Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Realistbear

Top Bankster Freddy Of R B S Cleared Of All Wrong Doing

Recommended Posts

On Thursday 2 December 2010, 10:06
LONDON (
Reuters
) - The financial regulator has cleared Fred Goodwin, the controversial former chief executive of Royal Bank of Scotland (LSE: RBS.L - news) , of wrongdoing after closing a lengthy investigation into the bailed-out bank.
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) said on Thursday that RBS had made a series of bad decisions in the years immediately before the financial crisis, such as buying Dutch peer ABN AMRO and expanding aggressively in investment banking.
But it added that these decisions did not stem from a lack of integrity by any individual and they found no instances of fraud or dishonest activity by RBS senior individuals and no failure of governance by the board.

His detractors are lucky they didn't get greased by this good fella.

Edited by Realistbear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Thursday 2 December 2010, 10:06
LONDON (
Reuters
) - The financial regulator has cleared Fred Goodwin, the controversial former chief executive of Royal Bank of Scotland (LSE: RBS.L - news) , of wrongdoing after closing a lengthy investigation into the bailed-out bank.
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) said on Thursday that RBS had made a series of bad decisions in the years immediately before the financial crisis, such as buying Dutch peer ABN AMRO and expanding aggressively in investment banking.
But it added that these decisions did not stem from a lack of integrity by any individual and they found no instances of fraud or dishonest activity by RBS senior individuals and no failure of governance by the board.

His detractors are lucky they didn't get greased by this good fella.

But it added that these decisions did not stem from a lack of integrity by any individual and they found no instances of fraud or dishonest activity by RBS senior individuals and no failure of governance by the board.

Wow, just how did the bank nearly bring down the UK economy, when no one at the top did anything wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it added that these decisions did not stem from a lack of integrity by any individual and they found no instances of fraud or dishonest activity by RBS senior individuals and no failure of governance by the board.

Wow, just how did the bank nearly bring down the UK economy, when no one at the top did anything wrong?

I suspect the FSA chappy who oversaw this report has a wife and kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what did the bad decisions stem from then? Greed, stupidity?

Let me guess was the person who headed this investigation an ex banker by any chance?

Good to know that the taxpayer is the majority holder in the worlds biggest bank purely down to bad luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key here is the Story.

and the story is "nobody could have foreseen the problems".

Except many did and alerted papers, Governments and Banks.

you cant be culpable if what you were doing couldnt be seen (at the time) as leading to the meatgrinder.

Officially then, as both Regulators, Government and Bankers couldnt possibly have foreseen the problems, then no-one is at fault.

Which means that hundreds of thousands of Liar Loaners are in the clear....normal practice cant be a crime...can it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other news today Hank Paulson revealed that after an exhaustive investigation he found that Lloyd Blankfein is a very nice man doing God's work for the benefit of humanity and fluffy kittens. He added that no-one could doubt his integrity, the instances of financial irregularity were minor in the scheme of things and he merited his $billion personal fortune.

The SEC agreed and they all went down the pub to celebrate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other news today Hank Paulson revealed that after an exhaustive investigation he found that Lloyd Blankfein is a very nice man doing God's work for the benefit of humanity and fluffy kittens. He added that no-one could doubt his integrity, the instances of financial irregularity were minor in the scheme of things and he merited his $billion personal fortune.

The SEC agreed and they all went down the pub to celebrate.

In still other news:

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/berniemadoff-vindicated.of.allwrongdoing-reuters_molt-1284413052.html?x=0

Mark Potter, 9:28, Thursday 2 December 2010
LONDON (
Reuters
) - Bernie Madoff, serving a life prison sentence, has been set free this morning after a Federal judge found that he had not done anything wrong. Fresh evidence presented by members of the banking community showed that Mr. Madoff acted in good faith throughout his business dealings and could not have foreseen anyone losing money.*

_________________________

* Just kidding--but in reality--would anyone be surprised given the state of ethics in banking and finance today?

Edited by Realistbear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Sir-Fred-Goodwin-clear-FSA-tele-2177892153.html?x=0

The regulator said it could not disclose details of its investigation and that investigations into other banks that ‘failed’ during the crisis are ongoing.

In 2008, RBS posted the biggest loss in corporate history and required a bail-out of £45.5bn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's OK then. I'm glad Freddie didn't do anything wrong and I'm happy about the huge sums of money he was, and continues to be paid for having no experience or training and doiing everything wrong and buying loads of loans that couldn't be paid and buying a bank that even sent out a briefing note saying just what the problems were just before Freddie bought it and then having to sell loads more shares because the bank he bought was so bad and telling everyone how RBS was a really good bank and they should buy these shares from him, just before presiding over the largest corporate loss in UK history and having to be rescued by the taxpayer whilst not doing anything wrong at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Forget-damp-squib-FSA-inquiry-tele-3570674417.html?x=0

.../
With his house besieged and trashed and his kids forced out of school, Sir Fred was eventually forced to flee to France. But even now, back in Edinburgh, his rehabilitation into society let alone business is faltering and uncertain. Once the proud and ambitious boss of one of world’s biggest bank, now the best can do is a sales advisor at a local architect firm.
It’s a punishment far tougher than some lengthy FSA court case or fine could impose.
But what will today’s City’s bankers take from the Fred fiasco?
Many will be cheering, albeit silently. The decision represents a triumph of law over raw emotions of a whipped up public. For those doggedly insisting that their guaranteed bonuses and time-old pay arrangements must stand, regardless of the economic client, this will be a big encouragement.
But the wiser lesson would be that public opinion, particularly united and angry, is extremely powerful and if that force decides to evict you, personally or corporately, no City contract or convention will help you.

In an era gone by he would probably be serving time by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://uk.finance.ya...674417.html?x=0

.../
With his house besieged and trashed and his kids forced out of school, Sir Fred was eventually forced to flee to France. But even now, back in Edinburgh, his rehabilitation into society let alone business is faltering and uncertain. Once the proud and ambitious boss of one of world's biggest bank, now the best can do is a sales advisor at a local architect firm.
It's a punishment far tougher than some lengthy FSA court case or fine could impose.
But what will today's City's bankers take from the Fred fiasco?
Many will be cheering, albeit silently. The decision represents a triumph of law over raw emotions of a whipped up public. For those doggedly insisting that their guaranteed bonuses and time-old pay arrangements must stand, regardless of the economic client, this will be a big encouragement.
But the wiser lesson would be that public opinion, particularly united and angry, is extremely powerful and if that force decides to evict you, personally or corporately, no City contract or convention will help you.

In an era gone by he would probably be serving time by now.

Which shows how Completely Corrupted this country is by all our elites esp in the City!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is wonderful news for the man. He now joins the ever growing list of those wronged by British Justice.

ie

Jack the Ripper

Anthony Blunt

Kim Philby

etc. etc. etbloody cetera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it added that these decisions did not stem from a lack of integrity by any individual and they found no instances of fraud or dishonest activity by RBS senior individuals and no failure of governance by the board.[/indent]

My decision to bomb banks and torch bank branches does not stem from a lack of integrity or any instances of fraud or dishonest activity by myself individually and there is no failure in my sense of judgement or moral governance. :D

What a load of T0ssp0t w@nk this sh1tty little country is. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the price of employing only the best and brightest to run UK banks - otherwise they would just up sticks and go :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Now what's the transfer fee for FSA to RBS and RBS to FSA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And "no failure of governance by the board" ?!

:o

So it was all an "act of God" ?!

:o

Playing the devil's advocate here: Isn't there a difference between gross incompetence and deliberate wrongdoing? They've found no evidence that they deliberately sank the bank. So what can you do? What crime has he committed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Playing the devil's advocate here: Isn't there a difference between gross incompetence and deliberate wrongdoing? They've found no evidence that they deliberately sank the bank. So what can you do? What crime has he committed?

