Probably not, I was working for Barclays between 2005 and 2009 and was unfortunate enough to deal with Bob Diamond regularly who was senior but John Varley was actually in charge. He's quite lucky that this happned on Johns watch and not his otherwise he would probably have to resign.Originally Posted by Jeeves
yes, I am Le terribad at BF3
Bolded the part why I lumped in Denmark with the rest of the core EU countries who'd I think would be able to survive the PIIGS leaving the Euro.European Exchange Rate MechanismNo one with any brain is interested in an even weaker/failed Euro, and that includes even the US.
But comparing the 'closeness' of Denmark to Germany/Eurozone with the UK (and Sweden and Switzerland) is nonsensical. Denmark actually has quite large problems to deal with, to basically the same level as Austria I'd say. But both these countries can 'stand in the shade' because of the protection Germany's robustness affords them. In fact, the same can be said about the Netherlands. Denmark may still have the DKK, but as long as it moves virtually in sync with the Euro, and as long as Denmark's economic and financial prospects are still viewed through the prism of Germany's economic and financial well-being, we can just as well lump it in with the other 'core' EU countries (aka German satellites).
How anyone can put the UK (or Sweden or Switzerland) in the same satellite category as Denmark is quite beyond me.
only reason the DKK is tied to the euro, it's literately a cabinet decision away from going independent again, and with a very flexible labour market and a abundance of small/medium sized companies (by international scale) "retooling" is less of a challenge than it would be elsewhere.
a euro collapse would hurt like hell, but recovery would be no more than 2-3 years distant, the close running with Germany makes a lot of economic sense but it's not the only option.
All the rest is Smuggo being Smuggo about supposedly catching me out on lumping Denmark in with other Eurozone countries, but that wasn't the point ...
Same in Birmingham, Liverpool, even Edinburgh. As far as I can see rental prices have remained basically unchanged for at least 2 to 5 years. The notion that rental prices are going ballistic in UK right now, as Smuggo claims, seems to me rather bogus.Rental prices in central Leeds havent changed in ten years. If anything you can probably negotiate a slightly lower rent now.Pretty much, although it isn't only the banks. House-owners also can't afford to drop prices; they'd take an unaffordable hit and are obviously quite anxious to avoid that. Defaults are up still, but not by as much as was feared I think.
As for rental: I just moved in the UK (two weeks ago) and had to find a new place to rent: I found a decent apartment within a couple of days looking around, at pretty much the same rent for a very similar apartment in the same type of location. This was the case with pretty much all the apartments I was shown, from different agencies as well. Anecdotal evidence no doubt, but as far as I can tell there has been next to no movement in the rental sector at all, not where I was leaving, and not where I was moving too. Perhaps it is the specific 'band' I'm in, but with all these stories about massive rent hikes about I expected to be pretty much shafted ...
Whether this is the calm before the storm I don't know, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was, but for now it seems to me the rental market is idling just as much as the rest of the UK economy at large ...
Housing prices have dropped quite a bit, especially in the more expensive segments of the market. But a lot of people are stuck in houses they can't afford to sell even if they are more expensive to stay in than necessary. And at any rate banks simply aren't making enough mortgages available unless under strict conditions. Stricter conditions were certainly necessary, but they seem more strict that actually required under the present circumstances.
Naturally the banks blame this on a contraction of the money supply, and partly that's true. But at the same time many banks are still trying to deleverage themselves from the stupid investments made in the past, and I suspect most of the available money goes to that instead as to mortgages or loans to keep the economic system afloat.
Wasn't Bob Diamond in charge of the business unit that was up to no good though?Probably not, I was working for Barclays between 2005 and 2009 and was unfortunate enough to deal with Bob Diamond regularly who was senior but John Varley was actually in charge. He's quite lucky that this happned on Johns watch and not his otherwise he would probably have to resign.
Well I can only speak for my local area and when I suspected our LL was going to sell up at the end of our contract I couldn't see anything similar in the kind of price range I would be looking at in a nice area. Would have cost me an extra £200-300 a month to get something equivalent, rent is definitely up in London. Also there has been considerable talk in the media of rising rents.
The question is not should, but will. But the answer to that is: no.
But Diamond will give up his bonus for the year. So that's 1% of the fine offset. I'm sure he'll be crying into his soup tonight ...
Barclays stability in 2008 was too good to be true anyway. Now we know why ...
Will anyone go to jail?
Probably not.
Should anyone go to jail?
In my view, yes. The traders and the rate people knew that what they were up to was dodgy. They've also all had their bonuses for the extra profits that were generated. If nobody goes to jail, there will continue to be an incentive for acting dishonestly in the future.
London/South = UK, those cities barth mentioned are random hinterlands that have nothing to do with anything.
The rate of gentrification of once rough areas here is stunning.
sent from a fone
Also.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/35421
sent from a fone
Looking to rent in London around the Olympics? Maybe in neighbourhoods in the troughs of gentrification? Perhaps rent is up for the former, but frankly most of rest sounds pretty topical to me. In general London is a bit of special case anyway.Well I can only speak for my local area and when I suspected our LL was going to sell up at the end of our contract I couldn't see anything similar in the kind of price range I would be looking at in a nice area. Would have cost me an extra £200-300 a month to get something equivalent, rent is definitely up in London. Also there has been considerable talk in the media of rising rents.
