Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
John The Pessimist

Banking Inquiry To Lead To Breakup Of Big 4?

Recommended Posts

Forget the brass razoo. If we need the money we can print it.

More important is the structure of the banking market.

Apart from splitting the banks up (e.g. Lloyds into Lloyds, Halifax, TSB, Bank of Scotland, Cheltenham & Gloucester etc....i.e. undoing the previous mergers) I think investment banking should be split out (the 'casino banking' of proprietary trading).

But mostly I think Business Banking should be split out into regional business banks. The temptation just to undertake easy mortgage lending is simply too great for the banks and business lending continues to slump 6 years after the crash. If you limit a bank to business banking it will develop the skills (re-learn them) to ensure it survives by lending into that sector.

Let's not underestimate that we 're all on the hook for a combined £120bn+ for bailing out the banks. That's a whole wedge of cash, printed or not. It impacts everyone in the form of inflation, taxes etc.

Breaking up the banks may generate competition. However, competition may encourage the bankers to go for 'easy' business like mortgages, and we're back blowing HPI bubbles. Irrespective of whether the banks are broken up, we need accountability. You sell sh1t loans, your bank goes bust type accountability. This, and not increased regulation will sort the sheep from the goats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A woman in the London riots who was convicted of stealing a pair of trainers got ten months in jail- everyone involved in the riot who they could find got a custodial sentence- the bankers stole the nations future and got large bonus's and pensions.

Forget breaking them up, lets start locking them up. As long as control fraud is allowed to prosper no amount of tinkering with the system will make any difference- they will just find new ways to game the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A woman in the London riots who was convicted of stealing a pair of trainers got ten months in jail- everyone involved in the riot who they could find got a custodial sentence- the bankers stole the nations future and got large bonus's and pensions.

Forget breaking them up, lets start locking them up. As long as control fraud is allowed to prosper no amount of tinkering with the system will make any difference- they will just find new ways to game the system.

Amen.

I'm all in favour of some bankers 'playing mamas & papas' with a 250lb inmate called 'Bubba'. However, as soon as you start holding people criminally responsible for their actions, where will it end? Was Gordon's misselling of the nation's gold criminally negligent? Should Blair/Cameron have sent soldiers to XYZ countries?

The establishment don't like it when the rules designed for the plebs get applied to them...... That's why jail will never happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A woman in the London riots who was convicted of stealing a pair of trainers got ten months in jail- everyone involved in the riot who they could find got a custodial sentence- the bankers stole the nations future and got large bonus's and pensions.

Forget breaking them up, lets start locking them up. As long as control fraud is allowed to prosper no amount of tinkering with the system will make any difference- they will just find new ways to game the system.

+1

The taxpayers will never get back the billions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Competition' = competitive downward pressure on lending rates and simpler to wind up when they fail.

Simples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Breaking up the banks may generate competition. However, competition may encourage the bankers to go for 'easy' business like mortgages, and we're back blowing HPI bubbles. Irrespective of whether the banks are broken up, we need accountability. You sell sh1t loans, your bank goes bust type accountability. This, and not increased regulation will sort the sheep from the goats.

That would work. Problem is it will never happen.

All sorts of reasons, not least that the "too big to fail" precedent has been made, and the biggest financial institutions have an awfully strong hold over "democracy".

Remember when the unions held the country to ransom when manufacturing was a key industry? It's that only much much worse. Service/financial industry is all we have left and they know it.

Edited by byron78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not underestimate that we 're all on the hook for a combined £120bn+ for bailing out the banks. That's a whole wedge of cash, printed or not. It impacts everyone in the form of inflation, taxes etc.

Breaking up the banks may generate competition. However, competition may encourage the bankers to go for 'easy' business like mortgages, and we're back blowing HPI bubbles. Irrespective of whether the banks are broken up, we need accountability. You sell sh1t loans, your bank goes bust type accountability. This, and not increased regulation will sort the sheep from the goats.

Let's not underestimate that we 're all on the hook for a combined £120bn+ for bailing out the banks. That's a whole wedge of cash, printed or not. It impacts everyone in the form of inflation, taxes etc.

Breaking up the banks may generate competition. However, competition may encourage the bankers to go for 'easy' business like mortgages, and we're back blowing HPI bubbles. Irrespective of whether the banks are broken up, we need accountability. You sell sh1t loans, your bank goes bust type accountability. This, and not increased regulation will sort the sheep from the goats.

Allowing banks to go bust does not work (that's what historical precident has shown anyway). You simply get the greed driven psychopaths making out like bandits then blowing the bank up. Since they've already earned their fortune and never need to work again, it becomes obvious that having the bank thereafter fail is no deterent to their actions.

If you want banks to be "safe" you need a mix of regulation, separating out investment, business, and household banking, and making the senior execs in all those banking sectors be the first port of call for capital (after shareholders) in the event of any financial losses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would still prefer one state run bank that does all the boring banking. And private banks that can't get their money out of thin air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   217 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.