Conquer Club

What do you guys think about banks?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012 ... ng-culture

They increase a city's gold but you must have a marketplace built in that city to build a bank.

natty dread wrote:What do you guys think about banks?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012 ... ng-culture

At least they seem to be actually taking action against Barclay's, unlike here in the states.

Ha! There are over 900,000 loans indexed to Libor that originated between 2005-2009. Each and every one a potential lawsuit. Lawyers will be crawling out of the muck and circle these bastards like sharks circling a drowning surfer.
At the bottom of it all is The Fed, look at the rates of Libor and The Fed over the last ten years-


Note the only real variation, there especially in 2008. In upcoming lawsuits, this chart above will be used as the basis of where the Libor rates should have been.

The Central Banks will have no other choice but to protect their member banks all implicated in the scandal.

In time, all this will blow over and no one will remember. The banks who should have gone belly up from the crash will still be operating. A few kick backs to lawyers and politicians, a few multimillion $ settlements for some class action suits, a few years of subpar earnings for the bank shareholders who should have gone bankrupt in 2008 and it'll all be back to business as usual.....

patches70 wrote:In time, all this will blow over and no one will remember. The banks who should have gone belly up from the crash will still be operating. A few kick backs to lawyers and politicians, a few multimillion $ settlements for some class action suits, a few years of subpar earnings for the bank shareholders who should have gone bankrupt in 2008 and it'll all be back to business as usual.....

Unfortunately, I agree with you that this is almost certainly going to be the outcome.

What if there's like a revolution and we burn the basrtards to the ground

a revolution against banks

natty dread wrote:What if there's like a revolution and we burn the basrtards to the ground

a revolution against banks

OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!

You cannot change the culture of greed. You can only destroy it. You've got at least 4 choices:

1. Nationalize the banks.
2. Mass withdrawals from said banks, moving the money to credit unions
3. Mass withdrawals from said banks, moving the money to employee-owned banks
4. Violent revolution sparked by the Battle at Bank of America Branch #223462

I'm sure I've missed some, but choose wisely.

GreecePwns wrote:You cannot change the culture of greed. You can only destroy it. You've got at least 4 choices:

1. Nationalize the banks.
2. Mass withdrawals from said banks, moving the money to credit unions
3. Mass withdrawals from said banks, moving the money to employee-owned banks
4. Violent revolution sparked by the Battle at Bank of America Branch #223462

I'm sure I've missed some, but choose wisely.

Why do you think #2 and #3 have yet to happen?

They have fewer branches, ATMs, etc. so its an inconvenience.

In other words, they're not as big as regular banks because they weren't that big before. Of course, if people got fed up enough with banks in general they'd move their money over and the above problem would be resolved, wouldn't it?

GreecePwns wrote:They have fewer branches, ATMs, etc. so its an inconvenience.

In other words, they're not as big as regular banks because they weren't that big before. Of course, if people got fed up enough with banks in general they'd move their money over and the above problem would be resolved, wouldn't it?

I don't think they attract as much business because they can't shuffle nearly as much money as the bigger banks can--in order to suit the needs of very wealthy and reliable borrowers.


RE: your question, I'm not sure, but I'd imagine credit unions and employee-owned banks also experience similar problems which larger banks face in the economy, so if that's the case, then the above problem would not be resolved. Humans are at the controls of the #2 and #3 banks, so it's still possible that criminal acts could occur. I'm not sure how the role of federal regulations would affect the behavior of agents in #2 and #3 either. Again, I haven't seen the empirical data on this, so who knows. How about some personal evidence:

I discovered that the local banks in my area are roughly equal in quality to the nation-wide banking companies, so does that help? Credit unions are only open to government employees, by the by. And, I wouldn't want my local commune handling my money. I found that talking to the lower manager about federal regulations and its influence on the banking industry magically makes the bank appreciate me more... so, if we drop the holistic perspective, and focus on individuals, we may be able to discover how to mutually benefit from a bank.

Banks are all fucked up, and beyond way too greedy.

If the bank get's nationalized/rescued, then the bank's practices will most likely not change, and will probably get even worse. The only way these banks are going to change is if we let them fail. A new and better bank with better practices will have the opportunity of a lifetime to take it's place and grow in a more honest and constructive way, hopefully.

