Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Maggot_with_halitosis

I Enjoyed This Immensely

Recommended Posts

Check this out, courtesy of the Motley Fool:

http://fool.uk-wire.com/Article.aspx?id=201104200700102072F

It's the latest annual report from Panther Securities. The "Chairman's Ramblings" is quite a hoot, I must say.

Blame for Banking Crisis

The banking crisis cannot be blamed on a few top bankers, who of course made mistakes, and being involved with big businesses, they were big mistakes at enormous costs to everyone involved.

Thus, the blame falls on every one!

· We, who borrowed more than we could afford.

· We, who speculated on assets we did not understand.

· We, who spent money on credit cards at interest rates and on terms which were impossible to pay back.

· We, who arranged loans for others and encouraged people to exaggerate their income on the mortgage application form.

· We, who signed those false loan applications.

· We, who bought businesses practically entirely on borrowed money with a view to jiggling around its assets and then sell on at a profit to someone else who had also borrowed excessively.

· We, who had cash savings who went from bank to bank to bank to obtain a slightly higher interest rate.

· We, who placed funds in places where we would be unable to pinpoint them on a map.

· We, who gave money to banks and funds to manage being those who offered the most attractive adverts with little thought of money's security.

· We, who always wanted to spend more than we could possibly earn.

The twist in the tale? Panther is a property investment company! ohmy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check this out, courtesy of the Motley Fool:

http://fool.uk-wire.com/Article.aspx?id=201104200700102072F

It's the latest annual report from Panther Securities. The "Chairman's Ramblings" is quite a hoot, I must say.

Blame for Banking Crisis

The banking crisis cannot be blamed on a few top bankers, who of course made mistakes, and being involved with big businesses, they were big mistakes at enormous costs to everyone involved.

Thus, the blame falls on every one!

· We, who borrowed more than we could afford.

· We, who speculated on assets we did not understand.

· We, who spent money on credit cards at interest rates and on terms which were impossible to pay back.

· We, who arranged loans for others and encouraged people to exaggerate their income on the mortgage application form.

· We, who signed those false loan applications.

· We, who bought businesses practically entirely on borrowed money with a view to jiggling around its assets and then sell on at a profit to someone else who had also borrowed excessively.

· We, who had cash savings who went from bank to bank to bank to obtain a slightly higher interest rate.

· We, who placed funds in places where we would be unable to pinpoint them on a map.

· We, who gave money to banks and funds to manage being those who offered the most attractive adverts with little thought of money's security.

· We, who always wanted to spend more than we could possibly earn.

The twist in the tale? Panther is a property investment company! ohmy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brilliant!

"CHAIRMAN'S RAMBLINGS

On 20th April 2010 the Deepwater Horizon Rig, drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico on behalf of BP PLC exploded, killing eleven workers. This was a disaster and a tragedy any way one looks at it.

I read that America uses eighteen times more petroleum products per capita than the rest of the world and, despite having huge domestic oil resources remain reliant on the rest of the world's producers, such is their need for ever more oil. It is therefore essential that they explore and find resources closer to home necessitating extensive and excessive offshore drilling.

Only two months earlier, the American administration had opened up considerable further offshore areas for exploration. However, within ten days of the explosion, an immediate ban was placed on further drilling.

At the same time the American President and his advisers went into publicity overdrive to deflect criticism from themselves. BP PLC became The BRITISH Petroleum Company and with Tony Hayward, the Managing Director, its villain in chief, the intention being to show this was not the fault of American people, conveniently forgetting nearly 40% of BP is owned by American investors and both Haliburton, the works contractors to the oil rig and Transocean, the oil rig owners were also American companies.

The disaster's catastrophic effects seemingly increased daily, every American newspaper was excitably spouting a diatribe of hate and factually uninformed and incorrect disaster scenarios.

The vilification of British Petroleum and of Tony Hayward continued unabated for some time until eventually he was forced to step down as Chairman. The company's stock market value fell by over £50 billion (ie £20 billion of American investors' money).

The American government blackmailed BP into providing a $20 billion fund for compensation, including payment of salaries for workers laid off because of the drilling cessation orders issued by the American government!

Once the accident had happened, the only company with the experience and capabilities of dealing with the immediate problem ironically was BP.

