Yes, the nominal limit is meaningless. It's not just the risk of bank runs - allowing large depositors to be cleared out would randomly destroy large numbers of businesses, as well as people who happen to be in the middle of buying/selling their homes when the game of musical chairs stops.
We're contemplating selling our house soon (probably 2024 tbf) and renting while we look for somewhere to renovate or build. Last time we did that I had the proceeds of our house sale spread across 8 or 10 different accounts to keep within the FSCS limits. What a (first world) pain that was. Much simpler now it seems.
What in Christ's name is in CS's books that the Swiss government is so desperate to dump on UBS?
To put that $9.6 billion into context - the total losses (losses, fines & remediation costs) from the Adoboli, FX and LIBOR scandals was $5 billion. And that does not include the fines for the tax evasion the Private Bank did for US clients nor the French tax evasion fine & costs, let alone the many other smaller cock-ups over the same period.
So UBS have to hope that CS's cock ups won't amount to more than $9.6 billion.
That decision strikes me as an optimistic assumption.
Anyway I've just been sent the papers for the April AGM. It might actually be worth going this year.
That was pretty much the market cap of CS before the comedy started….
"An 81-year-old Tory councillor has been suspended after she said she doesn’t want “Pride sex flags along my high street”.
Angela Kilmartin, a councillor on Braintree District Council in Essex, wrote on Facebook that she did not want any “sex flags” on the high street in Witham.
She said: “I don’t want Pride sex flags along my high street. I don’t even want heterosexual flags along my high street.
“Sex is for the bedroom and private life, not for displaying preferences in public.”"
This is the most heterosexual flag I know, is it what she means?
I've never thought of the Union Jack as having a sexual connotations. I suppose there was Austin Powers with his Union Jack underpants but that's about it. Or maybe you're just stirring **** as usual.
DB = Douche Bank JPM = J P Moron Morgan Stanley = Moron Stanley CITI Group = Shitty Group BarCap* = BarCrap Credit Suisse = Debit Suisse UBS = United Bank of Shit RBS = Royal Bank of Shit TSB = Totally Shit Bank NatWest = ShatWest HSBC = Honkers Shitty Bank of Crap (I know, needs work) Goldmans Sachs = Gold-digging Suckers
* Yes, I know
Citi is still known as Shitty Bank in a homage to the past
DB = Douche Bank JPM = J P Moron Morgan Stanley = Moron Stanley CITI Group = Shitty Group BarCap* = BarCrap Credit Suisse = Debit Suisse UBS = United Bank of Shit RBS = Royal Bank of Shit TSB = Totally Shit Bank NatWest = ShatWest HSBC = Honkers Shitty Bank of Crap (I know, needs work) Goldmans Sachs = Gold-digging Suckers
* Yes, I know
Citi is still known as Shitty Bank in a homage to the past
And Goldman Sachs will forever be the Vampire Squid.
FPT: I doubt that I have persuaded many of you, but I will repeat my belief that Trump is not certain to win the Republican nomination, and that his status, if anything, has been eroding within the party.
You can see that by, among other things, the low attendance at CPAC, and the loss of supporters like the Club for Growth and Murdoch. And almost all the profesionals know, by now, that Trump is a loser, who has damaged the party.
(I have no idea what the odds on him winning the nomination should be now, because it is an n-person game, and we don't even know how large the "n" will be, much less who they will all be.
Nor do I know whether his opponents will be as inept as many were in 2016. I was genuinely astonished then by their failures to attack his many weaknesses. (And I did not expect our media to give them as much help as they did.)
Moreover, it is entirely possible that DeSantis running would hurt Trump, since he is seen by so many as appealing to the same voters.)
The Republican Primary is an extremely difficult election to call.
I tend to think that Trump has a hold over about a third of the US Republican Party - as in, they see him as their man and he can do no wrong, etc. There's another 20-30% that are Trump-ist in leanings, and who are strong supporters of the President, but who would be quite open to voting for another candidate, if they were to find one with a similar mindset and a better chance of winning.
That's about 55-60% of the Republican Party.
