Jump to content

Recommended Posts

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "can we please get away from this idea that hard

> work and education equate to wealth"

>

> though in fairness it's a damn good start. I'd add

> ability to spot and exploit imbalances in the

> market or at least willingness to partake of a

> lucrative market rather than a depressed one. Oh

> and of course a healthy dose of luck always

> helps.

>


A huge dose of luck, and often a willingness or indeed hunger to do the dirty on others (employees, clients, other firms, whoever), sometimes in spectacular fashion. (I speak from experience, having been involved in running various organisations including my own and other businesses.)

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm sorry DJKQ but I think your conviction that

> there is a conspiracy of rich people keeping all

> the money for themselves is hopelessly class war.


There was no conspiracy. What there was, was a pile of actions.

>

> The housing boom took place because we created it,

> and nobody was wise enough to anticipate the

> likely outcome. Not very bright, but there was no

> room of purple faced satans deliberately trying to

> screw the country.

>


The housing boom happened because interest rates were kept low and banks decided to lend ridiculous multiples of incomes, in a range of countries. Sub-prime (and its equivalents elsewhere, and its later incarnations) was very much the consequence of JP Morgan's activities in 'creative products', which every other bank then imitated. People like Demchak, Winters, Hancock, Masters... And then there were of course the ratings agencies that gave those products credibility.

Another substantial player in the US at least: the churches: many of which promoted property purchase among the (too) poor in their sermons, and a number of which had pastors who, funnily enough, were on the payroll of those sub-prime lenders, on commission. I kind of expect circling sharks in life, but those people had pastors who were not worthy of the name.

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> People can try and sell you any old rubbbish, it's

> your choice if you buy it.

>

> It's this desire to blame other people for our own

> decisions that destins us to repeat the same

> mistakes over again.


Don't know about you, but many many years ago I was subjected to high pressure sales tactics on a non-repayment mortgage (can't remember what they were called). I soon got out of it. But those people were basically shysters who told lies. If even I can have fallen for it (at a young 20-something buying a first home, who worked as an accountant) I'm sure those less well educated would be likely to do the same. Yes, people take their own decisions - but often they are not given the straight facts, and sometimes they are told lies in order for a sale to be achieved. (On the other hand, I'm not a fan at all of the blame culture that has infested so much of life these days.)

destin? is that a word, wasnt he a french politician?


As I said before, many people were given poor advice by people with vested interests in doing so.


Only with perfect knowledge can we have perfect decisions, failing that it is not always an abrogation of responsibility to blame someone else at least partially, occasionally it really IS someone else's fault!


Mind you I'm wondering how many people didnt pay attention at school because it sucks man!!!! with their teacher saying, listen up or you may regret it one day. Hard to know I guess.

Big Man: ?I invent complex financial instruments which make me and this bank a LOT of money ? I DESERVE my large salary?


Nervous journo: ?Do these instruments require millions of people to take out loans and mortgages??


BM: ?Indeed ? that way they can get the things they want and I get to be rich ? win win!?


NJ: ?I see. But haven?t we been here before where house prices rise to the point where people can?t afford them anymore and evrything collapses in a pile of bad debt??


BM: ?ah but that?s the genius of my cleverness!! These products I have devised ensure that won?t happen this time. In fact, make sure you write this down, lot?s of people will say this so I want credit - ?This Time It?s Different??


NJ: ?Good good ? but if I may? suppose all of these future customers decide not to take the risk and don?t take out the loans. Your, erm, instruments, will be worthless won?t they? In which case why are you a genius and why do you deserve all these bonuses??


BM: ?If people are nervous then we?ll just bombard all media for years with the message. This Time It?s Different. Or Better Do It Now Before You Can?t Afford It Next Year. Basically, it has to work and we?ll continue until it does?


NJ: ?Well, you?re convincing me! Ahahahahahahahahahaha ? ok but let?s scenario-test (that?s a phrase you use isn?t it?) What if the whole thing implodes ? it won?t but let?s just pretend ? who will be to blame??


BM: ?This is the best bit ? if it goes all tits up (and between you and me who knows eh? Wink wink) then governments will give me more money and we can lay the blame at the feet of the idiots who took out loans they shouldn?t have!!!?


NJ: ?You really are a bit of a c*** aren?t you?

Let's try putting at least a fair proportion of the blame at the doors of the US Govt who told the US people that they could all have a home loan even though they have no salary, and then their banks sold their useless loans around the world and our banks picked up the tab.


How the US did not have to front up for this to the rest of the world, I'll never know.