The helpfully named (just to reassure our American friends that no fault lay with them) British Petroleum company and their English MD became a convenient scapegoat to deflect any political antagonism. I doubt if the same level of abuse and vilification would have arisen if it were a Russian or Chinese exploration company? We know what would happen if it was an American company. Practically nothing.

They have previous form on this when the Exxon Valdez oil tanker broke up off the coast of Scotland in 1977 releasing its entire cargo of oil and ruining the locals' fishing industry and later in 1985 in India when the Union Carbide Co chemical plant accidentally exploded killing and horribly maiming many thousands of innocent victims.

Politicians throughout the ages have always found it expedient to find a scapegoat to attach and blame.

The ill treatment dished out to Tony Hayward as Managing Director is not dissimilar to the treatment of many high profile bankers and their bonuses, thus I must ramble on further into bankers bonuses.

Banker Bashing

The banking and related finance industry probably employs about 1,000,000 people. The majority of them receive only slightly better pay and conditions than other private sector industries. Those at the higher level are well paid. Probably no more than one in two hundred of them receive the huge bonuses that appear to produce the jealous vilification so assiduously encouraged by politicians of every persuasion.

Blaming successful and high earning bankers is for deflection of blame for the great financial crash of 2008/9. The politicians' mantra of "It's the greedy bankers fault with their risky trading strategies that caused the recession".

I have dealt with many of the banking industry and have found that the majority of those at the higher level are knowledgeable and dedicated to their organisation and work much harder and longer hours (often with more stressful work involved) than those in other industries. The large bonuses they earn are a matter for the owners of the bank to decide i.e., the shareholders, not the government.

When a million pound bonus is mentioned one rarely hears the rest of the story, i.e., the Treasury receives £650,000 tax (including National Insurance) and from the remainder the recipient probably pays for his two children's private education, almost certainly private medical insurance, employs a nanny and gardener, runs two expensive cars with high VAT tax rates, high road and fuel tax, thus probably providing approximately another £150,000 benefit to the country at large and drawing little from it.

Thus this single million pound bonus earner provides the pension for 150 little old ladies, wherewithal for 75 asylum seekers or pays for the education of 150 other peoples' children.

Let us consider what would happen if the billion of bankers' bonuses had not been paid. The banks net income would rise by this amount only for LITTLE or NO tax to be paid as they have lost 10's of billions on their tax loans and would be fully entitled to set off these losses against net income, ie, the treasury would be worse off in direct tax by a minimum of 4 billion pounds and probably a further 1 billion from indirect taxes - this is meaningful amounts even for the most spendthrift of Governments.

We are told that the top 10,000 taxpayers pay about 7% of the total income tax which I calculate as 2,500 times as much as if all earners were treated equally.

Provided it is earned outside of the public sector which we all pay for, that politicians and journalists should be shouting from the rooftops, we want more million pound bonuses, many more rich people and many more large incomes because the recipients pay exponentially more to allow the country to be munificent to those who are less well off rather than the current situation of frightening off 20,000 people to squeeze into Monte Carlo, Andorra, The Channel Islands, Switzerland, Luxembourg and little pimples of islands in the Caribbean. They should be encouraged to return to our green and pleasant land with lower tax rates, flattery, respect and special privileges. The extra taxes received and huge employment generated because of nil tax rates that could be offered to the lowest earners would transform a million more lives as they are taken out of the benefits trap.

This probably won't happen as it is easier to obtain a vote by way of offering envy and confiscation from the deserving haves rather than reason and logic which might help the country.

Attacking Tony Hayward and high earning bankers reminds me of two of my old stories which I must relate.

George's Tale

Some 35 years ago, when I was still young enough to enjoy late night entertainment, I often visited night clubs in central London. It is pleasing to recall that at that time my thick dark brown hair showed not a whisper of silver, my suit size was three times smaller than I currently need today and my then inexhaustible supply of energy nowadays makes me exhausted even to think about it.

Upon reflection, despite these bountiful blessings, I am surprised at my desire to visit clubs which were all dingy, dark, smoky, noisy, invariably subterranean and outrageously expensive. Perhaps it was because they were the "in clubs" of their day where the tout le monde, le demi monde and aspiring celebrities spent their leisure hours.

One such Saturday night in a St James' venue with a few friends where the poorly lit room with dance floor was packed out and too dark and smoky to see more than five feet, we decided to eat at the adjoining dining area. Being less smoky and crowded we managed, by pushing and shoving, to secure a well positioned central dining table. The service of course was slow but it mattered not as we had come to see and be seen. The limited but expensive menu was thankfully before the advent of nouvelle cuisine! My order of Cumberland sausages, mashed potato with onions and gravy eventually arrived (and may have something to do with the fact of my current suit size) and by then we had carefully surveyed the room and noticed all the young and beautiful with the old and rich along with one or two recognisable minor celebrity faces.

However, we were very excited that George Best was at the adjoining table surrounded by friends, admirers and hangers-on! George was an icon of his day and for those who are too young to remember, he was and probably still is, rated as Manchester United's best football player and if not on a par with today's players, very well paid for those days. Although his playing days were over, he was still young, fit, extremely good looking with an abundance degree in wit and charm.

Many years later, when asked why all of his money had been exhausted and what he had spent it on he replied "I spent it on booze, birds and fast cars and the rest I just squandered". Indeed, he was a man of our times.

He and his table appeared to be enjoying themselves immensely, laughing and joking with his fans who were pleased to buy him whatever drinks took his fancy.

About halfway through my main course I noticed an extremely elegant, beautiful, young, slim woman whose long blonde hair fell halfway down her back. She sashayed up to the bar with two young men in attendance and was instantly seated on a tall bar stool. This caused a conversational hiatus at the next table and one of my friends explained the pretty girl was George's most recent ex. Despite this the next table continued its jollity and George continued to receive lavish hospitality. By the time I had finished my sausages and mash, George's face looked looser and redder and his upper body was wilting badly. I was then pleasantly distracted when my apple and rhubarb crumble, ice-cream and cream arrived and I slowly tucked into my favourite dessert (perhaps 4 sizes bigger!) I had nearly polished it off when I noticed George had slumped completely, his head resting on his arms flat on the table while his friends just continued to talk and joke around him.

At the bar the beautiful ex was smiling away, happily in conversation with her friends. Suddenly, like lightning, George jumped up, knocked his chair over and with two of the magnificent body swerves for which he was famous, went round the adjoining tables and then with the striker's speed he was also known for, rushed to the bar and struck the man standing next to his ex a couple of times, pulled him to the floor, jumped on him and continued to rain blows on his competition. I doubt it was 30 seconds before his friends were up and beside him to pull him away and usher him to the cloakroom and out of the club, one of which good humouredly stayed behind to pay for repairs and make apologies to the ex and the young man who appeared more surprised than damaged.

I suppose it must be one of my character defects that I went home in the early hours of the next day entirely pleased with that evening's entertainment.

The Asylum Seeker Tenant

A story related to me ten years or so ago about one of our tenants at Panther House will also interest my readers.

Our tenant, an asylum seeker, from Afghanistan, had taken one of our smaller rooms at Panther House and established a successful business importing and selling knitwear and woollen goods. I had little personal contact with him as he was an extremely good tenant, paying on time and causing no disturbance with other tenants and quietly getting on with business.

He was extremely polite when our paths crossed in the corridors and being of normal build and height, not particularly memorable. Like most successful small businessmen he could be seen working much longer than civil service hours.

One day on his journey home to Hendon in the early hours of the evening, he was walking up the hill from the station when he heard 'click click... clickety, click', the unmistakable noise of high heels briskly hitting the pavement. I defy any man to say he wouldn't look round upon hearing that high heel clickety click. Our friend turned and saw they belonged to a young woman who obviously had worked late and was going home in her smart office wear, clutching her briefcase tightly to her side.

It appeared to our tenant that the young woman was being followed by two rough looking large youths who were also walking along at a brisk pace and gaining on her.

Our tenant's instant appraisal was that the young office worker was worried that she was being followed. As she drew up beside him he gallantly asked "Would you like me to escort you home?" The woman politely replied "No, thank you" and sped on her way, click click... clickety click. With his foreign looks she may have not want to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire.

He then knelt down and pretended to tie up his shoe laces until the two youths were almost upon him. He then stood up, his 5"9" against their 6' plus height and said "Excuse me, but you appear to be following that young lady, why?"

Their reply was both vulgar, insulting and in language even I cannot print but, more worryingly, one of then started to sidle around behind our tenant.

