Trying to buy a Lamborghini for under ?250K in East Dulwich is near impossible

[Zebedee Tring]

Seabag, when you say that the poster's view is "measured", I assume that you are being ironic.

[MrBen]

Love how people think we can become Sweden, a country a population of just 9M and a very different legacy.

And France? Well they had the right idea but went too far and so you have a vacuum for entrepreneurs. When you don't offer people at least some reward for taking risk (with their own after tax income) to create new jobs then you kill it.

Balance is required and all people are saying here is that it's still out of whack in the UK.

[Tr?]

All business' gamble with their money to some extent. And if all investment banks rip off their shareholders and provide a lousy service to their customers, why do people continue to invest in them and use their services? Investment banks help raise finance for infrastructure and other projects that create jobs. They lend money to businesses to exist, expand and therefore keep and create jobs. They help foster stability and certainty by hedging business' exposure to interest and exchange rates and commodity prices, certainty that allows those business' to expand.

They fcuk it up sometimes, there are some rogue individuals out there and the effects can be bad, very bad. But can we stop the 'all banks are bad and all bankers are greedy, rich wnakers' chant please? It's getting really lame.

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> bank (let's say an investment bank) does? >

>

> It gambles with its money, rips off its

> shareholders by paying excessive bonuses and

> provides lousy service to its customers. And if we

> are really unlucky, the government has to bale

> them out when they go bust.

[El Pibe]

at last, some sense.

Bankers getting greedy during booms is purest human nature. We're terrible at risk assessment and are by nature a bit blind when everyone else is making money, and are miserly panickers when things appear to go the other way.

Its the whole reason why we have boom and bust in the first place.

P{laenty of lessons to be learned, primarily that risk departments and regulatory bodies should not be pressured (by trading managers, board members or indeed governments) as financial hindrances when times are good.

But as tre says there are millions of things that investment banks do. If we got rid of them as ZT seems to be suggesting, then we'd just have to reinvent them.

How do you think companies raise money for capital investment, how do you think farmers mitigate against currency volatility when planning for the future, by consulting mrs miggins at the high st co-op?

[steveo]

I was recently informed that all successful hedge funds are based on insider trading

[El Pibe]

wouldn't surprise me. See also market manipulation.

Generally as a rule traders rarely outperform just buying up some bonds and/or tracking the major indices. And in a bull market schoolchildren could make money frankly.

Despite ZT's ignorant ramblings, shareholders aren't ripped off, (if they were they'd do something about it) the big wages/bonuses are paid to reassure the shareholders that they have the best men for the job on board, and that they are being successful.

[Jeremy]

ZT, if you feel so strongly about something, why not read up on it and find out what banks actually do, and how the industry has changed over the last few years? Your description just sounds like a tabloid headline or a placard on Finsbury Square.

[Jeremy]

El Pibe Wrote:

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

> Generally as a rule traders rarely outperform just

> buying up some bonds and/or tracking the major

> indices. And in a bull market schoolchildren could

> make money frankly.

'tis true. Most active funds don't outperform the benchmark (although an active fund should theoretically be lower risk)

[Zebedee Tring]

How dare you patronise me, El Phibe. Just because you don't agree with me, you don't have to be rude.

I studied Economics in the 6th Form and would suspect that I am better educated than you.

[Zebedee Tring]

Just because you disagree with me, Jeremy, you don't have to be rude and patronising.

As I told El Phibe I studied Economics in the 6th Form and would suspect that I am better educated than you.

[titch juicy]

This thread has just taken a turn for the LOL.

As EP and Jeremy have alluded to, benchmarks tend to be well conceived enough that it's unusual for the Fund Manager to consistently ourperform them; but, the better fund managers do earn their salt by outperforming a sensibly chosen benchmark. Risk management in a fund and mitigating risks when markets take a turn for the worse is just as important. Which essentially is still outperforming a benchmark, but rather making less losses, instead of more gains.

ZT- it's not disagreeing with you for the sake of doing so; it's disagreeing with you because you don't seem to understand the fundamentals.

[El Pibe]

ok apologies, is "Despite ZT's facetiousness" any better?

I did economics at 6th form too, the closest we got to anything remotely resembling the real world was a site visit to the Ford assembly plant in Dagenham and a recruitment drive at KPMG where some over enthusiastic chap tried to persuade me to become an accountant *shudders*.

