Forums
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Eeternaloptimist
14 May 13 21:04
Joined:
Date Joined: 28 Jun 10
| Topic/replies: 38,236 | Blogger: Eeternaloptimist's blog
Remember the story:

We must bail out the banks because they are too big to fail.

Guess what? By that logic they are still too big to fail half a decade later with nothing having been done about it and nothing being done about it.

Ever get the feeling you've been conned?

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 24
By:
treetop
When: 14 May 13 21:48
Float RBS and Lloyds/HBOS and watch them fail after the scots vote for independence !
By:
Banwana
When: 14 May 13 23:23
It wasn't that they were too big. It was for 2 other reasons - its all the UK has left but, and more importantly, they had the power to save themselves. RBS is already angling in 2014 to say thanks for the ride taxpayer, here's a few quid for your time. Sorry about the itch.
By:
Menelaus
When: 14 May 13 23:43
"they had the power to save themselves"


This is the funniest thing I've read in a while.Laugh

Ask them *TODAY* to mark their assets to market, to stop ENRON SIV accounting, to eliminate the use of OBS entries, to disallow SOMA end of quarter balance sheet painting, and we'll all get to find out in about 24hrs how much power they have to save themselves *NOW*, never mind at the height of the credit crisis.

They WERE too big too fail, and unfortunately they still ARE. We've allowed them to grow into the monstrosities they are, so letting them fail is no longer an option. This was the bankers real victory over all of us.
By:
Menelaus
When: 14 May 13 23:52
I should have also mentioned, get that "lender of last resort" to stop handing them money in exchange for the cr@p paper they own at par and we'll get to find out in about 30 minutes how much power they have to save themselves.
By:
treetop
When: 15 May 13 14:53
Get them under proper control of the Bank of England which,for all of its criticisms of old boys network,worked far better than the useless FSA, godchild of granpda broon.
By:
Menelaus
When: 15 May 13 16:56
Yeah, how could all miss that, all that is needed is "proper" control enforced by an entity that injects liquidity in them (secretly if needed - the BoE was injecting liquidity into RBS long before the market found out about it) to keep the appearance of solvency. I'm on board with that, where do I sign up? LaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
By:
Mister E
When: 15 May 13 16:58
Any power the FSA had was undermined by Blair who accused them of "inhibiting" the banks.
By:
treetop
When: 15 May 13 21:47
The Bank used to call them in to increase their liquidity and it was done discreetly, hence the banks would listen and respond. Labour's eagerness to stab banks in the back and reveal scoops to Mr Peston e.g Northern Rock,etc undermined a lot of that and incited executives to bluff it out with disastrous results.Obviously there is more to it than that but such behaviour will not have helped.
By:
treetop
When: 15 May 13 21:48
Good to see you post Mister E, I often agreed with you,everything OK ? As you say Mr Blair has
By:
treetop
When: 15 May 13 21:49
* a lot to answer for but keeps on making millions !
By:
Menelaus
When: 15 May 13 21:59
"The Bank used to call them in to increase their liquidity and it was done discreetly, hence the banks would listen and respond"

Can you explain to me how this is legal and doesn't violate securities laws?

If you were shorting RBS stock at the time, and anyone awake at the time would, the BoE SECRETLY moved the market against your trade. How is that action by the BoE NOT MATERIAL to the market and was done in secret?

Sorry, mate, but I can think of a lot of better ways to rein-in these criminals but allowing another criminal cartel to supervise them is not one of them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/6646923/Bank-of-England-tells-of-secret-62bn-loan-to-save-RBS-and-HBOS.html
By:
Mister E
When: 16 May 13 10:50
If the banks were too big to fail......

how about BP?
Compensation claims are spiralling out of hand, asked the govt. to help.
By:
bazzar
When: 16 May 13 14:28
With BP Mister E, the valve was manufactured by an American firm and
the failure of that valve was the real cause of the disaster, yet our cowardly BP executives never press that point home, we pander to the Yanks on everything.
By:
Ski-Wiz
When: 16 May 13 15:45
Ever get the feeling you've been conned?

No......i knew i was conned when the bailouts happened. Feeling has nothing to do with it, it's all about numbers and principles followed by bad strategies of the Labour government at the time.
By:
cryoftruth
When: 16 May 13 17:40
Eeternaldimwit said

We must bail out the banks because they are too big to fail.

And then moans that they still are. Well his beloved Tories have had a few years now to sort it out and have still done nothing at all about it.

I don't suppose for a second that he would acknowledge that there is any link between the massive banker funding of the Tory party by the bankers and the unwillingness of Greasy and Flashman to do anything about it?

Nap!
By:
treetop
When: 16 May 13 18:53
Your point is a fair one menny but that old fashioned approach seemed to work a lot better than the FSA did. Perhaps Labour were so keen to give Robert Peston a journalistic scoop about Northern Rock they forgot to follow your recommended approach via the markets too.
By:
Eeternaloptimist
When: 16 May 13 20:08
I know logic isn't your strong point deranged but I didn't say the banks should be bailed out. In fact I advocated the opposite. But if and it is a big someone says to you that the said banks are are too big to fail and then act on that it seems reasonable for them then to address the central issue which apparently prevented allowing the banks to fail if they had overextended themselves.

Moral hazard and it is all around us.
By:
cryoftruth
When: 17 May 13 22:48
I just quoted your very own word you utter dolt.
By:
cryoftruth
When: 17 May 13 22:50
I know logic isn't your strong point deranged but I didn't say the banks should be bailed out. In fact I advocated the opposite. But if and it is a big someone says to you that the said banks are are too big to fail and then act on that it seems reasonable for them then to address the central issue which apparently prevented allowing the banks to fail if they had overextended themselves.

Moral hazard and it is all around us.


That is the most astonishing ungrammatical pile of drivel ever

Aside from all the other piles of tripe you spew forth of course
By:
cryoftruth
When: 17 May 13 23:03
I take it that you, eeternalodiousarrsole quite support the disgraced bankers collecting zillions in per scions and donating their ill gotten gains to Greasy and Flashman.

I am not surprised by this as klarts like you usually do support the evil and odious forces of utter evil.

Well done as ever. Your stupidity never surprises any more; it is very predictable.
By:
Eeternaloptimist
When: 17 May 13 23:59
Do you regularly ask a question, draw a conclusion from it and then berate someone else for that conclusion deranged?
By:
Eeternaloptimist
When: 18 May 13 00:08
And actually you didn't quote me. I deliberately bolded what was said by the bail out brigade and then pointed out the error in their/your logic.

Even you should have been able to grasp that as you should also have grasped in what you classed as my ungrammatical later point that claiming that something is too big to fail then bailing it out and leaving it as it stands will merely embolden those who caused it to fail in the first place and thus cause more failures down the line.

It is called moral hazard.

By the way I don't believe in rewarding failure and I don't believe in the concept of privatising gains and socialising losses.

So you are wrong again bellend.

Now run and hide. I'll give you a start.
By:
cryoftruth
When: 18 May 13 08:01
Oh dear oh dear

There you go again eeternalgormless. Spouting pompous cobblers and very rude drivel.

I am surprised you don't tire of being so odious.
By:
Dr Crippen
When: 18 May 13 12:27
Guess what? By that logic they are still too big to fail half a decade later with nothing having been done about it and nothing being done about it.

Hasn't Lawson announced plans to separate the retail and investment arms of the banks by 2015?
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com