Well think about it this way, have you ever heard of anyone getting fired for making too much money?
Actually, that is by no means unknown. Traders get sacked for exceeding their trading limits or going outside the permitted trading strategies. It doesn't make the news, obviously; quite apart from anything else, it will be covered by a confidentiality clause in the termination settlement.
Thanks, was about to head up to my boss to request a company loan to bump Co profits up for Q4
Well think about it this way, have you ever heard of anyone getting fired for making too much money?
Actually, that is by no means unknown. Traders get sacked for exceeding their trading limits or going outside the permitted trading strategies. It doesn't make the news, obviously; quite apart from anything else, it will be covered by a confidentiality clause in the termination settlement.
I think the degree of tolerance is much wider on the upside than the downside. Though you are correct that there have been cases such as this in the past, though I think too many atill turn a blind eye to excessive profits from risky trading.
I have found one perfect constituency in the proposals:
Darlington will include the entire borough of Darlington, and nothing else.
Much of the rest of the north east is a dog's breakfast.
I think its got a tiny bit of Sedgefield as well (a posh bit from memory).
My suspicion is that Darlington was the starting point for the North East review
Not under the new boundaries - just all of the Darlo wards.
Yep just read the actual document rather than the summary I saw this morning. Darlington is just Darlington.... Going to be an interesting election there...
It is completely pointless discussing MP figures on these boundary proposals as they will be much changed by the time the review process is finished in 2 years time . In some areas the proposed changes are mostly sensible but with a few bad suggestions eg the proposals for the Bournemouth/Poole/Dorset are plain daft . In others they are a complete dogs breakfast , it is hard to see how anyone could come up with a worse set of new seats in the North East for example .
David Frum Is Donald Trump the first ever Republican to endorse paid leave parental leave? I believe so … https://t.co/8ubo5ZAGow
I see Trump has now moved to +3% with the LA Times. In fact, of the most recent 13 polls, Trump has led in 5, Clinton in 7, and one tied. I think the candidates are now almost level-pegging.
David Frum Is Donald Trump the first ever Republican to endorse paid leave parental leave? I believe so … https://t.co/8ubo5ZAGow
I see Trump has now moved to +3% with the LA Times. In fact, of the most recent 13 polls, Trump has led in 5, Clinton in 7, and one tied. I think the candidates are now almost level-pegging.
I caught a bit of a report yesterday saying he got a standing ovation from a National Guard event and the big wigs were cock-a-hoop, he's said he'd expand them or somesuch.
I can't recall any policy stuff from Hillary so far - just lots of identity politicking. Really interesting to see where this goes over the next couple of weeks.
I'm always curious as to why I've never heard of a Kerviel/Leeson that has made a genuinely extraordinary profit mind...
Try and find out who got the biggest bonus of the year. Thats who made the extraordinary profit!
Well yes but has there never been a trader that has stepped outside his or her remit and lucked out ?
I'm sure there has been, when the likes of Kerviel lose £3bn someone else is making £3bn. It's the kind of profit which gets you promotions though...
If you don't mind doing a bit of time in the clink, it sounds like the combination of French employment law and banks terrible attitude toward moral hazard puts you into a no lose situation.
So. Not Paris then.
Not sure why TSE thinks its a good idea to go there really.
It wasn't my first choice, I work with wine drinkers, they like France, one of them is Scottish, so I reckon it is to do with the Auld Alliance.
I would have preferred Barcelona, but Paris is easier to get to.
Before the internet, boundary reviews used to attract the attention of hardly anyone apart from a few anoraks. I've got a feeling they're going to be totally inundated by Corbyn supporters this time, which is going to make their job very difficult compared to previous occasions.
I fear that your right - which will have the potential effect of diluting those relatively few but sensible suggestions and recommendations - which would be a shame if it means that some of the frankly shocking suggestions end up staying by default.
On the grounds that the boundary commission are now likely to be swamped by idiotic comments by the instantly furious, the unsympathetic and the misinformed, I've just submitted a generally supportive comment of the proposals (especially in the North West, which is the region I know best). To my eye, the boundary commission have carried out a difficult brief well. There are a few ungainly constituencies, but this is pretty much inevitable as anyone who has attempted such tinkering will know.
While I realise that the Boundary Commission does indeed have a tricky job to satisfy all of the requirements, these requirements have led to some quite bizarre constituencies in Birmingham. I give you the Birmingham snake (aka Ladywood) - writhing its way from one side of the city to the other - and the Birmingham bone (aka Northfield) - 12 km long, and about 800m wide at its narrowest point.
I'm always curious as to why I've never heard of a Kerviel/Leeson that has made a genuinely extraordinary profit mind...
Try and find out who got the biggest bonus of the year. Thats who made the extraordinary profit!