GreecePwns wrote:You cannot change the culture of greed. You can only destroy it. You've got at least 4 choices:

1. Nationalize the banks.
2. Mass withdrawals from said banks, moving the money to credit unions
3. Mass withdrawals from said banks, moving the money to employee-owned banks
4. Violent revolution sparked by the Battle at Bank of America Branch #223462

I'm sure I've missed some, but choose wisely.

Not sure how 2 or 3 will really solve anything.

Nationalizing the banks will just lead to a different kind of corruption, but we do need much stricter rules.

Things like requiring the banks to hold more real assets, holding managers (AND those on up the chain) more directly responsible for errors, will help. However, a big part of the problem is that making money is just no longer tied to making products.

We are in a transition similar to the one moving away from agriculture to industry. Except, industry actually produces something. This new system is entirely artificial... and therefore doomed to fail. B ut, sadly, not until the rest of us have lost our basis for our incomes as we get told over and over we "cannot afford" this or that protection, this or that environmental rule.. etc.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:You cannot change the culture of greed. You can only destroy it. You've got at least 4 choices:

1. Nationalize the banks.
2. Mass withdrawals from said banks, moving the money to credit unions
3. Mass withdrawals from said banks, moving the money to employee-owned banks
4. Violent revolution sparked by the Battle at Bank of America Branch #223462

I'm sure I've missed some, but choose wisely.

Not sure how 2 or 3 will really solve anything.

Nationalizing the banks will just lead to a different kind of corruption, but we do need much stricter rules.

Things like requiring the banks to hold more real assets, holding managers (AND those on up the chain) more directly responsible for errors, will help. However, a big part of the problem is that making money is just no longer tied to making products.

We are in a transition similar to the one moving away from agriculture to industry. Except, industry actually produces something. This new system is entirely artificial... and therefore doomed to fail. B ut, sadly, not until the rest of us have lost our basis for our incomes as we get told over and over we "cannot afford" this or that protection, this or that environmental rule.. etc.

What do banks do, PLAYER?

I can't believe none of these Bank fucks responsible for what happened went to jail!

This is bullshit

Well I am on the banks side in all this.

Retail business is shit, rubbish, not profitable, only there so the great unwashed can continue to live in the 21st century and feed their ignorant desires by buying stuff....using banks.

If banks had their way, the charges issued to customers would be a great deal higher than they are.

I pay £150 a quarter for my bank account. Just think about that for a moment...it's rubbish income for the bank. Apply a basic charge out rate of £50 an hour (and that's low) and the bank is in a position of being able to spend just 3 hours a quarter, or one hour a month on my account or they are losing money on it in terms of opportunity revenue. Quite frankly I don't know why they don't just tell any one who won't pay around £1,000 a year to have an account to piss off and go to an effing credit union.

If a person borrows from a bank and then whines because they are screwed on the interest, then don't bloody well borrow!

for the record, I have always thought, publicly, that Bob Diamond is a greasy little piece of vermin. Some years ago (just over 3 to be more precise) I made my feelings about him quite clear.
http://themonger.abazander.com/index.ph ... &Itemid=70
Another time I did chortle when I posted about Warren Buffet giving him the run around when Lehmans went to the wall.
http://themonger.abazander.com/index.ph ... &Itemid=78

Army of GOD wrote:They increase a city's gold but you must have a marketplace built in that city to build a bank.

Well if 5 cities build banks then you can build Wall Street.

Fruitcake wrote:Well I am on the banks side in all this.

Retail business is shit, rubbish, not profitable, only there so the great unwashed can continue to live in the 21st century and feed their ignorant desires by buying stuff....using banks.

Nice, but that is also what keeps the economy and our societies going. It is not banks investments, but purchases that ultimately keep things moving. Banks like to forget that, as do many high-powered investors.

Fruitcake wrote:If banks had their way, the charges issued to customers would be a great deal higher than they are.

I pay £150 a quarter for my bank account. Just think about that for a moment...it's rubbish income for the bank. Apply a basic charge out rate of £50 an hour (and that's low) and the bank is in a position of being able to spend just 3 hours a quarter, or one hour a month on my account or they are losing money on it in terms of opportunity revenue. Quite frankly I don't know why they don't just tell any one who won't pay around £1,000 a year to have an account to piss off and go to an effing credit union.

