Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
LOL
Yes, of course, helping your friends. Indeed, yes - those friends are the pension savers, the Stocks and Shares ISA savers and others who have money invested in funds run by UBS and Goldman Sachs etc....
Yes folks - what Reg is under the illusion of as being massive self-interested firms actually run investment funds from which you, I and your granny benefit from. Be grateful.
This really is a non-story of course - perhaps the Bow Group have not looked at what usually happens and are just after a bit of publicity and political kudos. As for JPM, they have their own agenda of course and experts will always disagree over flotation prices. It is not a science or even a matter of mathematics.
The reality of flotations is such that share prices in a successful flotation will bounce.
The Royal Mail bounce was peanuts compared to the Flitter bounce when that was floated a couple of weeks ago.....Was that some horrible City plot to deprive the original business owner, of course not.
And, yes we should be glad because the 48% of shares still owned by the government will now have a real market price and that is a big bonus for taxpayers.
As for John Major.... I would not trust his judgement on anything.
This pathetic thread never gets any better.
Now then Reg. Perhaps it is time to tell us exactly why you have some irrational fear and hatred of the City and financial institutions? Were you turned down for a job perhaps, or maybe sacked? Or more likely you know little about the subject and do not care about the truth, wanting only to point score and generate distrust in the biggest earner of overseas income the UK has that provided millions of jobs. That really is a bit sad.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
# 3561.......`` It is not a science or even a matter of mathematics``.........true its not its about greed
and elite greedy pigs and finance johnnies lining their pockets time and time again.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Your bigotry is showing again Reg, alongside your ignorance of the subject.;
No answer to what has made you so bitter and twisted then?
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Way off the mark Barry as usual.
We can attempt to justify the greed as highlighted so many times,
but without the workfirce(and all the wage freezes0) these greedy people wouldnr have all these profits
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
insider trading.......?.............what a can of worms..........
Tory MP Mark Pritchard, the al-Qa'ida hunter, and a £154-an-hour contract that could become a security issue
MP receives fees from US intelligence firm while holding security positions in Parliament
Ali Soufan could be a character out of the hit TV series Homeland. One of the FBI's most senior al-Qa'ida hunters, he was deeply involved in chasing down the masterminds of 9/11, the Nairobi embassy bombings and the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. His Lebanese background and fluent Arabic made him a prized special agent in US intelligence gathering and interrogation operations.
Now, he runs a lucrative private intelligence organisation in New York, the Soufan Group, which advises multinational companies and governments on geopolitical situations and security risks around the world.
His company, staffed by a senior coterie of fellow ex-FBI special agents, prides itself on getting the inside track on global security issues - intelligence which it then sells to its well-heeled clients.
It has now emerged that Mr Soufan has been paying a British MP with heavy involvement in the Government's defence and intelligence operations as well as with Nato, as an adviser at a rate of more than £2,000 a month for 13-and-a-half hours' work.
Mark Pritchard, the Conservative MP for The Wrekin in Shropshire, has received fees from Mr Soufan totalling nearly £27,000 in the past year, according to his register of members' interests.
While his income and work for the company has been declared to parliament, the paid position leaves open the question whether elected politicians involved in national security should be permitted to work for companies who could use such information for commercial gain.
Meanwhile, information gleaned and contacts made on foreign trips in his capacity as an MP, such as a May visit to the Democratic Republic of Congo where he met former leaders of the M23 rebel group, could be seen as valuable to potential Soufan Group clients such as mining and oil companies.
The region is one of the most lucrative for private intelligence companies due to the wealth of untapped mineral resources combined with corruption, security and political risks.
Mr Pritchard threatened to sue the Daily Telegraph this month over allegations about his commercial interests.
Soufan Group's website boasts of having Mr Pritchard on its books, saying he is "a member of the UK delegation to the Nato Parliamentary Assembly, and is also a member of the UK National Security Strategy Committee." It notes that he holds a variety of defence, security and intelligence related positions within Parliament.
Hansard reports that he has asked questions in Parliament about the armed services, Afghanistan and peacekeeping operations. One such question involved suggestions about Nato's capabilities in Istar, or intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Keith - I would much rather be associated with those you call 'greedy' than self-righteous sanctimonious hypocrites. Your 'greedy' do far more to to create wealth and jobs than the latter.
More dumb copy and pasting from Reg and still no answer....
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
mark pritchard's name keeps cropping up, always shown in a negative light.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
and thats the problem howard
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Bankers are a bunch of `...kers`......................
Barclays introduces 'role-based' pay scheme for top bankers to counter EU bonus cap rules
Role-based pay will be set at the beginning of the year paid in 12 instalments
Barclays top bankers will benefit from an additional "role-based" pay allowance on top of their salaries and bonuses.
The move comes in the wake of the EU's plans to cap bonuses at 100 per cent or salaries or 200 per cent if a "super majority" of shareholders approve. The bank is planning to seek this approval.
