Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander... About To Go Pop?

[Sebrof]

Surely Sebrof fears no man?

 

Nor foul fiend

 

S

[Slim]

Oh dear, Slim, you're distorting things again.

 

You really must try harder to stick to the truth, Slimbo.

 

S

 

Jeeb, you dont give up? The original post is still there, you can see what I was replying to. I don't feel the need to quote a whole post. You've got hung up before on picking bits out, it's daft, we're having a discussion here, not trading single sentences.

 

Despite that, you've questioned what I've said, and I've explained what I meant. What's all the personal shit about (again)?

 

Edit: as for the crap above, get over yourself, eh? Most people just can't be arsed taking you on, so they ignore your bullshit, but I'll have a go; that's why you don't like me.

[Chinahand]

I have to admit I find the Slim & Sebrof show tiresome to the point of it ruining many a good thread - sure Slim winds himself up into ever more frustrated rage, but Sebrof's nit picking, context ignoring, bloat quoted supercilliousness really takes the biscuit if you ask me.

 

As PK hasn't responded to any of this bleating its hard to know if Slim and I missed the subtlety in his post between a bailout of a bank and a bailout of its shareholder - Sebrof may well claim the distinction is obvious - I beg to differ, and don't want to spend hours arguing the toss - its not the issue.

 

There is a debate about whether RBS et al should all have been fully nationalized and their shareholders wiped out as Northern Rock's were - the current half way house - with its risk of zombi banks (see Japan in the 1990s) and government meddling in loans and micromanaging incentives etc - isn't the best.

 

But nationalizing them would probably exaserbate those problems not reduce them; and having both institutional and small shareholders still on board does provide an alternative voice to stop the mandarins now tasked to monitor the banks' operations getting too full of themselves.

 

Seeing what happenned when both NR and AIG went down I do not think it would have been a good idea to let something like half the highstreet banks go bankrupt - it would have created a panic which would have brought down the other half. I can't really see the advantage in nationalizing the failing ones totally - in the 1970s it was British Leyland, should it really be RBS now?

 

Currently we've got a compromise - it'll take quite some working through - the banks have political as well as economic owners - its messy and uncertain. I don't think its obvious that this is a mistake - and would welcome some thoughts, but please can the Slim & Sebrof show with its various walk on parts move on from its morbid self obsession with "you said, I said" - it makes for a crap debate.

[Sebrof]

Oh dear, Slim, you're distorting things again.

 

You really must try harder to stick to the truth, Slimbo.

 

S

 

Jeeb, you dont give up? The original post is still there, you can see what I was replying to. I don't feel the need to quote a whole post. You've got hung up before on picking bits out, it's daft, we're having a discussion here, not trading single sentences.

 

Despite that, you've questioned what I've said, and I've explained what I meant. What's all the personal shit about (again)?

 

Edit: as for the crap above, get over yourself, eh? Most people just can't be arsed taking you on, so they ignore your bullshit, but I'll have a go; that's why you don't like me.

 

The prosecution rests.

 

S

[Chinahand]

Sebrof - if you find Slim's attitude so damaging to this forum, why do you go out of your way to wind him up and set him off. It takes two to tango and the pair of you are quite happy to tango away through thread after thread - to then have you then say that such behaviour damages the forum and you wish the mods would take action against it is breath takingly hypocritical!

[P.K.]

Because if Woollies goes bust it just means you can't buy sweats and tacky nicknacks as easily, while if RBS goes bust billions of pounds worth of loans etc will be thrown into confusion, hundreds of thousands of depositors with deposits over the deposit protection amount will loose out, and the interbank market will once again freeze up.

Frankly the loss of "Pick and Mix" will be the hardest to bear.

 

I have to admit I find the Slim & Sebrof show tiresome to the point of it ruining many a good thread - sure Slim winds himself up into ever more frustrated rage, but Sebrof's nit picking, context ignoring, bloat quoted supercilliousness really takes the biscuit if you ask me.

 

As PK hasn't responded to any of this bleating its hard to know if Slim and I missed the subtlety in his post between a bailout of a bank and a bailout of its shareholder - Sebrof may well claim the distinction is obvious - I beg to differ, and don't want to spend hours arguing the toss - its not the issue.