Except, as I remember you saying earlier,
Banks have not made large portions of their fees from fees until recently. They actually paid people for the privilage of using their money to invest with.. and then got significant profits from those investments.

That they would charge more is, of course, true. The question is whether they have a real right to do so. But that gets much more complicated than simply "they have the money (even if they actually don't..), they get to set the fees. For one thing, the money they use is not really theirs.. it mostly is not the bank's money, it is money they are borrowing from others. In some cases, it is not even real borrowed money, but promises of money. So, yes, they do have an obligation to not just charge whatever or offer whatever interest they wish. They have a fundamental responsibility to ensure that most of their investments are not faulty.

I would go further and say that the fact an investment makes immediate money is not good enough. When banks and investment groups are the primary holders and investors in industry and the like, then they have a very large say in how industry develops. That is the real problem. The goal of making money, in the short term, on investment, is very different from the goal of making long term money and providing stability.

Fruitcake wrote:If a person borrows from a bank and then whines because they are screwed on the interest, then don't bloody well borrow!

Agreed. However, not many people have enough to buy a house outright. Nor are most students able to pay for college on their own, either, now. We used to be able to, but not today's generation.

and, while you refer above to credit card debt ... and while a lot of those favoring the banks do as well, remember it was not credit debt, but mortgages --- and mortgages poorly managed that threw the system off.

It is fine to tell consumers "be responsible", but when it takes a PhD in finance to understand a loan document.. the fault is not quite that of the consumer. When bankers are allowed to flat out lie, take bonuses and then only get minimal penalties if any, while communities are left with hundreds of empty houses.. it is a problem with the banking industry, not people buying too many things and being irresponsible with credit.

BigBallinStalin wrote: if we drop the holistic perspective, and focus on individuals, we may be able to discover how to mutually benefit from a bank.

This is it in a nutshell, but it is not just banks. When the people making decisions are far removed from the impact of their decisions, it is far too easy to make decisions that harm people around.

That is the real problem with the modern corporate mentality. The people involved are no worse than anyone else, but they are in a situation that literally forces them to dismiss many impacts to real people in the name of making a few extra dollars. Sometimes that is necessary, true. However, in the past 2 decades we have seen a major shift from "have to make changes or we won't make any profit" to "have to make changes because the profit is just not enough to satisfy stockholders". That a lot of that money comes from banks and funds just adds another layer of removal from the impact of the decisions.

And, in the case of smaller investors and some larger investors, people often don't even know in whom they are really invested. Unless you are investing directly, its not always easy to get that information.. or necessarily even easy to understand if you are not in finance.

I am not saying we have to completely do away with large corporations. However, we do have to hold them more accountable, not less. Part of that involves holding banks more responsible for the investments they make. BUT.. as I said above, not just responsible in terms of return, but also responsibility in the sense that they don't -- either intentionally or inadvertantly invest in children tied to looms or companies responsible for hundreds of birth defects and deaths of people living near their production sites. When people are allowed to take profit and then leave, with little or no responsibilty for damage -- sometimes damage that happens quickly and sometimes damage that does not fully evidence itself for decades. When that lack of responsibility is allowed to happen, then it is natural we have a system of incredible abuse, long term pollution and damage that individual people and towns, not corporations are asked to deal with and fix.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:They have fewer branches, ATMs, etc. so its an inconvenience.

In other words, they're not as big as regular banks because they weren't that big before. Of course, if people got fed up enough with banks in general they'd move their money over and the above problem would be resolved, wouldn't it?

I don't think they attract as much business because they can't shuffle nearly as much money as the bigger banks can--in order to suit the needs of very wealthy and reliable borrowers.

You're right, but if they had the money banks have they would be able to. The whole not getting new customers because they don't have the abilities of bigger banks because they don't have customers. It's a chicken and egg problem, and those are usually only changed by outside influences (like people getting fed up with the culture of banks) or a slick marketing campaign (Apple's growing market share despite the lack of compatibility with many key programs).

RE: your question, I'm not sure, but I'd imagine credit unions and employee-owned banks also experience similar problems which larger banks face in the economy, so if that's the case, then the above problem would not be resolved. Humans are at the controls of the #2 and #3 banks, so it's still possible that criminal acts could occur. I'm not sure how the role of federal regulations would affect the behavior of agents in #2 and #3 either. Again, I haven't seen the empirical data on this, so who knows.