Our tenant suddenly kicked the verbally abusive one in the 'goolies' causing him to immediately collapse in pain and on the way down he was given a hard rabbit punch on the back of the neck putting him out of action for a while. The other, startled by this turn of events, started to throw a punch. With surprising speed our tenant grabbed his wrist and instantaneously swung his leg round and kicked the legs from under the aggressor who was also felled. Our tenant then grabbed each of them in a powerful neck hold with his arms and they started to beg for mercy.

Within minutes a police squad car had screeched up and two or three police jumped out. One of the potential muggers was known to the police and 'out on bail' and the other was found to be carrying a knife. They were shoved into the back of the car and driven away and I know not what happened thereafter.

It was not however serendipity that caused the police to arrive at just the right time but the fact that the young men had been making a nuisance of themselves in a local grocery shop some 10 minutes earlier and the proprietor had already called the police.

As always, my ramblings are little convoluted and it may be hard for readers to understand the connection between my thoughts on BP PLC, the bankers, George Best and our Afghan tenant, of course I will explain.

In every case the wrong person/people have been attacked.

First and easiest is poor old George. In an alcoholic haze of receiving excessive hospitality, George attacked a young man who had the double misfortune to not only have been served excessively slowly at the bar, but had positioned himself beside George's ex having had no connection whatsoever and thus not one of George's rivals. But he received the blows, such is the unfairness of life.

Our Afghan tenant, who looked so innocuous, who had left his home country to start a new life in England, had previously had a position at which he excelled as an Army training teacher ...... in unarmed combat!! Thus our unsuccessful possible muggers could not have possibly known they were picking on the wrong man.

Blame IKE

In my view, the vilification of Tony Hayward of BP PLC was attacking the wrong man. If America wanted to blame one man they should have attacked IKE - IKE who you may ask.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, the 34th President of the United States, loved by all and known as IKE, was the General who successfully oversaw the allied armies invasion of Europe from England against the Nazi oppression and, of course, like all successful Generals, was very popular. He thus was able some seven years after the war to become President of the United States of America on the slogan 'We like IKE'.

In 1952 Gamal Abdel Nasser, an Egyptian Army General, had overthrown the Egyptian monarchy and taken control of the country, by 1956 he was not obtaining the success he wanted for his country and was being thwarted in his ambition to build the Great Aswan dam. The Americans and the British were not prepared to finance it.

Nasser needed foreign currency to finance his grand project, the Aswan Dam, so he nationalised the Suez Canal, which had been built using mainly French and English investors money in the 1860's. Originally a large part was owned by the Egyptian monarchy which when needing money in the 1880's sold their holding quickly to the British government funded by Rothschild Bank.

It was a valuable trade route for Britain and the West, especially for oil deliveries from the Middle East which proved vital in the two world wars when in those times 66% of Britain's oil was delivered through this canal.

What happened after Nasser annexed the canal is that the British, French and Israelis colluded to attack and retake the Suez Canal. With a surprisingly careful and well executed plan they succeeded. Unfortunately they deliberately failed to tell or obtain the blessing of the Americans of their plan.

Dwight D. Eisenhower was furious and because he had an upcoming election he wanted to portray himself to voters of the USA as a man who gave them peace.

He expressed his displeasure to both Britain and France but much more importantly, he organised economic sanctions against Britain and France. There was a run on sterling, the pound collapsed and Britain and France had ignominiously to pull out of their aggressive protectionist stance.

From that moment on, every tin pot little dictator or country knew that Britain and France were powerless without American help who didn't seem to care unless its direct interests were at risk. Even after foreign skill and money had been considerably expended under written contracts made between the capital rich Western industries and smaller, and often only recently formed states, oil fields were highly taxed, expropriated and confiscated and an oil cartel formed.

Because of this America is short of reasonably priced oil and has to drill in its offshore areas at a higher cost and risk to the environment, all because IKE did not support America's only real friend when they needed it.

Since I first wrote this piece, the Middle East has flared up again and oil scarcity and security is again on the agenda and proving the mistake of allowing dictators, despots and messianic regimes to dishonour and break trading agreements.

So don't blame Hayward, blame IKE!

Blame for Banking Crisis

The banking crisis cannot be blamed on a few top bankers, who of course made mistakes, and being involved with big businesses, they were big mistakes at enormous costs to everyone involved.

Thus, the blame falls on every one!

· We, who borrowed more than we could afford.

· We, who speculated on assets we did not understand.

· We, who spent money on credit cards at interest rates and on terms which were impossible to pay back.

· We, who arranged loans for others and encouraged people to exaggerate their income on the mortgage application form.

· We, who signed those false loan applications.

· We, who bought businesses practically entirely on borrowed money with a view to jiggling around its assets and then sell on at a profit to someone else who had also borrowed excessively.

· We, who had cash savings who went from bank to bank to bank to obtain a slightly higher interest rate.

· We, who placed funds in places where we would be unable to pinpoint them on a map.

· We, who gave money to banks and funds to manage being those who offered the most attractive adverts with little thought of money's security.

· We, who always wanted to spend more than we could possibly earn.

However, these are all human traits and we choose governments to make laws and rules to protect us from ourselves. AND THEY FAILED. The previous socialist government turned a blind eye to what was going on for many years, as it produced false profits, which they would still cream off a substantial portion as tax and then use and spend on their ill-conceived sugar coated social schemes.

Regulations were created, but they merely created forms for box ticking and failed to notice the reality of the businesses situation taking place.

The Governor of the Bank of England, who could have dined with the chairman of the two dozen largest banks and in his after dinner speech could have said "I do not like the idea of mortgages of more than 90% of value, I do not want to see self-certification mortgages allowed, I do not like the amount of structured products you are creating. Trading on the banks' own account should not be more than 15% above the total carried out for clients, and this amount is only to help fluidity in the market. Now enjoy your dessert of rhubarb and apple crumble and cream, and tomorrow morning tell your colleagues my views and thank them for the great work they are doing, on behalf of the City of London and our country".

Now if that dinner and speech had taken place in 2004 or 5, I doubt if we would have the banking problems (in this country at least) that exist today.

Blame not one person, but two. Socialist chancellor Gordon Brown and his chosen Governor of the Bank of England.

Andrew S Perloff

CHAIRMAN

20th April 2011"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeh, but only the bankers paid themselves vast sums based on their ability to lend money in a smart and responsible way.

That's the real bummer about being a highly paid professional, every now and then you are expected to demonstrate a degree of competence- this is the problem- it's utterly pathetic for the finance industry to whine about all the nasty borrowers who took their money, given the fact that they had spent a decade telling us just how very talented they were at the lending business.

A banker who cannot assess lending risk is as useless as a tube of non stick glue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeh, but only the bankers paid themselves vast sums based on their ability to lend money in a smart and responsible way.

That's the real bummer about being a highly paid professional, every now and then you are expected to demonstrate a degree of competence- this is the problem- it's utterly pathetic for the finance industry to whine about all the nasty borrowers who took their money, given the fact that they had spent a decade telling us just how very talented they were at the lending business.

A banker who cannot assess lending risk is as useless as a tube of non stick glue.

Exactly it is like a Doctor saying "there were 2 people responsible for me giving you the wrong drugs, you for wanting drugs and me for giving you drugs"

Most reasonable people would say the Doctor should have assessed the requirements of the patient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poppycock.

The Glass-Steagall act was repealed under Clinton (Larry Summers).

Greenspan moved interest rates too low for too long, forcing other finance economies to follow suit.

Post Dot-com boom cash needed yield, moved into property for safety.

All other central bankers believed Greenspan was a genius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly it is like a Doctor saying "there were 2 people responsible for me giving you the wrong drugs, you for wanting drugs and me for giving you drugs"

Most reasonable people would say the Doctor should have assessed the requirements of the patient.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly it is like a Doctor saying "there were 2 people responsible for me giving you the wrong drugs, you for wanting drugs and me for giving you drugs"

Most reasonable people would say the Doctor should have assessed the requirements of the patient.

He also says this - but it's a complete smokescreen (or he is too high up and thick to realise)

"When a million pound bonus is mentioned one rarely hears the rest of the story, i.e., the Treasury receives £650,000 tax (including National Insurance) and from the remainder the recipient probably pays for his two children's private education, almost certainly private medical insurance, employs a nanny and gardener, runs two expensive cars with high VAT tax rates, high road and fuel tax, thus probably providing approximately another £150,000 benefit to the country at large and drawing little from it."

The bankers set themselves up off-shore tax avoiding companies.

Their banks even pay them in all sorts of commodities (like wine) to avoid paying their taxes in full! A different scam every year!

The above that he wrote is completely hypothetical, a dream and NOT reality!

How dare he spout such City-fied drivel!

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.