Currently we've got a compromise - it'll take quite some working through - the banks have political as well as economic owners - its messy and uncertain. I don't think its obvious that this is a mistake - and would welcome some thoughts, but please can the Slim & Sebrof show with its various walk on parts move on from its morbid self obsession with "you said, I said" - it makes for a crap debate.

TBH I was flying a kite. But the point does stand. So many bleat on and on how it's all Brown's fault. Personally I don't share that mindless, knee-jerk, simplistic, populist garbage. The fact remains that the "de-regulation" experiment has been a complete and utter failure. Gordon Brown did not order the banks, building societies etc etc to behave in a totally irresponsible and unprofessional manner. That was down to the likes of Sir Fred. Those who have lost out should be beating up him and his ilk via a legal process. But it's much easier to blame the gov of the day and claim compo from them.

 

I agree with bailing out the banks. It was a must do or the whole lot would have come crashing down. I feel sorry for the shareholders but a smaller part of something is a lot better than having a part of eff-all.

[Sebrof]

There is a debate about whether RBS et al should all have been fully nationalized and their shareholders wiped out as Northern Rock's were - the current half way house - with its risk of zombi banks (see Japan in the 1990s) and government meddling in loans and micromanaging incentives etc - isn't the best.

 

But nationalizing them would probably exaserbate those problems not reduce them; and having both institutional and small shareholders still on board does provide an alternative voice to stop the mandarins now tasked to monitor the banks' operations getting too full of themselves.

 

There is little doubt that it was best to rescue the banks. And given their share prices at the moment, the members HAVE lost just about everything, so to talk of bailing out the shareholders is disingenuous. They have lost all but 5% or so.

 

I don't think the nationalised banks are in any way zombie banks. They enjoy a nice taxpayer-funded guarantee that they won't go bust, however much the continuing fall in house prices wipes out the security for their loans. And they have fairly independent-minded directors who so far have avoided swamping the economy with easy loans despite pressure from Darling and Brown.

 

As I see it, the less the goverment does now the better. The economy needs to find the floor, and then slowly pick itself up. The UK simply can't afford to keep printing money, and if it tries, it will simply create inflation.

 

I do think that the lowering of interest rates was a mistake. It has caused hardship for many elderly people, who have seen their income slashed, and it hasn't worked itself through in any major way into the economy.

 

Somebody, (was it you?), said that it would take ten years to recover. I think it will take far longer. The public service is bloated, but cutting into it will just put more people onto the dole. Increased taxes will depress consumer spending for years, and thus impede recovery. And when it does all start moving again, oil prices will rocket. Roll on nuclear power.

 

We do have a big mess.

 

S

[Slim]

Frankly the loss of "Pick and Mix" will be the hardest to bear.

 

Apparently WH Smith are taking that on. I wonder if they'll also supply the pigeons?

 

TBH I was flying a kite. But the point does stand. So many bleat on and on how it's all Brown's fault. Personally I don't share that mindless, knee-jerk, simplistic, populist garbage. The fact remains that the "de-regulation" experiment has been a complete and utter failure. Gordon Brown did not order the banks, building societies etc etc to behave in a totally irresponsible and unprofessional manner. That was down to the likes of Sir Fred. Those who have lost out should be beating up him and his ilk via a legal process. But it's much easier to blame the gov of the day and claim compo from them.

 

Aren't the banks just operating within the regulatory framework, which is set by the government?

[Sebrof]

Sebrof - if you find Slim's attitude so damaging to this forum, why do you go out of your way to wind him up and set him off. It takes two to tango and the pair of you are quite happy to tango away through thread after thread - to then have you then say that such behaviour damages the forum and you wish the mods would take action against it is breath takingly hypocritical!

 

I did not say the mods should take action against Slim specifically. I was referring to the general practice of name-calling and rudeness (and bad language).

 

S

[Chinahand]

I blame more than many other factors nerdish Phd mathematicians who viewed the stock market as some deterministic system. They produced models based on correlations forgetting that correlation isn't causation and wowed managers, boards, and politicians with their nerdish mastering of the universe.

 

There models were crap - you can add kurtosis and skewness to your models, make them logarithmicly normal and all sorts - but in the end of the day they'll not see or understand a Black Swan. Too many people thought the models correctly gave risk, and so they regulated on model and not on reality.