Humans are at the controls of both, but I would trust a credit union more than I would a bank, because they are not beholden to shareholders but their "customers." I also have no empirical data on this, but the incentives are very different from banks beholden to shareholders. This system is the cause of the banking culture of "make as much money as possible despite the legality or ethics." Can you really see a credit union doing things like giving subprime loans out and betting that their own borrower won't pay the loan? No, because the customers would not allow it by voting against it democratically, because it would directly hurt them. I don't know what workers in an employee-owned bank would vote for in that circumstance, because you don't see too many employee owned banks anywhere.

GreecePwns wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:They have fewer branches, ATMs, etc. so its an inconvenience.

In other words, they're not as big as regular banks because they weren't that big before. Of course, if people got fed up enough with banks in general they'd move their money over and the above problem would be resolved, wouldn't it?

I don't think they attract as much business because they can't shuffle nearly as much money as the bigger banks can--in order to suit the needs of very wealthy and reliable borrowers.

You're right, but if they had the money banks have they would be able to. The whole not getting new customers because they don't have the abilities of bigger banks because they don't have customers. It's a chicken and egg problem, and those are usually only changed by outside influences (like people getting fed up with the culture of banks) or a slick marketing campaign (Apple's growing market share despite the lack of compatibility with many key programs).

Maybe, for some cases. The major banks can probably retain their dominant position because of their revolving door policy with the regulators. If credit unions could enjoy such a relationship, I'd expect them to be able to retain a more dominant position.

GreecePwns wrote:

RE: your question, I'm not sure, but I'd imagine credit unions and employee-owned banks also experience similar problems which larger banks face in the economy, so if that's the case, then the above problem would not be resolved. Humans are at the controls of the #2 and #3 banks, so it's still possible that criminal acts could occur. I'm not sure how the role of federal regulations would affect the behavior of agents in #2 and #3 either. Again, I haven't seen the empirical data on this, so who knows.

Humans are at the controls of both, but I would trust a credit union more than I would a bank, because they are not beholden to shareholders but their "customers." I also have no empirical data on this, but the incentives are very different from banks beholden to shareholders. This system is the cause of the banking culture of "make as much money as possible despite the legality or ethics." Can you really see a credit union doing things like giving subprime loans out and betting that their own borrower won't pay the loan? No, because the customers would not allow it by voting against it democratically, because it would directly hurt them. I don't know what workers in an employee-owned bank would vote for in that circumstance, because you don't see too many employee owned banks anywhere.

Yeah, these are good incentives to have, and why these banks aren't more valuable to borrowers and lenders could be from poor marketing, stringent regulation, or who knows. Banking and financial institutions aren't my field.

Maybe we should break up the big banks into smaller banks?

Phatscotty wrote:Maybe we should break up the big banks into smaller banks?

LOL.. seems like I have heard that suggested somewhere.

OH yeah.. those idiot Democrats and liberals!

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Maybe we should break up the big banks into smaller banks?

LOL.. seems like I have heard that suggested somewhere.

OH yeah.. those idiot Democrats and liberals!

Which members of the Democrat Party currently holding federally elective office have suggested breaking up banks?

I'm not saying none have, I'm just genuinely curious to know which ones since the Democrat Party is so heavily funded by the banking industry (a cool $15 million from CitiBank alone). I am interested in learning about policymakers and positions.

saxitoxin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Maybe we should break up the big banks into smaller banks?

LOL.. seems like I have heard that suggested somewhere.

OH yeah.. those idiot Democrats and liberals!

Which members of the Democrat Party currently holding federally elective office have suggested breaking up banks?

I'm not saying none have, I'm just genuinely curious to know which ones since the Democrat Party is so heavily funded by the banking industry (a cool $15 million from CitiBank alone). I am interested in learning about policymakers and positions.

Actually Pelosi has gone on record as suggesting something. Now, I am not saying that means she would actually do it.. just saying that she is on record as at least talking about it.

Politicians have a way of "being in favor" of things that they know will never happen... along with "after the fact" approval of things that have already happened and that are found to be favorable.

But.. well, you are much better at the sarcasm than I. Right now, I am just angry.