Role-based pay will be set at the beginning of the year, and will be paid in 12 instalments. It is not performance-linked, but the amount to be paid will be changeable based on economic conditions and Barclays' forecasts.
It is understood that regulators and shareholders have been consulted. Sources close to the bank said it was not an attempt to evade the cap because "role-based pay" is not performance-linked or retrospective.
The Government has launched a challenge to the cap, which comes into force next year. However, that will not be ruled upon in time to stop it.
Other banks are expected to use similar payments to reward top staff. It is likely the allowance will be handed to fewer than 2000 staff at Barclays.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Bankers really are a bunch of............................
RBS 'drove businesses to collapse before stripping their assets'
Bank faces FCA inquiry over allegations of 'unscrupulous' treatment of small businesses
Royal Bank of Scotland is facing an inquiry by banking regulators into allegations that it drove firms to collapse in order to buy back their assets at rock-bottom prices.
A report into the bank's "unscrupulous" treatment of small businesses has been passed to the Financial Conduct Authority by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Last night the FCA said it was examining the allegations made but would not comment further.
The Business Secretary Vince Cable said some of the allegations were "very serious", adding he was waiting for an "urgent response as to what actions have been taken".
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i would have thought that if such allegations were proven then criminal charges could be brought against the bank.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Inappropriate behaviour has yet to be proven of course, these are just allegations.
That said there is certainly some questionable treatment by the banks in how they deal with small businesses that seem to me to breach the FSA (now FCA) Treating Customers Fairly requirements. The levels of security they are looking for from small business is way above what I would consider appropriate, they want their cake not only to eat but have a second plateful as well. I am only grateful that I am not involved in capital raising for businesses either my own or clients.
What we are seeing here is yet another failure of regulation by the FSA in ensuring suitable enforcement. When I think of the hoops small IFA firms have to go through compared to the banks it does make me angry.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
The trouble is that banks seem to do just what they like until they are caught or their misdemeanors are found out.
Their gains appear to outweigh any fine so the gamble is worth it and they definitely do not seem care about the public's opinion of them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
There is a lot of historical stuff here Jan and it takes a lot of time to turn around the behaviour of these large organisations. They are certainly not focussed on client service the way they should and their whole operations, these days, is far too risk averse as a reaction to the 1998 to 2008 period when they were too cavalier over risk. They just do not seem to understand where the balance should lay. The regulators certainly need to take a lot of the blame both historically for being too 'loose' and now for being over the top - some though is down to increased European requirements as well.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
A friend of mine lost his shirt in just that way. A 50% owner of a company making production line machinery for car manufacturers, his bank put them into involuntary liquidation despite the fact that they had £42million in orders from Ford and VW. The stocks and equipment were sold off by the bank for £4m more than they owed the bank but the balance was more than eaten up by penalties due under their contracts with the car makers. Another customer of the same bank bought the assets and sold them on to the company's main competitor.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
# 3571......100 % agree Howard...I am convinced criminal proceedings should have been brought after the exposure
of the Bankers caused the Global finance collapse in 2008,especially the Libor fiasco...
Is it the ``old boy``network protecting them ?......because ``They are all in it together``?
# 3572 .............``inappropriate behaviour ``........how gentile !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If Barry W is angry with his finance johnnies friends ...........it is about time he saw the wood for the trees......
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
a lot of people lose their homes too when fj's foreclose on their business so if it is done in a wanton manner then there is a strong case for prosecution.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Reg - my anger is firstly directed where it belongs, the regulators. It is their failure to enforce their own rules that is the problem here while having an excessive focus on small IFAs who do not hold client money.
This does not mean the banks are off the hook for what they are doing but if the regulations got things right in the first place and enforcement was up to scratch then these problems would not be occurring.
Unlike you Reg - I apply the blame where it actually lays and where it is deserved.
As an IFA I have no love for the banks and I am frequently clearing up behind them but even so I will defend them when needed and attack them when justified. You - well you just hate anyone you brand a 'finance johnnie' no doubt having a personal ax to grind that you keep very secret.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Bankers,finance johnnies are a .....wagon bunch of monkeys.....nobody can regulate them....
or apply enforcement ......yet......
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Labour failed miserably with the 1997 reforms so you say they cannot be regulated. You do come out with the most incredible crap Reg.
No amount of regulation would be enough to suite you and if any regulator did reflect the attitude you display here then the competitive and successful UK financial services industry would be a dead duck, £billion of revenue and tens of thousands of jobs would flee abroad.
You never actually say anything constructive or suggest any reforms of your own so you can only be judged by the attitudes you express and what you seem to support. What that comes down to is the dead hand of government ready to clamp down on all everyone (not just finance) in the manner of a socialist soviet republic with an equality of misery and poverty.