[Jeremy]

I've no reason to suspect that you are not well educated, ZT. And though it probably appears otherwise, I'm not completely unsypmathetic to what you're saying (the public of course had/have a right to demand that the government and the industry explained themselves and take measures to protect us all in the future).

However... years have passed by, surely we can move on from "hang the bankers" and discuss things sensibly. We've all heard the indignation and outrage a thousand times already, back it up with some substance if you want to drag it all up yet again.

[Zebedee Tring]

Please don't patronise me, titch juicy.

You and those other people who have tried to dismiss my arguments should read the article in today's Guardian on Thomas Piketty's book "Capital in the 21st Century" which has topped the bestseller lists in that notorious socialist country the USAS.

[El Pibe]

I worked for a risk management desk for a couple of years, and my overall impression of our function was to help the departmental managers facilitate their traders to get around regulation rather than be listened to in terms of attempting to mitigate risks.

I always liked the description of VaR as "an airbag that works all the time, except when you have a car accident".

The bank in question went belly up and almost took a rather notable UK establishment with it!!

[El Pibe]

But that's a different matter entirely ZT.

If you come on here and say Capatalism is fundamentally flawed, then I'm totally inclined to agree, but short some concrete annswers it's not helpful as we live in a capatalist system and there's going to be a certain inertia in doing anything about it and some rather powerful vested interests arrayed against doing anything about it.

Casino banking which is s small part of what goes on in the financial sector, is just a minor symptom.

Greed at all levels was to blame for 2008, including anyone getting a mortgage they obviously can't afford who should bear responsibility for their actions.

It's pointless just shouting 'bankers are bad'.

Though they are mostly arseholes* ;)

*joke

[El Pibe]

anyway this one has been rumbling on ad nauseum for 6 years now, so i guess 5/10 for getting a good bite.

[Jeremy]

What's the argument? I've lost track. Is it "capitalism is bad"? Is it "capitalism is OK when you raise taxes and pretend it's a bit like socialism"? Is it "dismantle the banking system"? Is it "we should have spent money on diversifying the economy and investing in other industries when we had the chance"?

[titch juicy]

El Pibe Wrote:

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

> But that's a different matter entirely ZT.

>

> If you come on here and say Capatalism is

> fundamentally flawed, then I'm totally inclined to

> agree, but short some concrete annswers it's not

> helpful as we live in a capatalist system and

> there's going to be a certain inertia in doing

> anything about it and some rather powerful vested

> interests arrayed against doing anything about

> it.

>

> Casino banking which is s small part of what goes

> on in the financial sector, is just a minor

> symptom.

>

> Greed at all levels was to blame for 2008,

> including anyone getting a mortgage they obviously

> can't afford who should bear responsibility for

> their actions.

>

> It's pointless just shouting 'bankers are bad'.

> Though they are mostly arseholes* ;)

>

> *joke

This entirely ^^

You mentioned in an earlier post that Keynsian economics was returning at long last, yet that pieces disagrees. The piece also suggests that technological innovation is too slow. Technology is evolving faster than ever before in reality.

"Put crudely, if growth is high and the returns on capital can be suppressed, you can have a more equal capitalism. But, says Piketty, a repeat of the Keynesian era is unlikely: labour is too weak, technological innovation too slow, the global power of capital too great. In addition, the legitimacy of this unequal system is high: because it has found ways to spread the wealth down to the managerial class in a way the early 19th century did not."

[Loz]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> I studied Economics in the 6th Form and would

> suspect that I am better educated than you.

Really? Is that all? Blimey, even I did the equivalent of that, economics-wise.

[Zebedee Tring]

Loz, I mentioned my education level re economics because I was accused by another poster of "ignorant ramblings", which was bloody insulting and patronising. However, since my 6th Form days, I have also read extensively on the subject of economics and have made a particular interest of British political history since WW2. Furthermore, I read daily the financial pages in my papers of choice. So I'm not an ignoramus on the subject - far from it.

Very often I read the views of people online with whom I profoundly disagree. However, I would never accuse them of perpetrating "ignorant ramblings".

[????]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> Seabag, when you say that the poster's view is

> "measured", I assume that you are being ironic.

..Oh I am sure you wouldn't......