There's another 10-15% who will are mostly anti-Democrat, who supported Trump (as he was anti-Democrat), but who would definitely prefer someone else next time around.
And then there is 25-30% who are committed Republicans, but who are disgusted by the corruption and venality of Trump.
The issue for the Republicans is that they have (mostly) a winner takes all Primary system. This means that if there 4-5 candidates, then Trump can win in Iowa, New Hampshire, etc., with 30-35% of the vote. And if Trump wins the first few contests, then he will be mighty hard to stop from winning the contest.
FWIW, I think a DeSantis v Trump head-to-head would be won by DeSantis, who would in turn beat Biden or Harris. I'm not a great DeSantis fan, but I think the latest Florida Gubernatorial election shows there's a lot of appetite for Trumpism delivered by someone who is not Trump. Of course, there is an important caveat here. If Trump is still arguing he won the Republican nomination and is not supporting DeSantis, then I think it could all look very different.
I don't really see a path for a non-Trump, no-DeSantis candidate. I mean, it's possible someone with charisma and the Evangelical vote could do it, but the former requirement knocks out Pence. And I don't see many other hats in the ring.
If Pence wins evangelical heavy Iowa he will certainly be a contender as a former Vice President. Remember he is now the main anti Putin candidate in the GOP top tier too
What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?
To privatise the profits and nationalise the losses.
One of the things the last twenty years has told us is that Glass-Steagall was absolutely right: deposit taking entities and trading entities should be separate.
The former group should be highly regulated and well capitalized, and in return for this, the State and the Central Bank offer support for depositors in the event of problems. (Not shareholders, note, just depositors.) And this is necessary, because it is perfectly possible during a panic for a well capitalized, fundamentally profitable retail bank to go bust. Simply, you lend long (mortgages and the like) and borrow short (current accounts). If everyone heads to the door at the same time, no bank on earth can survive that.
For trading entities, well this group can largely do what they like, but the flip side is that if they go bust - as many investment banks over the years have, like Drexel Burnham Lambert, Barings and Lehman Brothers - then they go bust, and the government and the Bank of England let them go to the wall.
I remember around the time of the GFC listening to a fairly right-wing/semi-libertarian podcast who were outraged that the investment banks (or arms) were being bailed out.
They were firmly behind the idea of protecting "your average joe" and their deposit account - but the freewheeling 'buy! sell! buy! sell!' people should be left to their fate.
Quite struck me at the time and has stayed with me.
Tricky to pull off though if the bank's been subsidising their trading arm from their deposit arm.
Well, the longer version of my article from my work blog has gained a lot of traction amongst my peers on LinkedIn. Quite chuffed by that. It's nice when something you say resonates.
FPT: I doubt that I have persuaded many of you, but I will repeat my belief that Trump is not certain to win the Republican nomination, and that his status, if anything, has been eroding within the party.
You can see that by, among other things, the low attendance at CPAC, and the loss of supporters like the Club for Growth and Murdoch. And almost all the profesionals know, by now, that Trump is a loser, who has damaged the party.
(I have no idea what the odds on him winning the nomination should be now, because it is an n-person game, and we don't even know how large the "n" will be, much less who they will all be.
Nor do I know whether his opponents will be as inept as many were in 2016. I was genuinely astonished then by their failures to attack his many weaknesses. (And I did not expect our media to give them as much help as they did.)
Moreover, it is entirely possible that DeSantis running would hurt Trump, since he is seen by so many as appealing to the same voters.)
The Republican Primary is an extremely difficult election to call.
I tend to think that Trump has a hold over about a third of the US Republican Party - as in, they see him as their man and he can do no wrong, etc. There's another 20-30% that are Trump-ist in leanings, and who are strong supporters of the President, but who would be quite open to voting for another candidate, if they were to find one with a similar mindset and a better chance of winning.
That's about 55-60% of the Republican Party.
There's another 10-15% who will are mostly anti-Democrat, who supported Trump (as he was anti-Democrat), but who would definitely prefer someone else next time around.
And then there is 25-30% who are committed Republicans, but who are disgusted by the corruption and venality of Trump.