 

The fact that reality is so complex no one can see it is beside the point - markets moved, correlations broke down and the herd broke the system.

 

Its hard to regulate a business nobody knows how to run, but acknowledging that is better than letting models that don't work rule the universe.

 

Brown trusted the models.

 

Greeenspan trusted the models.

 

Sir Fred trusted the models.

 

The regulators trusted the models.

 

They all have alot of responsibility as a result of that.

[P.K.]

Trusting the models is one thing. But the likes of Sir Fred MUST have known well in advance of the Treasury that his business was going to ratshit.

 

As to regulation the SEC have real teeth and it's a better marketplace for it.

[Sebrof]

TBH I was flying a kite. But the point does stand. So many bleat on and on how it's all Brown's fault. Personally I don't share that mindless, knee-jerk, simplistic, populist garbage. The fact remains that the "de-regulation" experiment has been a complete and utter failure. Gordon Brown did not order the banks, building societies etc etc to behave in a totally irresponsible and unprofessional manner. That was down to the likes of Sir Fred. Those who have lost out should be beating up him and his ilk via a legal process. But it's much easier to blame the gov of the day and claim compo from them.

 

I don't know whether you are suggesting it is me or Cambon or somebody else who blames Brown exclusively. Certainly I don't, and I am not sure that Cambon does.

 

The analogy is that we have had an outbreak of robberies, and the police, despite being tipped off, have done nothing to prevent them. The robbers come first and must bear the primary responsibility, but the police have behaved abysmally too, especially when it was so obvious for so long that an unsustainable bubble was developing.

 

S

[Chinahand]

But the likes of Sir Fred MUST have known well in advance of the Treasury that his business was going to ratshit.

P.K. - maybe, but the speed of the break down means only a month or so at absolute most.

 

No doubt he knew he was leaving a bankrupt bank, but by then so did the government and they still allowed him to walk off with his pension.

 

Took some gaul to demand such a severance package, but to be honest you can't blame him too much for trying it on - he must have been pretty amazed they rolled over, and now he's got the cash he's got the lawyers etc to argue his case.

 

He's an arrogant prick - but a government controlled comittee allowed him to enrich himself even more.

[P.K.]

I have to admit I find the Slim & Sebrof show tiresome to the point of it ruining many a good thread - sure Slim winds himself up into ever more frustrated rage, but Sebrof's nit picking, context ignoring, bloat quoted supercilliousness really takes the biscuit if you ask me.

I'm not sure supercilious is correct here. I think sanctimonious is more apt. Just an opinion...

[Sebrof]

I blame more than many other factors nerdish Phd mathematicians who viewed the stock market as some deterministic system. They produced models based on correlations forgetting that correlation isn't causation and wowed managers, boards, and politicians with their nerdish mastering of the universe.

 

There models were crap - you can add kurtosis and skewness to your models, make them logarithmicly normal and all sorts - but in the end of the day they'll not see or understand a Black Swan. Too many people thought the models correctly gave risk, and so they regulated on model and not on reality.

 

The fact that reality is so complex no one can see it is beside the point - markets moved, correlations broke down and the herd broke the system.

 

Its hard to regulate a business nobody knows how to run, but acknowledging that is better than letting models that don't work rule the universe.

 

Brown trusted the models.

 

Greeenspan trusted the models.

 

Sir Fred trusted the models.

 

The regulators trusted the models.

 

They all have alot of responsibility as a result of that.

 

I completely disagree with this analysis.

 

You don't need a model to tell you that a man with a mortgage worth six times his salary will be in trouble if interest rates rise. You don't need a model to realise that house prices couldn't go on rising for ever. You don't need a model to tell you that if people are allowed to self-certify their income, many will lie.

 

The HBOS whistle-blower worked that out, but nobody listened. The problem was hubris on the part of bankers who were making more money than most people can dream of, and hubris on the part of a chancellor, who, despite being warned, thought that the boom was attributable to the wonderful job he was doing.

 

As I have said repeatedly (and have been villified for it by the likes of Slim, hence our spat), the whole house price bubble was obvious from 2002, and despite the warnings, Brown did nothing. If house prices had been controlled, sterling would not have lost 25% against the euro.

 

S