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mick Mac Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Yes - a dull job for a dull boy. I get your

> drift.

>

> Not at all - you misconstrue!

>

>

> And Loz - it's 'the cuts'. I was biscuits, but

> then biscuits and coffee were merged.


Is that like a dunked Rich Tea Biscuit? (kind of floppy and in danger of falling over)

Mick Mac, I would go further than that. Banks which bought the CDOs - including UK banks - generated huge demand, ensuring that there was no shortage of lenders willing to lend to sub-prime borrowers. You can also blame financial authorities for allowing banks to take on the exposure, and ratings agencies who got it all so wrong.


The issuer of the instruments has to take a share of the blame, but they're just one link in the chain.


And I don't think ANYONE in the city ever took the attitude that "it's OK, if it all goes wrong, the government will save us". Surprised that anyone who works in the industry (as I think Sean does..) would say that.

tWas but a caricature Jeremy. As I've said elsewhere I don't think the banks are the sole problem in all if this at all. But some people seem too keen to go too far the other way in absolving them completely


And I can't think of any senior person at a financial institution would even think that comment. But i have heard lower traders along those lines. Joshing obviously in that way they do. Ie hiding every grotesque thought under a bit of banter. But I accept your point

We have been through all of this before jeremy. I said a fair proportion of the blame lies with the US. Of course there were other factors.


but id like to know how much of the bad debt that was found to be in the uk banks originated in the US as compared to their own lending.


Also how much of the debt that was written off by the banks prior to the govt bailout was / is actually worthless. Has any of it since been written up?

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Big Man: ?I invent complex financial instruments

> which make me and this bank a LOT of money ? I

> DESERVE my large salary?

>

> Nervous journo: ?Do these instruments require

> millions of people to take out loans and

> mortgages??

>

> BM: ?Indeed ? that way they can get the things

> they want and I get to be rich ? win win!?

>

> NJ: ?I see. But haven?t we been here before where

> house prices rise to the point where people can?t

> afford them anymore and evrything collapses in a

> pile of bad debt??

>

> BM: ?ah but that?s the genius of my cleverness!!

> These products I have devised ensure that won?t

> happen this time. In fact, make sure you write

> this down, lot?s of people will say this so I

> want credit - ?This Time It?s Different??

>

> NJ: ?Good good ? but if I may? suppose all of

> these future customers decide not to take the risk

> and don?t take out the loans. Your, erm,

> instruments, will be worthless won?t they? In

> which case why are you a genius and why do you

> deserve all these bonuses??

>

> BM: ?If people are nervous then we?ll just bombard

> all media for years with the message. This Time

> It?s Different. Or Better Do It Now Before You

> Can?t Afford It Next Year. Basically, it has to

> work and we?ll continue until it does?

>

> NJ: ?Well, you?re convincing me!

> Ahahahahahahahahahaha ? ok but let?s scenario-test

> (that?s a phrase you use isn?t it?) What if the

> whole thing implodes ? it won?t but let?s just

> pretend ? who will be to blame??

>

> BM: ?This is the best bit ? if it goes all tits up

> (and between you and me who knows eh? Wink wink)

> then governments will give me more money and we

> can lay the blame at the feet of the idiots who

> took out loans they shouldn?t have!!!?

>

> NJ: ?You really are a bit of a c*** aren?t you?


Big scottish man: NO More boom and bust


NJ & Half the EDF: You're a much misunderstood, fundamentally decent man much maligned etc etc etc

louisiana Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> *Bob* Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Mick Mac Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Yes - a dull job for a dull boy. I get your

> > drift.

> >

> > Not at all - you misconstrue!

> >

> >

> > And Loz - it's 'the cuts'. I was biscuits, but

> > then biscuits and coffee were merged.

>

> Is that like a dunked Rich Tea Biscuit? (kind of

> floppy and in danger of falling over)


And with that, I feel I must post the classic.... Lionel Rich-Tea!!


http://celebrityreligion.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/lionel_richtea.jpg

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
  • Latest Discussions

    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
    • Yes..that may be the case but membership STARTING at £115 a month is still unafforable for many. Council gyms also have a large range of equipment and I had a  PT at Dulwich leisure centre when I was in Full Time employment who was incredible and even kept in contact during lockdown giving me a program I could do at home and checking in weekly at no charge or personal gain for herself. I dont doubt that Fit For may be a good gym (Its been in situ long enough so must be doing something right) However the cost of membership means it is affordable for the few not the many. If I could afford that kind of fee I would rather get a train to Canary Wharf and go to Virgin active where theres a pool and incredible classes and facilities 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...