There is no evidence that Nick Leeson deliberately sank Barings - at least he started out gambling the banks money for altruistic reasons (to stop his Singapore staff from getting the sack for making a mistake). What was Fred the shreds excuse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no evidence that Nick Leeson deliberately sank Barings - at least he started out gambling the banks money for altruistic reasons (to stop his Singapore staff from getting the sack for making a mistake). What was Fred the shreds excuse?

Greed.

Obviously not a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Playing the devil's advocate here: Isn't there a difference between gross incompetence and deliberate wrongdoing? They've found no evidence that they deliberately sank the bank. So what can you do? What crime has he committed?

Negligence: Failing to forsee harm that a reasonable person in that postion ought to have foreseen. Or comitting an error judgment no reasonablly competent banker would have committed in similar circustmaces (Whitehouse v. Jordan).

Recklessness: Forseeing harm and not caring if it happens or not.

Criminal recklessness: The above plus an intent to profit from his actions.

He may not have been guilty of criminal conduct on the basis of what most of us know but he is clearly guilty of negligence. Perhaps reckless disregard for the bank's best interests.

As it is he has a pension of around £350k pa IRC which is a handsome reward for, at best, negligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Goodwin

Media and government criticism increased on disclosure in February 2009 of the size of Goodwin's pension. The treasury minister Lord Myners had indicated to RBS that there should be "no reward for failure",[46] but Goodwin's pension entitlement, represented by a notional
fund of £8m, was doubled
, to a notional fund of £16m or more, because under the terms of the scheme he was entitled to receive, at age 50, benefits which would otherwise have been available to him only if he had worked until age 60.[47] Sir Philip Hampton, RBS's new chairman, stated that as a result
Goodwin is drawing £693,000 a year (later revised to £703,000
[48] due to Goodwin working an extra month in the new financial year[49]), and disclosed that under the RBS pension scheme Goodwin is entitled to draw the pension already, at age 50, because he had been asked to leave employment early, rather than having been dismissed.
A pensions expert suggested that this meant Goodwin had received a substantial payoff from his early retirement, as it would cost around £25m to buy such a pension and his pension 'pot' amounted to £16m
.[28] When the matter became public in late February 2009, Goodwin defended his decision to refuse to reduce his pension entitlement in a letter to Lord Myners on 26 February,[50] pointing out that on leaving in October 2008 he had given up a contractual 12-month notice period worth around £1.29m and share options worth around £300,000.[51] In March 2009
Lord Myners revealed that part of the reason Goodwin's pension was so large was that RBS treated him as having joined the pension scheme from age 20 (instead of 40, when he actually joined) and ignored contributions to his pension from previous employment.[52]
:angry:
On 18 June 2009 RBS stated that following negotiation an agreement was reached between RBS and Goodwin to reduce his pension to £342,500 a year from the £555,000 set in February after he took out an estimated £2.7m tax-free lump sum. The agreement followed the completion of RBS' internal inquiry into Goodwin's conduct, which found no wrong-doing.[61]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Negligence: Failing to forsee harm that a reasonable person in that postion ought to have foreseen. Or comitting an error judgment no reasonablly competent banker would have committed in similar circustmaces (Whitehouse v. Jordan).

Recklessness: Forseeing harm and not caring if it happens or not.

Criminal recklessness: The above plus an intent to profit from his actions.

He may not have been guilty of criminal conduct on the basis of what most of us know but he is clearly guilty of negligence. Perhaps reckless disregard for the bank's best interests.

As it is he has a pension of around £350k pa IRC which is a handsome reward for, at best, negligence.

I just don't believe that the CEO of one of the biggest British banks wasn't aware of the credit/HP bubble. And he was on bonuses. So, I would go for Criminal recklessness for Freddy. For the board (also v. well paid), either Negligence or Criminal Recklessness.

EDIT: Actually I don't think it is possible, that any one of them, wasn't aware of credit bubble. Just not credible. Therefore, Criminal Recklessness all round.

Edited by Tired of Waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.