And I'm honestly unaware of 'considerable talk in the media' about rising rents, and I've kept an eye out lately. There have been 'some stories', but on further investigation they were all lacking in substance, and really nothing to shout home about in the first place.
So, in my reality the statement that 'rental prices have been going mental lately', seems to me simply bogus.
As I see it, the property market, for a variety of reasons, mostly related, is stuck. Housing prices may have dropped, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of mobility in the sales market. My guess is that LLs are already glad to get someone in for what they used to charge, just to keep going. And there didn't seem to be any shortage of places for rent either, not where I looked at least. If anything there seemed to be more choice now than there was 2 to 3 years ago. So my thinking is that the own-to-rent mobility isn't as high as some predicted.
As for buying: I expect prices to keep falling for at least a bit. I'd snatch up a bargain obviously (foreclosure/default), but if you don't have to move I suspect it'll pay to wait.
This is probably correct in terms of the UK; the relevant legislation only really came into force (with a 10 year penalty) in 2008ish, but remember they're under investigation in the US, too. The SEC, as a regulatory body, have far more teeth than the FSA.
No I live near Bromley so not really much "olympics effect" at all.
There have been plenty of news reports about rental averages rising in recent months if you ever read a newspaper, but why would you need to Bart when you seem to believe you know everything.
Yeah, I had forgotten that he was in charge of that department. I dealt with him as an IT dude, not a trader =)Wasn't Bob Diamond in charge of the business unit that was up to no good though?Probably not, I was working for Barclays between 2005 and 2009 and was unfortunate enough to deal with Bob Diamond regularly who was senior but John Varley was actually in charge. He's quite lucky that this happned on Johns watch and not his otherwise he would probably have to resign.
Should people go to jail? Damn right, the more I look at this the angrier I get. Will people go to jail? Nope. Steal a TV, go to jail, steal Millions/Billions, get big fat bonus.
yes, I am Le terribad at BF3
Bonuses are deferred, usually in the form of stock options that can only be exercised several years in the future. Can they be stripped of these is another question.
If Barclay's shares go down then all these guys take a hit on their bonuses.
No, you said average rental prices are going ballistic in the UK. They haven't and they aren't.
Like I said, I kept an eye out in the media, including the print media because I knew I would need to move pretty soon. And although I don't take my news from the Sun, they, on the whole, report similar stories. From June 2008 to around September 2009 rental prices, on average in the UK, dropped quite a bit. After that they've been slowly rising again, mostly in and around London and the Southwest. But although there have been small bumps along the way, on average there was no spectacular or massive rise in rental prices. On average the rental price index is still below what it was in June/July 2008, by quite a bit. In most of the country the increase in the average rental prices remains still (sometimes far) below official inflation numbers.
Most of the stories I read were of the kind: "Rental prices have risen by 0.x% in the last month. If this keeps going we'll be up to rental prices as they were in January 2009 again." Some of these stories were obviously hyped. On further inspection most of that hype was baseless. And ofcourse there we no such stories when average rental prices dropped 0.x% again.
Rental prices in the UK have simply not been going mental. They've been quite steady in fact. You were talking bullshit again. It doesn't surprise me that you think I know everything. That doesn't reflect so much on me as it does on you.
This is probably correct in terms of the UK; the relevant legislation only really came into force (with a 10 year penalty) in 2008ish, but remember they're under investigation in the US, too. The SEC, as a regulatory body, have far more teeth than the FSA.
That may be true, but do you seriously believe that the SEC will actually put any of those people in jail?
It may have more teeth in theory but thusfar it has shown itself to be mostly toothless when dealing with Wallstreet. Let's face it, the SEC is basically bought and paid for ...
sobad
I'd say that rents in my area for an equivalent house to what I rent now being up around 30% is pretty substantial. Maybe that seems like barely anything to you, but most people would agree that 30% in 3 years is a lot.
This was happening more than several years ago.Bonuses are deferred, usually in the form of stock options that can only be exercised several years in the future. Can they be stripped of these is another question.
If Barclay's shares go down then all these guys take a hit on their bonuses.
And several years ago the deferment period was a lot shorter.
Doesn't look like there is any hope of anyone actually being held accountable for this
Despite it "not being an offence under the law" I'm pretty sure they could prosecute the people involved if the government had the will. What this amounts to is fraud, and if Joe Blogs nobody had gamed the system in the same way at 1/100 of the scale you can fairly sure he would be sat in a Police cell right now awaiting charge.Here is a summary of the main points in George Osborne's statement on the Barclays scandal.
• Osborne said that the government would consider creating new criminals sanctions "for the directors of failed banks where there is proven criminal negligence". This sounds very like that law that Matthew Hancock has been proposing. (See 10.21am.) He implied that the government would provide details next week when it publishes a consultation in response to the report into the failure of RBS.
• He said the offence at the heart of the Barclays scandal, manipulating Libor (the London interbank offered rate), was not a criminal offence under the current law.
Enough is enough, time to start changing the way things are done. Since 2008 we have done nothing but prop up corrupt and incompetent institutions who continue to take advantage of the system at the expense of millions of normal people around the world. Time to start tearing this shit apart and rebuilding the system with the salvageable pieces in a way that benefits society as a whole, not just the chosen few. So glad I don't work for them anymore, the corrupt fucks.
yes, I am Le terribad at BF3
The government can't retroactively prosecute people for things which weren't illegal at the time, no matter how shitty the thing was.
"Fraud" is such a general term that there is almost no way the CPS would be able to pin a conviction on them.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks