Council money invested in Icelandic Bank

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not one single institution, or governemnt, or expert, understood the risk or foresaw the severity and impact of the current crisis, and yet a bunch of you expect amateur investors to have behaved differently.

It used to be the case that Bank/Building society managers, would make an informed decision, about your ability to repay any mortgage taken out.
Incomings/outgoings/Job/financial health all were taken into consideration.
The upper echelons of these institutions decided in their wisdom to turn managers into salesmen, where they had to meet targets, in order to grow.
The "products" these salesmen sold were commission driven, unbelievably this commission was paid in advance of the buyer concluding their side of the bargain.
This in turn left banks supplying products, which in many instances were unsuitable for the customer involved.
So why did they not understand the risks ? incompetence / stupidity / greed ?

In America the amount of money lent to people who could never hope to repay their debts was staggering, sold by salesmen on a commission basis.
Banks throughout the world then knowingly bought some of this debt, supposedly cheaply.
So why did they they knowingly buy such debts ? A collective decision based on what..... sound financial principles ?

As for the British mortgage market, do mortgages based on 4X/5X/6X salary ring any bells. Do mortgages of 100%, 110% 125% with no deposit ring any bells.
Britain will soon face its own subprime mortgage fiasco, although on a smaller scale than America. Did no one believe that this was foolhardy........Hmmmmm.

Are not banks audited?, where were the auditors?
Did the the financial directors not know their balance sheets........If not why not.?
Where were the FSA in all of this?

Unfortunately the wages/bonuses that could be earned meant that prudence/financial acumen was replaced by pure greed, and the whole financial market was compliant.
Even Gordon Brown denounced their behaviour, but I would ask as chancellor, did he not know the financial health of these institutions, if not, why not.
 
Sponsored Links
The old adage always applies............. the greater the risk the greater the reward!.

Greed will always prevail and there are winners and losers in every crisis. :(
 
I am from Cuba and my wife is from Iceland does that make
or kids ice cubas
 
I don't know anything about Iceland.
I've never claimed to know anything about Iceland.
I've never pretended to know anything about Iceland.
I don't need to know anything about Iceland.
Then stop criticising people who do happen to know something about a subject then.
As I've already pointed out, it's not necessary to know anything about Iceland to know that the following type of post is nothing but a mixture of hot air and hypocrisy:

I am going to send a little note with my next council tax payment "Please be careful with this cos I ain't paying it again".
And here's the question I asked in response:

Which one of you moaners can honestly claim that, in the absence of a credit crunch, if it were uncovered that LAs were not making best use of our money, you wouldn't have been critical of that failing?
Nobody has attempted to answer that question, but, amongst everyone, you agreed with its underlying point, thus:

£50m in the bank?!

Shouldn't they have spent it on things like, oh I don't know, street lighting,police,education...or maybe they need that huge sum of money earning interest to pay their inflated wages.
There has to be a contingency fund, and if they just left it sitting around, people might complain about them not investing and earning interest!

Given our evident alignment on this point, there appears to be only an ad hominem reason for taking up the mantle of objecting to my blunt criticism of the moaners. No surprises then, that you start out with an to attempt to pick apart what I've written, and poke fun at it, instead of responding factually to it.

So do you still claim that..."Not one single institution, or governemnt, or expert, understood the risk or foresaw the severity and impact of the current crisis"?

Even with the 'facts' from my last post but one?
Indeed I do. Ignoring my error wrt to "top-top", unless you want to labour that point and dance around its grave, I stand by the statement that you appear to regard as thin ice, viz:

Not one single institution, or governemnt (sic.), or expert, understood the risk or foresaw the severity and impact of the current crisis, and yet a bunch of you expect amateur investors to have behaved differently.
You view this as an erroneous statement, hence your rhetorical question, viz:

But tell me - what would have happened if government officials had come out and told the real story publicly...?
...which implies that you thought nobody had done that.

But later in the topic you cite a BBC report that Lord Oakeshott claims to have written down the risk and sent it to the government. Whilst there's no smoke without fire, i.e. there must be some truth somewhere in this story, you seem very ready to believe what you read in the press.

