Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

More financial madness

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

More financial madness

Old 17th Sep 2009, 10:28
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: There and here
Posts: 1,699
More financial madness

This is probably not an isolated case, but talk about everyone agreeing to not see the elephant in the room

Barclays accused of trickery in $12.3bn toxic asset sale - Telegraph

The share price has recovered dramatically since the low point of feb/march this year, some due to cash injections from a sovereign wealth fund, but the rest seems to be influenced by the above.

A depiction of the share price in the last year

BARCLAYS Share Price Chart | BARC.L - Yahoo! Finance UK

It's hard to have any faith in the honesty of the varying financial institutions when these 'legal' shenanigens are going on. I wonder what the share price would be if these 12.3 billion were on the books ?




SHJ
SpringHeeledJack is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2009, 11:07
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 96
Whilst the 'legal' shenanigens are going on a recent report released by the Financial Ombudsman reinforces the perception that banks, generally, have still not cottoned on to the fact that they exist to serve their customers.

The report indicates that the Ombudsman often upholds 99% of claims which are made to it by the general public. These are complaints which have already been rejected by the bank before being submitted to the Ombudsman.

The figures provide clear evidence that banks, and other financial institutions, regularly reject complaints even when they know that they are in the wrong and that there is a culture of rejecting complaints on bank charges, miss-sold payment protection insurance (PPI) and a range of other complaints in order that people are put off from pursuing them.

Institution %ge complaints upheld
Black Horse 99%
Capital One 98%
Egg 99%
Lloyds TSB 98%
Northern Rock 98%
RBS 94%
Barclays 93%
Abbey 60%
A&L 74%
MBNA 99%
Natwest 89%
HSBC 79%
HBOS 79%
Nationwide 63%

B-E
Beagle-eye is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2009, 13:49
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bristol
Posts: 90
Dog shit is Dog shit no matter how you package it and where you put it
Burnt Fishtrousers is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2009, 14:27
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @RAF_IFA
Posts: 3,257
Beagle,

BBC NEWS | Business | Banks identified over complaints

Financial firms had an average of 59% of the complaints against them upheld by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) in the first half of 2009.
Regarding bank accounts and loans, an average of 61% of complaints were upheld, led by CitiFinancial and Capital One. HSBC (59%), Lloyds (54%), NatWest (54%), and RBS (55%) were below average for complaints upheld.

An even higher percentage of general insurance complaints, 70%, were settled in the customers favour. The highest levels were against Egg (99%), MBNA (99%), Black Horse (99%), Firstplus (99%), Capital One (98%), Lloyds TSB (98%), Northern Rock (98%), Co-op bank (97%), Tesco (97%), HFC, part of the HSBC group(96%), RBS (94%), Barclays (93%), NatWest (89%), Clydesdale bank (81%), and HSBC (79%).
Al R is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2009, 18:38
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Richmond Texas
Posts: 306
Isn't this what Enron was doing?

After an excellent landing you can use the airplane again!
Flash2001 is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2009, 19:10
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NE Scotland & London
Posts: 40
Seems to me almost identical in principle to the accounting wheeze that Broon introduced and seems to like very much - aka PFI to keep UK State liabilities off our own collective balance sheet. If it's good for the goose...
BlooMoo is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2009, 22:52
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 117
Toxic assets?

I wonder what the share price would be if these 12.3 billion were on the books ?
SHJ - I wonder where the 12.6m loan to Protium appears in their accounts. Surely it is no less toxic than the 12.3m - it just has another layer of wrapping.

I really don't understand how they can possibly justify the high salaries for top executives who are such slow learners. I know lots of people of that calibre who cannot even get a job.
Rightbase is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2009, 08:50
  #8 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: There and here
Posts: 1,699
SHJ - I wonder where the 12.6m loan to Protium appears in their accounts. Surely it is no less toxic than the 12.3m - it just has another layer of wrapping.

I really don't understand how they can possibly justify the high salaries for top executives who are such slow learners. I know lots of people of that calibre who cannot even get a job.
That's the point, the 'loan' isn't toxic at all, it appears to be registered as a normal (!) business lending transaction to this separate company..... All legal, mind, and a wonderful sleight of hand. Who said being a magician wasn't a profitable career They get the poo off the books and 'business' as well!

