgage up of down is not really the point - unless, I suppose, it's your mortgage. It's simply the fact that they were conducting business in an unethical (probably illegal) manner which was likely to be to the detriment of many when discovered. Keep in mind that this was being questioned and noticed several years ago and long before the current media frenzy. So anyone who has shares in Barclays has less asset value than they had before these "monkey"s got caught with their hands in the till. You have to expect better from a leading bank, although it seems most of them have been at it. Actually this is one of the more logical posts in this thread and I am not going to argue against it. My point all along was that the "it caused thousands to lose their houses" headlines were utter rubbish. The question is will Bob Diamond going have a positive or neutral impact on the share price? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storme37 Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 id rather put my cash under the bed less chance of being robbed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeredup Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 Actually this is one of the more logical posts in this thread and I am not going to argue against it. My point all along was that the "it caused thousands to lose their houses" headlines were utter rubbish. The question is will Bob Diamond going have a positive or neutral impact on the share price? Would agree there but i am sure that a number of people did lose their homes over fluctuations in the sub prime mortgage market which is linked to the LIBOR rate its readily apparent that banks have been taking far too many risks and flexing the rules in order to line their pockets and it strikes me as unreasonable that even when banks are struggling and some being bailed out by the goverment that the guys at the top are still getting bonus's regardless of the banks performance! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 Would agree there but i am sure that a number of people did lose their homes over fluctuations in the sub prime mortgage market which is linked to the LIBOR rate its readily apparent that banks have been taking far too many risks and flexing the rules in order to line their pockets and it strikes me as unreasonable that even when banks are struggling and some being bailed out by the goverment that the guys at the top are still getting bonus's regardless of the banks performance! OK find me the names of 10 people (10 being a number I picked out of thin air) who can prove that they lost their homes because of what Barclays tried to do (rather than because LIBOR fluctuated which is what it does EVERY day) and I'll donate £100 to a registered charity of your choice. Deal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeredup Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 i am not in any way linked to finacial industry so how would i possibly be able to do that? at the end of the day the FSA decided that Barclays broke the rules and fined them a huge amount of money which must indicate the magnitude of the effect their rule breaking had on interest rates and they are also investigating many other banks, i think this fine is the very tip of the iceberg! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeredup Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 i bet i could find 100 people that think Bob Diamond is a ******* of unscrupilous morals! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 i am not in any way linked to finacial industry so how would i possibly be able to do that? at the end of the day the FSA decided that Barclays broke the rules and fined them a huge amount of money which must indicate the magnitude of the effect their rule breaking had on interest rates and they are also investigating many other banks, i think this fine is the very tip of the iceberg! Ah I see. It must have been bad because the fine was so huge. Let's see The UK's FSA imposed a £59.5m penalty. The US Department of Justice and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) imposed fines worth £102m and £128m respectively. So Barclays were fined a total of around £290m. So £290m from three regulators. Yesterday GlaxoSmithKline were fined £1.9bn yes £1.9 Billion by their one US regulator. Makes Barclays fine seem quite small doesn't it. Drug companies as well. They are all at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 I look forward to seeing the outcome of this wonder if my pension pot will get a boost? legal action being brought across the Atlantic suggests the scandal is spreading. A lawsuit filed by the US stockbroking firm Charles Schwab alleges that Barclays was one of 16 banks whose manipulation of interbank lending rates "artificially depressed the value of tens of billions of dollars" in funds held by investors. It alleges the defendants, which include Lloyds, HSBC and RBS, "knowingly colluded" to keep the rates low and "engaged in a media strategy" to deflect attention from their actions. The banks are contesting the allegations. KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 (edited) OK chaps... Between 2006 & 2008 (not so much 2009... I was fighting to stay in business in 2009! ) I arranged a few sub-prime mortgages.. Most Sub-primes that weren't fixed were linked to Libor as opposed to BBR.. so it would be Libor +/- x%. the main reason for this is