Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Fairies Wear Boots

Retail Banks To Be Ringfenced.

Recommended Posts

Until he U-turns.

Plus he demands them to be capitalised at 10% yet asks them to splash their cash on dreamers whose only business experience has been debt and more debt, and on mortgages for over-priced homes. He contradicts himself in one breath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until he U-turns.

Plus he demands them to be capitalised at 10% yet asks them to splash their cash on dreamers whose only business experience has been debt and more debt, and on mortgages for over-priced homes. He contradicts himself in one breath

This is a step in the right direction, though - surely?!

Something akin to a UK Glass-Steagal act and very sensible it seems to be. Separates the "Too Big to Fail" parts from the "Heads my bonus wins, tails you taxpayers lose" investment bankers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a step in the right direction, though - surely?!

Something akin to a UK Glass-Steagal act and very sensible it seems to be. Separates the "Too Big to Fail" parts from the "Heads my bonus wins, tails you taxpayers lose" investment bankers.

In the right direction if it's not some watered down or even U-turned policy by the time it's implemented. At the same time he'll probably again order the banks to continue lending recklessly, so what sense or consistency can we expect? They either grow up, face the music and stop kicking the can, or go on like they are with pretend-reform that will lead to more trouble in the future, if not the very near future

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does sound a little bit like Osbourne is asking, instead of telling.

It's a joke that the tax payers had to bail out the banks, because they were too big to fail with our money, and yet they can still use depositors money for any investment malarky they see fit. No wonder bubbles form and burst over and over. We haven't even learnt from this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a step in the right direction, though - surely?!

Something akin to a UK Glass-Steagal act and very sensible it seems to be. Separates the "Too Big to Fail" parts from the "Heads my bonus wins, tails you taxpayers lose" investment bankers.

If they go through with it, then totally agree this is a good thing. My personal guess is that, if separated entirely, the investment banking operations would eventually end up back as partnerships rather than public companies too. There's just too little in it for shareholder in a pure investment banking play with no government guarantee of any sort (implied to explicit).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did they not talk about this when the bailouts were being enforced upon us? I think the banksters threatened to leave the uk if this were to happen, making thousands(millions?) unemployed.

If so, what is different now that they're keeping their mouths shut?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ring fencing is the best option. Then later on they can say:

"Oh shit.... look.... the ring fencing didn't work after all.... they didn't do it right.... we need to change it for next time"

Much better than completely stand alone investment and retail banking with less chance of the thievery continuing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering what assets the 'retail' banksters will invest in which provides 'safety' and a return after costs to 'savers'.

Apart from property of course.

Perhaps they'll 'invest' in investment banksters. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard on the radio that the banks may "have" to introduce more banking charges if this plan is introduced. :rolleyes:

A nice excuse to fleece their customers a bit more, and maybe put an end to free banking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard on the radio that the banks may "have" to introduce more banking charges if this plan is introduced. :rolleyes:

A nice excuse to fleece their customers a bit more, and maybe put an end to free banking?

The banker's bitch Lord Turner has already started a campaign to suggest that free banking is bad for customers. It makes banks do bad things.... mis-sell the wrong type of products.... you know the sort of thing a regulator should be able to stop or punish banks for until they behaved. Our failed regulators just think that customers should pay banks more so that then they don't have to cheat us as much because there is nothing the FSA can do about what bank bad practices!

It seems like bizarre logic, but free current accounts are actually bad for customers, the head of the City watchdog has warned.

With Britain's banks deluged by 7,000 complaints a day, Lord Turner, the chairman of the Financial Services Authority, hinted that the 25-year-old practice of free banking is partly to blame.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/savings-and-banking/article.html?in_article_id=519011&in_page_id=7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did they not talk about this when the bailouts were being enforced upon us? I think the banksters threatened to leave the uk if this were to happen, making thousands(millions?) unemployed.

If so, what is different now that they're keeping their mouths shut?

Bailout and the original talks about this was under Labour, This time its the Conservaties putting the idea through

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering what assets the 'retail' banksters will invest in which provides 'safety' and a return after costs to 'savers'.

Apart from property of course.

Perhaps they'll 'invest' in investment banksters. :lol:

Government debt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way to prevent the banksters from blowing bubbles is make then personally liable for the risks they run.

If it was their own financial backsides hanging in the breeze there would be no need for regulators.

Unlimited liability for losses would do the trick- then they really would be the steely eyed heroes of capitalism they pretend to be.

Won't happen- of course. When these people talk about 'free markets' they mean for other people, not themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will the highly-effective FSA be in charge of ensuring that the retail side of the banks are carefully ringfenced?

Yes, they probably will. The banks which combine both types of operation will be split into 2 different subsidiaries under a single holding company. Each firm will be responsible for its own capital and liquidity and it will be very difficult to hide the transfer of cash from retail bank to fund the investment bank, as happens today.

There will need to be some cross-over, such as for the securitisation of mortgages. But in this case, the investment bank would need to buy the mortgages from the retail bank in exchange for the mortgages, so the cash would run from investment bank to retail bank and the risk assets would transfer from retail to investment bank.

I think this will work quite well and it will ultimately mean that investment banking is less profitable, and the return on equity will more accurately reflect the risk that these banks run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they probably will. The banks which combine both types of operation will be split into 2 different subsidiaries under a single holding company. Each firm will be responsible for its own capital and liquidity and it will be very difficult to hide the transfer of cash from retail bank to fund the investment bank, as happens today.

There will need to be some cross-over, such as for the securitisation of mortgages. But in this case, the investment bank would need to buy the mortgages from the retail bank in exchange for the mortgages, so the cash would run from investment bank to retail bank and the risk assets would transfer from retail to investment bank.

I think this will work quite well and it will ultimately mean that investment banking is less profitable, and the return on equity will more accurately reflect the risk that these banks run.

Yes, I heard Martin Wolf in interview on this a while back. I imagine investment banking will be much smaller in future.

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.

  • 284 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.