Well yes but has there never been a trader that has stepped outside his or her remit and lucked out ?
I'm sure there has been, when the likes of Kerviel lose £3bn someone else is making £3bn. It's the kind of profit which gets you promotions though...
If you don't mind doing a bit of time in the clink, it sounds like the combination of French employment law and banks terrible attitude toward moral hazard puts you into a no lose situation.
So. Not Paris then.
Not sure why TSE thinks its a good idea to go there really.
It wasn't my first choice, I work with wine drinkers, they like France, one of them is Scottish, so I reckon it is to do with the Auld Alliance.
I would have preferred Barcelona, but Paris is easier to get to.
Surprised Amsterdam wasn't considered. I know it's been on the radar for a few companies who's staff are refusing to go to Paris.
Harriet Harman Tories contempt 4 democracy. 2m not on elec register more likely young & black. New Boundaries discriminatory @EHRC step in!
Well why didn't they register then, if they were so keen to be enfranchised? It isn't hard to do. It's not as if the state has put no effort into getting them to register, or made it difficult.
I thought the better point is that apparently up to 2m did put themselves on the register for the referendum and these are not being taken into account. Given how long this has taken I am not really sure why. It may mean that cities are being unduly penalised this time around.
Certainly the losses from the register following IER were heavily concentrated in urban areas. But there are many potential reasons for that, many of which will be genuine - in areas of more transient population under the old system a lot of people were kept on the register after they had long departed their address, and it was also relatively easy to get registered despite not being eligible (e.g. as a Turkish national), because there were essentially no checks.
I am led to believe that the people who registered in the run-up to the referendum are more evenly distributed - although unlike IER I haven't actually seen any figures. Common sense would suggest that last minute registrations would tend to be more likely in areas of transient population, but if the actual pattern was more even than the IER reduction this reduces the strength of Labour's complaint. Obviously if the late registrations are completely evenly spread then it makes no difference to the boundaries as proposed.
Before the internet, boundary reviews used to attract the attention of hardly anyone apart from a few anoraks. I've got a feeling they're going to be totally inundated by Corbyn supporters this time, which is going to make their job very difficult compared to previous occasions.
I fear that your right - which will have the potential effect of diluting those relatively few but sensible suggestions and recommendations - which would be a shame if it means that some of the frankly shocking suggestions end up staying by default.
On the grounds that the boundary commission are now likely to be swamped by idiotic comments by the instantly furious, the unsympathetic and the misinformed, I've just submitted a generally supportive comment of the proposals (especially in the North West, which is the region I know best). To my eye, the boundary commission have carried out a difficult brief well. There are a few ungainly constituencies, but this is pretty much inevitable as anyone who has attempted such tinkering will know.
While I realise that the Boundary Commission does indeed have a tricky job to satisfy all of the requirements, these requirements have led to some quite bizarre constituencies in Birmingham. I give you the Birmingham snake (aka Ladywood) - writhing its way from one side of the city to the other - and the Birmingham bone (aka Northfield) - 12 km long, and about 800m wide at its narrowest point.
I'm always curious as to why I've never heard of a Kerviel/Leeson that has made a genuinely extraordinary profit mind...
Try and find out who got the biggest bonus of the year. Thats who made the extraordinary profit!
Well yes but has there never been a trader that has stepped outside his or her remit and lucked out ?
I'm sure there has been, when the likes of Kerviel lose £3bn someone else is making £3bn. It's the kind of profit which gets you promotions though...
If you don't mind doing a bit of time in the clink, it sounds like the combination of French employment law and banks terrible attitude toward moral hazard puts you into a no lose situation.
So. Not Paris then.
Not sure why TSE thinks its a good idea to go there really.
It wasn't my first choice, I work with wine drinkers, they like France, one of them is Scottish, so I reckon it is to do with the Auld Alliance.
I would have preferred Barcelona, but Paris is easier to get to.
Surprised Amsterdam wasn't considered. I know it's been on the radar for a few companies who's staff are refusing to go to Paris.
It was a contender, but Paris is easier logistically, plus we have more French speakers than Netherlander speakers.
Dublin was considered, but ruled out due to the smallness of place and the ability to expand.
Berlin was ruled out because you tell half of it was run by Communists for nearly 50 years.
One of the more intriguing options was Edinburgh, in a post Brexit, post Scottish Independence world.
But that ruled out because oil would need to hit around £1 million a barrel for an iScotland to have the resource to bail out the financial services sector....
Before the internet, boundary reviews used to attract the attention of hardly anyone apart from a few anoraks. I've got a feeling they're going to be totally inundated by Corbyn supporters this time, which is going to make their job very difficult compared to previous occasions.
I fear that your right - which will have the potential effect of diluting those relatively few but sensible suggestions and recommendations - which would be a shame if it means that some of the frankly shocking suggestions end up staying by default.
