Re: banks/money/etc
- From: Nomen Publicus <npublicus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:33:28 -0000
pete <no-one@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:17:26 +0100, Sir Krustov wrote:
Where and when did the trouble start ? .
ans: america, a few years ago
With banks going tits up or bailed out and billions being lost on the
stock market etc - could the situation have been prevented .
yes - inasmuch as the effect on the UK could've been much smaller
'a stitch in time saves nine'
Do you think it was greed by the bankers who where more interested in
how much money they could make rather than what could happen if they
ignored the warning signs .
More likely greed on the part of the shareholders. Most of the "banks"
that got into trouble used to be building societies and turned into
banks when their owners (i.e. the people who had savings in them)
realised they could make a few £hundred in windfall shares. Once the
socs. had shareholders they had to make greater returns to keep the
share price up - hence the move into risky investments.
The one b/s that resisted the move was Nationwide.
Yep, I've had to vote against demutualisation three or four times in the
past 10 years. Each time I voted against money in the pocket today rather
than security in the future. I win :-)
IIRC, building soc rules limit the risks they are allowed to take in the
money markets. It was this restriction that was lost when a building soc
became a bank.
--
2001 Census: 1 in 7 people in the UK is a declared atheist.
.
- References:
- banks/money/etc
- From: Sir Krustov
- Re: banks/money/etc
- From: pete
- banks/money/etc
- Prev by Date: Re: banks/money/etc
- Next by Date: Re: Mr Barker
- Previous by thread: Re: banks/money/etc
- Next by thread: Re: banks/money/etc
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|