So you're asking me to be equally gullible, and to believe that an apparently experience economist wrote to the government, warning of exactly the situation that we're in now, i.e. a global financial crisis, received an unsatisfactory answer, but didn't go to the press and didn't take any further action, preferring instead to smugly wait until everything went breasts skyward?

If so, then you're asking too much. I can't suspend my disbelief for long enough to accept that unlikely chain of circumstances.

A lot of what you've written has been about what you know, thanks to your friend, and what you have done with your money, thanks to your wisdom, or cleverness, or foresight, or whatever. But that's completely irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with what councils have done wrt Iceland. So go ahead and feel wise, or clever, or visionary, and when you've got over yourself, see if you can reply to the central point.

Your accusations of bullsh*t have turned round and smacked you in the face softy, as you have demonstrated you havn't got a clue...
I beg to differ. Oh I can understand your glee at thinking that you've caught me out, but glee isn't enough to make you right ellal. If I've misunderstood the point of you quoting the BBC report, then please set me straight. If I've made an error of understanding, then I will accept and acknowledge it, and also apologise, but so you've simply attacked me while at the same time aligning with my original point. I can't think of a better description of that approach than "bullsh*t".
 
Sponsored Links
Shakespeare wrote in a play,neither a lender nor borrower be for it loses itself and friends to.How true this is turning out tobe some 400 yrs later.
 
Wise words, oompah.

Have you read Bill Bryson's book on Shakespeare? Not his funniest, but it's very informative.
 
Wriggle all you like softus...

It was a recorded question to which the government response was that there was no problems!

And last I heard neither the tory's of the lib dems were in power, so I'm afraid it's true that no goverment official came out with the warning..

Facts are not really going your way at the moment are they... :LOL:

Oh, and I've noticed your switch to 'global' crisis from 'current' crisis in this issue because your posts don't match the facts... ;)



A lot of what you've written has been about what you know, thanks to your friend, and what you have done with your money, thanks to your wisdom, or cleverness, or foresight, or whatever. But that's completely irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with what councils have done wrt Iceland. So go ahead and feel wise, or clever, or visionary, and when you've got over yourself, see if you can reply to the central point.
I initially just responded to your presumtious remark that no-one knew...the rest has been your attempt to salvage something from that argument, which I'm afraid is plain to see that you are unable to do - because you've got the FACTS wrong!

Others were warning the government, which should have been passed on to the local councils, so unfortunately your attempt to sever the link has just shown you up even further...
 
Wasn't the last great crash in 1929 the prelude to WW2 ?.
WW3 anyone ?.
 
LA's are looking after that money on behalf of us humble ratepayers, I think that the number one consideration should be the security of the funds. I for one would not be moaning about a lower rate of interest but I accept the point that some would.

Reading through the previous posts, if the government knew about the possible probs with Iceland why didn't they warn all LA's :confused:
 
Wriggle all you like
If you call sticking to the point "wriggling", then I'm wriggling.

If you call giving a specific meaning to the words I use, and sticking to that meaning, "wriggling", then I always wriggle.

If you call being cautious about what gets published by the media, especially the newspapers, and wanting to probe and find the precise facts underlying the things that get reported, "wriggling", then I will always wriggle.

As for not answering questions that are put to you, do you have a word for that?

It was a recorded question to which the government response was that there was no problems!
If there was such a recorded question, then a naive person could be forgiven for thinking that he one expert understood the risk, and if the Icelandic bank problem were the only one in existence, then my initial statement would be wrong.

But he didn't, and it isn't, and it wasn't.

If you're claiming that Lord Oakeshott predicted the problem, which is inextricably bound up with the global crisis, and decided that asking questions satisfied his general and/or specific duty of care, in the full knowledge that taking no further action would result in the government taking no further risk mitigation, and that he still deserves to be called an expert, then you're mistaken.

And last I heard neither the tory's of the lib dems were in power, so I'm afraid it's true that no goverment official came out with the warning.
Irrelevant. My initial post had nothing to do with warnings.

Facts are not really going your way at the moment are they.
I disagree. Bearing in mind that you haven't corroborated anything yet, even if you do, there will be one word wrong in my initial post, and even with the error the entire gist of it is accurate and still applies.