The issue for the Republicans is that they have (mostly) a winner takes all Primary system. This means that if there 4-5 candidates, then Trump can win in Iowa, New Hampshire, etc., with 30-35% of the vote. And if Trump wins the first few contests, then he will be mighty hard to stop from winning the contest.
FWIW, I think a DeSantis v Trump head-to-head would be won by DeSantis, who would in turn beat Biden or Harris. I'm not a great DeSantis fan, but I think the latest Florida Gubernatorial election shows there's a lot of appetite for Trumpism delivered by someone who is not Trump. Of course, there is an important caveat here. If Trump is still arguing he won the Republican nomination and is not supporting DeSantis, then I think it could all look very different.
I don't really see a path for a non-Trump, no-DeSantis candidate. I mean, it's possible someone with charisma and the Evangelical vote could do it, but the former requirement knocks out Pence. And I don't see many other hats in the ring.
I thought the vote from Florida was remarkable. A swing State which has shifted firmly into Red status.
It was the people driven mad by COVID moving from across the US to Florida during lockdown. I think that explains both the Florida result and Republicans doing slightly worse everywhere else. The most notable thing is that, if true, that can't be repeated on a national level.
I also dispute rcs's view that the "next" 20-30% as liking Trumpism but would rather vote for Trumpism but more electable. I think it's more that they don't see Trump as an individual as part of their identity but like everything he stands for. They would still vote for him over RDS if Trump came across as a stronger fighter than RDS, even if RDS was more electable. That is why Trump will win, because Meatball Ron will come off worse in a gutter fight and also look weak if he doesn't stand up for himself.
I would also swap the percentage size of the next two groups.
DB = Douche Bank JPM = J P Moron Morgan Stanley = Moron Stanley CITI Group = Shitty Group BarCap* = BarCrap Credit Suisse = Debit Suisse UBS = United Bank of Shit RBS = Royal Bank of Shit TSB = Totally Shit Bank NatWest = ShatWest HSBC = Honkers Shitty Bank of Crap (I know, needs work) Goldmans Sachs = Gold-digging Suckers
* Yes, I know
Citi is still known as Shitty Bank in a homage to the past
And Goldman Sachs will forever be the Vampire Squid.
That gives them too much credit - they like to think they are the top predator....
Well, the longer version of my article from my work blog has gained a lot of traction amongst my peers on LinkedIn. Quite chuffed by that. It's nice when something you say resonates.
This is the bit that was picked out - which I first said in a talk I gave at the London School of Business to an audience of quite illustrious people some 9 years ago. You'd have thought I was announcing the 10 Commandments judging by the reaction. Sometimes stating the bleeding obvious comes as a surprise.
DB = Douche Bank JPM = J P Moron Morgan Stanley = Moron Stanley CITI Group = Shitty Group BarCap* = BarCrap Credit Suisse = Debit Suisse UBS = United Bank of Shit RBS = Royal Bank of Shit TSB = Totally Shit Bank NatWest = ShatWest HSBC = Honkers Shitty Bank of Crap (I know, needs work) Goldmans Sachs = Gold-digging Suckers
* Yes, I know
Citi is still known as Shitty Bank in a homage to the past
And Goldman Sachs will forever be the Vampire Squid.
"An 81-year-old Tory councillor has been suspended after she said she doesn’t want “Pride sex flags along my high street”.
Angela Kilmartin, a councillor on Braintree District Council in Essex, wrote on Facebook that she did not want any “sex flags” on the high street in Witham.
She said: “I don’t want Pride sex flags along my high street. I don’t even want heterosexual flags along my high street.
“Sex is for the bedroom and private life, not for displaying preferences in public.”"
This is the most heterosexual flag I know, is it what she means?
I've never thought of the Union Jack as having a sexual connotations. I suppose there was Austin Powers with his Union Jack underpants but that's about it. Or maybe you're just stirring **** as usual.
Since you jumped in on my reply perhaps you could elucidate on what is a heterosexual flag in the original post, unless all you wanted was a little greet.
Ps I think we’re allowed to write ‘shit’ even before the watershed.