At 'that' level it's a closed shop, they all know each other and feather their nests mutually so almost no-one loses out and as their activities are supported tacitly by the government and desto the taxpayers. I would agree that there are better, more competent minds out there and presently unemployed, but for the purpose and interests of such corporate vessels the present mob suit them down to the ground.... unfortunately



SHJ
SpringHeeledJack is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2009, 13:36
  #9 (permalink)  
Cunning Artificer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 72
Posts: 3,107
...they all know each other and feather their nests mutually so almost no-one loses out and as their activities are supported tacitly by the government...
Are you so very sure nobody loses out? Hmm?

That's precisely how three-pseudo banks - the abbot, the prude and the brit - disappeared my pension fund. Buy the offshore element of an on-shore fund, strip it of the good assets, dump the dross and bale out. Very nice if you're one of these appalling spivs, but very sad for a chap who was at the time just two years off retirement.

Spivs and thieves the lot of them. The only thing lower on the evolutionary scale than a pin-stripe spiv is a politician.

BS
Condemned to work himself into the grave.
Blacksheep is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2009, 21:16
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @RAF_IFA
Posts: 3,257
Barclays stands to make between 3 and 4 billions in interest if this deal comes off. Scotium will be heavily incentivised to make this work, and lets not forget which High Street Clearing bank was able to turn down G'ment cash.
Al R is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2009, 22:48
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 117
SHJ-
That's the point, the 'loan' isn't toxic at all, it appears to be registered as a normal (!) business lending transaction to this separate company.....
It is a loan, to an unsound company, secured on that company's toxic assets. When the true value of the toxic assets comes to light, Protium is insolvent, and the toxicity of the loan will then come as a surprise to the supposedly competent architects of the clever solution.

Legal - yes. So is losing your shareholder's investments through incompetence.
Sleight of hand? No. It is no more sleight of hand than winding the clock back on a second hand car, repainting it, and pretending it is shiny and new.

The banks involved in the financial markets are playing with savers, and investor's and their own assets in a zero sum game where the rules are:
The major players (banks) make decisions.
Anything they make, we lose (because it is a zero sum game).
They are allowed to do anything legal that their peers consider normal practice.
Because it is a zero sum game they can legally make profits and losses; they can legally lose investors' money and make the profits for themselves.
As a group, they and their peers disapprove of anything that might discourage savers and investors (whose losses are their profits) so they have to make it look as if their clients have a chance of coming out ahead.

It is no different from the National Lottery. On balance the punters lose, but there are enough winners amongst them to keep the punters coming, and for the major players, on balance, to keep winning. The best major players win on an ever growing scale. They call it growing 'their' business.

If Protium can con enough 'profits' out of a gullible bunch of punters who fancy the more liberal offshore regime, they might be able to leverage their toxic assets for long enough to repay the loan to Barclays. This leaves the gulled offshore punters with the toxic assets of the old banger instead of the 12.6million plus management charges plus directors fees plus other syphoned assets that they were persuaded to 'invest' in the financial wizards running Protium.

It's not rocket science, and it's not banking. It's legalised fraud - IMHO.

and I can't buy your analysis that
almost no-one loses out
But hey, on the scale of things, it is only millions, not billions. Barely a handful of top executive pensions.
Rightbase is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2009, 00:56
  #12 (permalink)  
bnt
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland. (No, I just live here.)
Posts: 717
If what's happening in the UK annoys you, you really don't want to read about what's happening in Ireland.

Basically: the government's setting up a "bad bank" called the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA), which is going to buy property assets from the banks. It will pay out 54 billion, which is less than the book value of 77 billion, but way over the estimated market value of the properties since the Bubble burst. (No mark to market here, folks!)
bnt is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2009, 09:59
  #13 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: There and here
Posts: 1,699
The banks involved in the financial markets are playing with savers, and investor's and their own assets in a zero sum game where the rules are:
The major players (banks) make decisions.
Anything they make, we lose (because it is a zero sum game).
They are allowed to do anything legal that their peers consider normal practice.
Because it is a zero sum game they can legally make profits and losses; they can legally lose investors' money and make the profits for themselves.
As a group, they and their peers disapprove of anything that might d
Agreed, though I was being ironic when i said that no-one loses. The shareholders (possibly) but definitely the tax payers and their children and possibly their children too...

As for Ireland, well it's a basket case and the mandarins in Dublin are trying desperately to magic away the mess, again the tax payers will be left with the risk, plus ca change and all that



SHJ
SpringHeeledJack is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2009, 16:18
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Forest of Caledon
Posts: 212
This is probably not an isolated case, but talk about everyone agreeing to not see the elephant in the room.
Low Flier is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.