Oh, and I've noticed your switch to 'global' crisis from 'current' crisis
It's not a switch, you dope. The current crisis is a global one. :rolleyes:

I initially just responded to your presumtious remark that no-one knew.
I didn't say that nobody knew. You need to stick to what I actually wrote.

you've got the FACTS wrong!
The onus is entirely upon you to demonstrate which facts are wrong, and why. So far you've singularly failed to do so.

Others were warning the government, which should have been passed on to the local councils
Who "warned" the government? And given the answers apparently issued by the government in July, why would they see any need to warn anyone?

Have another go at producing evidence of your "facts".
 
I didn't say that nobody knew. You need to stick to what I actually wrote.
Of course not softy...remember who actually wrote this?

Not one single institution, or governemnt, or expert, understood the risk or foresaw the severity and impact of the current crisis, and yet a bunch of you expect amateur investors to have behaved differently.
Apology number 2 please...

unlees of course you wish to employ your pedantic semantics act again..
:LOL: :LOL:

If there was such a recorded question, then a naive person could be forgiven for thinking that he one expert understood the risk, and if the Icelandic bank problem were the only one in existence, then my initial statement would be wrong.

But he didn't, and it isn't, and it wasn't.
Oh dear again mr softy vitlaus...

Linky Linky

It's from hansard, the official parliamentary record...

Question:

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay asked Her Majesty's Government:

What steps the United Kingdom financial authorities have taken to satisfy themselves, independently of the Icelandic financial authorities, of the solvency and stability of Icelandic banks taking deposits in the United Kingdom; and of that of the Icelandic Deposit Guarantees and Investor-Compensation Scheme behind which the United Kingdom Financial Services Compensation Scheme stands as guarantor of last resort. [HL4580]
So he didn't ask a question then?..(he did more than that, but then of course according to you he didn't did he... :LOL: )

You really are losing the plot aren't you... ;)

If you're claiming that Lord Oakeshott predicted the problem, which is inextricably bound up with the global crisis, and decided that asking questions satisfied his general and/or specific duty of care, in the full knowledge that taking no further action would result in the government taking no further risk mitigation, and that he still deserves to be called an expert, then you're mistaken.

keep digging that hole...

He studied as an undergraduate at University College, University of OxfordHe worked in the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning of Kenya from 1968 to 1970. During 1970 to 1972, he undertook post-graduate studies at Nuffield College, University of Oxford, though without completing a graduate degree. He served during the latter period as a member of the Oxford City Council, elected as a then-member of the Labour Party.

From 1972 to 1976, Oakeshott was Special Adviser to Roy Jenkins. After this be became director of Warburg Investment Management, a post he held until 1981. Following this, he worked as manager for Courtaulds Pension Fund until 1985. One year later, he became founder director of OLIM Ltd. and investment director of Value and Income Trust.

Not an expert?..then tell me who is!
 
You seem not to get the idea of people having differing points of view. Yours is clearly different to mine, but you're having trouble with articulating answers to questions that are designed to uncover the truth.

Apology number 2 please.
For what? :confused:

If there was such a recorded question, then a naive person could be forgiven for thinking that he one expert understood the risk, and if the Icelandic bank problem were the only one in existence, then my initial statement would be wrong.

But he didn't, and it isn't, and it wasn't.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80715w0001.htm
I've already read that.

Please explain why you consider his question to be a warning, bearing in mind that it isn't one.

Please explain why you find the response (recorded in Hansard) unsatisfactory, bearing in mind that it isn't.
 
You seem not to get the idea of people having differing points of view. Yours is clearly different to mine, but you're having trouble with articulating answers to questions that are designed to uncover the truth.
You seem not to get the idea that when you state something that is proved to be untrue, you usually just pose another question..

FACT: you said that Oakeshott never asked a question, but he did didn't he..!

Please explain why you consider his question to be a warning, bearing in mind that it isn't one.

Oh, and now he did ask a question didn't he - so which is it?...did he or didn't he? :rolleyes:


But he also asked other questions regarding the Icelandic situation and warned that "Alarm bells were ringing all over about the Icelandic banks and the Treasury must have been blind and deaf not to hear them."

Only in 'softus world' is that not a warning... :rolleyes:

You've shown youself up so many times in this topic to be ill informed, ignorant, and unaware of what you yourself have said...

But then again you've shown time and again that you can argue with yourself just for the hell of it... ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top