His logic seems to be that now Macron has abandoned his attempt to be a solo striker on Ukraine and come into line with the UK/US view he’s more influential than the UK?
Well, the longer version of my article from my work blog has gained a lot of traction amongst my peers on LinkedIn. Quite chuffed by that. It's nice when something you say resonates.
This is the bit that was picked out - which I first said in a talk I gave at the London School of Business to an audience of quite illustrious people some 9 years ago. You'd have thought I was announcing the 10 Commandments judging by the reaction. Sometimes stating the bleeding obvious comes as a surprise.
I thought I was thanking you for having done so with that thread header!
Well, the longer version of my article from my work blog has gained a lot of traction amongst my peers on LinkedIn. Quite chuffed by that. It's nice when something you say resonates.
This is the bit that was picked out - which I first said in a talk I gave at the London School of Business to an audience of quite illustrious people some 9 years ago. You'd have thought I was announcing the 10 Commandments judging by the reaction. Sometimes stating the bleeding obvious comes as a surprise.
I don’t mean to be rude @Cyclefree because you’ve phrased it nicely.
What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?
Agree 100%. Capitalism only seems to apply to ordinary people. This would be the best thing for Starmer to campaign on at the next election.
This would be the same Starmer who leads a party which bailed out every bank that asked in 2008 while Bush let Lehmans go bust in the US?
You do realise that an uncontrolled bankruptcy by Lehman almost gave the global economy a cardiac arrest?
It did though mean that Bush ensured that the US state did not only allow capitalism to let small businesses go bust, even big banks could go bankrupt too. Remember too the US House of Representatives initially voted down the entire bailout package for the rest of the banking sector.
Gordon Brown here however was not willing to do that
Whatever anyone says about the GOP primary, Trump will not win a general election and the GOP know it. This guy came up against one of the most divisive candidate you could imagine in Clinton and still couldnt win the popular vote.
People can say what they want about the talk of a criminal trial boosting Trump's position. After 4 years of that circus performance in the White House he isnt going to get any boost when it comes to the race that matters.
On those proposed charges. Trump is aware of some kind of oncoming charge but its guesswork on his part of the rest such as next weeks timing of supposed arrest. He is just trying to pre empt it. The reality is that the supposed charges may be tough to make stick but Trump is facing a raft of other legal issues and is likely to get brought down.
Well, the longer version of my article from my work blog has gained a lot of traction amongst my peers on LinkedIn. Quite chuffed by that. It's nice when something you say resonates.
This is the bit that was picked out - which I first said in a talk I gave at the London School of Business to an audience of quite illustrious people some 9 years ago. You'd have thought I was announcing the 10 Commandments judging by the reaction. Sometimes stating the bleeding obvious comes as a surprise.
I don’t mean to be rude @Cyclefree because you’ve phrased it nicely.
But it’s a statement of the bleeding obvious!
I know.
But it hasn't been obvious enough to enough people. Otherwise the sector wouldn't have got into the mess it's been in for most of my working life.
Well, the longer version of my article from my work blog has gained a lot of traction amongst my peers on LinkedIn. Quite chuffed by that. It's nice when something you say resonates.
This is the bit that was picked out - which I first said in a talk I gave at the London School of Business to an audience of quite illustrious people some 9 years ago. You'd have thought I was announcing the 10 Commandments judging by the reaction. Sometimes stating the bleeding obvious comes as a surprise.
I thought I was thanking you for having done so with that thread header!
I know you were. But I am in a tooting-my-own-trumpet mood tonight.
I shall disappear again soon enough when the usual suspects come on to snipe. So enjoy it while you can.
In a weekend when even conspiracy theorists have been behind the curve:
It does appear to be true that Police Scotland have paused their investigation into SNP finances until after the leadership election. Interviews are resuming on 27 March. This is a mistake - it makes it seem the investigation may be conditional on who is the next First Minister.
I think it means they are concerned that the flow of money is going to freeze up because banks will tighten up on issung lines of credit (preserving cash) so this, in some shape or form, greases the wheels by making access to dollars (and vice versa I assume) a bit easier.
In reality it is a very notable move if these central banks fear the credit markets freezing up. .