that the centralised lenders.. Platform, Kensington, BMS to name but a few.. did not use their own funds for home loans of this type. They instead borrowed from bigger financial institutions and transactions between financial institutions are based, in general on the swap rates, LIBOR or London Inter Bank Offered Rate. Libor, when applied to a mortgage tends to be reviewed and therefore change every 3 months. The other type of mortgage that is linked to the swap rates are your common or garden high street fixed rates. This is why you will find the price of a fixed rate fluctuates even though BBR doesn't change. Current 3 month Libor is .46% ish.. very close to BBR. here is a link to historical Libor data.. http://www.fedprimerate.com/libor/libor_rates_history.htm If you look at the fluctuations between 2006 & 2009 they are nothing extrordinary and will probably bear quite a close resemblance (albeit with slightly more volatility) to BBR over the same period.. No one lost their homes because of fluctuations in Libor.. No one lost their homes because Libor was artificially manipulated... people lost their homes because they overcommited and couldn't afford to pay.. no other reason.. Libore was being marginally manipulated so they could win the spread bets they were placing on movements in the Libor rate.. This is a bit like insider dealing... they stood to gain significantly but ultimately no one really loses pound notes out of their pockets.. It's a bit like insider dealing.. if the CEO of a major company buys stock inside the prohibition period of a merger because he knows that stock will go through the roof... who actually loses any cash? it's illegal because it is unfair and the markets are just like a roulette table... it's a game of (educated) chance and everyone, out of fairness, plays on a level field.. Barclays got fined because they broke the rules, not because anyone actually lost any money! I am not standing up for bankers or condoning their actions by the way, it just really gets my goat when the media manipulate everyones perception and understanding so they come out all GRRRRRR when they don't really understand what they are going GRRRR at! Edited July 3, 2012 by Vipa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeredup Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 OK chaps... Between 2006 & 2008 (not so much 2009... I was fighting to stay in business in 2009! ) I arranged a few sub-prime mortgages.. Most Sub-primes that weren't fixed were linked to Libor as opposed to BBR.. so it would be Libor +/- x%. the main reason for this is that the centralised lenders.. Platform, Kensington, BMS to name but a few.. did not use their own funds for home loans of this type. They instead borrowed from bigger financial institutions and transactions between financial institutions are based, in general on the swap rates, LIBOR or London Inter Bank Offered Rate. Libor, when applied to a mortgage tends to be reviewed and therefore change every 3 months. The other type of mortgage that is linked to the swap rates are your common or garden high street fixed rates. This is why you will find the price of a fixed rate fluctuates even though BBR doesn't change. Current 3 month Libor is .46% ish.. very close to BBR. here is a link to historical Libor data.. http://www.fedprimerate.com/libor/libor_rates_history.htm If you look at the fluctuations between 2006 & 2009 they are nothing extrordinary and will probably bear quite a close resemblance (albeit with slightly more volatility) to BBR over the same period.. No one lost their homes because of fluctuations in Libor.. No one lost their homes because Libor was artificially manipulated... people lost their homes because they overcommited and couldn't afford to pay.. no other reason.. Libore was being marginally manipulated so they could win the spread bets they were placing on movements in the Libor rate.. This is a bit like insider dealing... they stood to gain significantly but ultimately no one really loses pound notes out of their pockets.. It's a bit like insider dealing.. if the CEO of a major company buys stock inside the prohibition period of a merger because he knows that stock will go through the roof... who actually loses any cash? it's illegal because it is unfair and the markets are just like a roulette table... it's a game of (educated) chance and everyone, out of fairness, plays on a level field.. Barclays got fined because they broke the rules, not because anyone actually lost any money! I am not standing up for bankers or condoning their actions by the way, it just really gets my goat when the media manipulate everyones perception and understanding so they come out all GRRRRRR when they don't really understand what they are going GRRRR at! fair enough and well said with out getting personal or condescending! i still think the way that banks do business is ridiculous an the outlandish bonus culture needs to come to an end! i work in the oil industry and bonus's are now very rare and we schlurp our money out of a hole in the ground :yp: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 fair enough and well said with out getting personal or condescending! i still think the way that banks do business is ridiculous an the outlandish bonus culture needs to come to an end! i work in the oil industry and bonus's are now very rare and we schlurp our money out of a hole in the ground :yp: Oh come on you work