Well, the longer version of my article from my work blog has gained a lot of traction amongst my peers on LinkedIn. Quite chuffed by that. It's nice when something you say resonates.
This is the bit that was picked out - which I first said in a talk I gave at the London School of Business to an audience of quite illustrious people some 9 years ago. You'd have thought I was announcing the 10 Commandments judging by the reaction. Sometimes stating the bleeding obvious comes as a surprise.
I thought I was thanking you for having done so with that thread header!
I know you were. But I am in a tooting-my-own-trumpet mood tonight.
I shall disappear again soon enough when the usual suspects come on to snipe. So enjoy it while you can.
I think it means they are concerned that the flow of money is going to freeze up because banks will tighten up on issung lines of credit (preserving cash) so this, in some shape or form, greases the wheels by making access to dollars (and vice versa I assume) a bit easier.
In reality it is a very notable move if these central banks fear the credit markets freezing up. .
Comments
We're contemplating selling our house soon (probably 2024 tbf) and renting while we look for somewhere to renovate or build. Last time we did that I had the proceeds of our house sale spread across 8 or 10 different accounts to keep within the FSCS limits. What a (first world) pain that was. Much simpler now it seems.
CS shareholders have largely been wiped out (they are getting peanuts in UBS shares). They are the risk capital
The issue with banks failing is the consequences for depositors and borrowers who are otherwise innocent parties caught in the cross fire
Brexit and the French ruling class’s superior survival skills are helping it trounce its rival on the world stage
https://www.ft.com/content/f3ef3af0-83e1-414d-83ee-c860bf19053d
I also dispute rcs's view that the "next" 20-30% as liking Trumpism but would rather vote for Trumpism but more electable. I think it's more that they don't see Trump as an individual as part of their identity but like everything he stands for. They would still vote for him over RDS if Trump came across as a stronger fighter than RDS, even if RDS was more electable. That is why Trump will win, because Meatball Ron will come off worse in a gutter fight and also look weak if he doesn't stand up for himself.
I would also swap the percentage size of the next two groups.
I seem to remember reading that a few weeks ago. Was it meant to be a good or bad thing for France?
This is the bit that was picked out - which I first said in a talk I gave at the London School of Business to an audience of quite illustrious people some 9 years ago. You'd have thought I was announcing the 10 Commandments judging by the reaction. Sometimes stating the bleeding obvious comes as a surprise.
More houses and more transport infrastructure definitely helps them over the UK, but I don't think it overcomes France's other weaknesses.
Ps I think we’re allowed to write ‘shit’ even before the watershed.
But it’s a statement of the bleeding obvious!
Gordon Brown here however was not willing to do that
Turmoil prompts authorities to launch daily operations to access dollar funding via standing swap lines“
https://www.ft.com/content/12cde8bc-ddac-48ef-8563-ff4007fa7e9f
Brrrr!
QE-nfinty….
People can say what they want about the talk of a criminal trial boosting Trump's position. After 4 years of that circus performance in the White House he isnt going to get any boost when it comes to the race that matters.
On those proposed charges. Trump is aware of some kind of oncoming charge but its guesswork on his part of the rest such as next weeks timing of supposed arrest. He is just trying to pre empt it. The reality is that the supposed charges may be tough to make stick but Trump is facing a raft of other legal issues and is likely to get brought down.
But it hasn't been obvious enough to enough people. Otherwise the sector wouldn't have got into the mess it's been in for most of my working life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KUV2TFTpGo
When I searched PB for it just now to see if I'd posted it before, I saw that @Richard_Tyndall went to to see them live in Jan 2019
I shall disappear again soon enough when the usual suspects come on to snipe. So enjoy it while you can.
It does appear to be true that Police Scotland have paused their investigation into SNP finances until after the leadership election. Interviews are resuming on 27 March.
This is a mistake - it makes it seem the investigation may be conditional on who is the next First Minister.
https://twitter.com/craigmurrayorg/status/1637532874210516993
In reality it is a very notable move if these central banks fear the credit markets freezing up. .
Nickel Creek
I'm halfway through my first listen and I like them very much