in the oil industry and you have the nerve to slag off Bankers. You lot are ripping off every person who puts fuel in their car. Can we please have an "all oil workers are ********" thread. Pretty please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordofthewings Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 I do,nt really comprehend all that this involves, but I do know that banks employ large and very expensive legal teams, and I would be surprised if anything "iffy", is done without being run past them. I fear that this is going to be another MP,s expences fiasco. What really puzzles me, is why people who are extremely high earners, feel the need to be "iffy" in order to get more. LOTW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 I do,nt really comprehend all that this involves, but I do know that banks employ large and very expensive legal teams, and I would be surprised if anything "iffy", is done without being run past them. I fear that this is going to be another MP,s expences fiasco. What really puzzles me, is why people who are extremely high earners, feel the need to be "iffy" in order to get more. LOTW Have you seen how much it costs to service a Ferrari The simple fact is no matter how much you have you always spend it and could do with a bit more. This wouldn't have gone near the legal or compliance teams. Either because they didn't think they were doing anything wrong or because they knew they were and therefore why ask. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catweazle Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 OK chaps...<SNIP>....they don't really understand what they are going GRRRR at! So, if millions of people lost a small amount each is it OK ? Of course not, just as insider dealing isn't OK. When an insider unloads stock before bad news he gets a head start on your pension fund, you pay the price. When a LIBOR-manipulating banker makes a killing someone else loses. If nobody lost it wouldn't be against the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gixer1 Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 Oh come on you work in the oil industry and you have the nerve to slag off Bankers. You lot are ripping off every person who puts fuel in their car. Can we please have an "all oil workers are ********" thread. Pretty please. You are deluded... where do you think the oil companies get the money for exploration and do you think there are no taxes on the fuel that is put in a car Regards, Gixer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeredup Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 Oh come on you work in the oil industry and you have the nerve to slag off Bankers. You lot are ripping off every person who puts fuel in their car. Can we please have an "all oil workers are ********" thread. Pretty please. lol the guys that get it out of the ground don't sell it to you guys to run your cars theres a few people inbetween the the guys getting it out of the ground and those selling it as fuel taking a large slice of the action lol we pay just about the highest fuel taxes in the world here in good ole blighty i work more with gas rigs but they produce a few thousand barrels of oil as by product. i do enjoy my 2 weeks on an 3 weeks off work rota Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeredup Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 all the gas that is produced in Liverpool bay is highly toxic so not fit for the domestic market it goes to Connahs Quay power station :blink: if any leaks near me 2 breaths an i am gonner i have to wear a gas detector an carry an emergency breathing set everywhere i go outside so its not all G&T's on the helideck some one chuck me another lobster on the BBQ!! he he oh yeah an i see Glaxos fine is now 3 billion!! ouchio!! i hope they put it in my account by mistake lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 You are deluded... where do you think the oil companies get the money for exploration and do you think there are no taxes on the fuel that is put in a car Regards, Gixer Hmmm Shell net profit for 2011 was $30.9bn compared to Barclays $3bn Number of Shell employees = 90,000 Number of Barclays employees = 146,000 So.. Net profit per employee Shell = $343,333 Barclays = $20,547 Your point is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gixer1 Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 (edited) Hmmm Shell net profit for 2011 was $30.9bn compared to Barclays $3bn Number of Shell employees = 90,000 Number of Barclays employees = 146,000 So.. Net profit per employee Shell = $343,333 Barclays = $20,547 Your point is? And shells global exploration licence charges are? (let's not even mention the rest of the royal Dutch outgoings) Your point is? I also think you are referring to royal Dutch shell not "shell oil" as they have more like 20,000 employees. How many other parts to Barclays are there? Edited July 3, 2012 by gixer1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeredup Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 (edited) i dont work for shell i work for petrofac and i am not deluded in the slightest i know oil companies make a lot of money its a very cash rich industry but oil workers do not get any where near the bonus's the bankers get Petrofac's net profit last year $540 million 16500 employees Edited July 3, 2012 by beeredup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.