On the grounds that the boundary commission are now likely to be swamped by idiotic comments by the instantly furious, the unsympathetic and the misinformed, I've just submitted a generally supportive comment of the proposals (especially in the North West, which is the region I know best). To my eye, the boundary commission have carried out a difficult brief well. There are a few ungainly constituencies, but this is pretty much inevitable as anyone who has attempted such tinkering will know.
While I realise that the Boundary Commission does indeed have a tricky job to satisfy all of the requirements, these requirements have led to some quite bizarre constituencies in Birmingham. I give you the Birmingham snake (aka Ladywood) - writhing its way from one side of the city to the other - and the Birmingham bone (aka Northfield) - 12 km long, and about 800m wide at its narrowest point.
Yeah, we've got one of those in W Yorks (and edging into N Yorks): Normanton, Castleford and Outwood. From its shape, it could be Wakefield Shark.
I think people are making a mistake to think it's ONLY the Tory MPs who are directly going to lose their seats who would be tempted to rebel. Remember, even if a Tory MP is projected to still have a safe seat on the new boundaries, most of them are still going to get a chunk of extra constituents moved into their constituency - that inevitably means a heavier workload in terms of constituency casework. Will all of them really be voting for that, when they already feel overworked as it is?
That would be a terrible reason to reject the proposals, besides given that on average their constituencies were already on the bigger side, will it really be that much extra work.
Yes. Have a look at the spreadsheet which details what % of old constituencies are going into the new ones -- outside of the South East, most Tory MPs' new seats are a fair bit bigger than their old ones. It doesn't usually put their jobs in danger, because it's usually just a chunk of another Tory seat which is being moved into their new one, but it still means more constituents and thus a heavier workload.
And anyone who votes against the three line whip to pass these much-needed reforms should be told their case load will be reduced to zero ...
Are you defining "much-needed" as "beneficial to my party"?
Yes and no, since we were talking about party MPs. Also talking about having constituencies based on last year's data and not from two decades before the next election.
I'm always curious as to why I've never heard of a Kerviel/Leeson that has made a genuinely extraordinary profit mind...
Try and find out who got the biggest bonus of the year. Thats who made the extraordinary profit!
Well yes but has there never been a trader that has stepped outside his or her remit and lucked out ?
I'm sure there has been, when the likes of Kerviel lose £3bn someone else is making £3bn. It's the kind of profit which gets you promotions though...
If you don't mind doing a bit of time in the clink, it sounds like the combination of French employment law and banks terrible attitude toward moral hazard puts you into a no lose situation.
So. Not Paris then.
Not sure why TSE thinks its a good idea to go there really.
It wasn't my first choice, I work with wine drinkers, they like France, one of them is Scottish, so I reckon it is to do with the Auld Alliance.
I would have preferred Barcelona, but Paris is easier to get to.
Surprised Amsterdam wasn't considered. I know it's been on the radar for a few companies who's staff are refusing to go to Paris.
It was a contender, but Paris is easier logistically, plus we have more French speakers than Netherlander speakers.
Dublin was considered, but ruled out due to the smallness of place and the ability to expand.
Berlin was ruled out because you tell half of it was run by Communists for nearly 50 years.
One of the more intriguing options was Edinburgh, in a post Brexit, post Scottish Independence world.
But that ruled out because oil would need to hit around £1 million a barrel for an iScotland to have the resource to bail out the financial services sector....
I can think of much worse places to work than Paris. Much worse.
I have no idea why Forest Gate and Loxford isn't called Forest Gate and Ilford, as it includes almost all of Ilford town centre.
Not really, Valentines ward goes into Leytonstone and Wanstead.
The Commission appears to have taken each sub-region and worked around the perimeter, making up the numbers for the existing constituencies by adding wards taken from those in the centre of the sub-region. Therefore whilst many of the seats around the edges make some sort of sense, when you look at the middle of the sub-regions we essentially have seats made up of all the wards that are left. Hence "Ilford North" loses areas like Clayhall and Barkingside, that have always been regarded as core Ilford North wards, but gains other wards from the south of the Borough.
the Dutch or Irish wouldn't be able to stand behind the trillions in liabilities generated by the City in the same way the UK, France or Germany could.
I've always had to stand behind my own liabilities whilst gambling/investing, shouldn't Citicorp, JP Morgan and the other 'banks' ?
They do, but it's really just in case the system goes bang. The BoE/Treasury can and will stand behind bank balance sheets until money markets resume their normal functions, it would mean a temporary expansion of UK government liabilities but it's not really anything to worry about. In Ireland or the Netherlands it would be something to worry about as those nations could be swamped were anything to go really badly in a Lehman Bros/RBS kind of way when the bank is actually insolvent, those liabilities are realised and real money needs to be poured in. In the case of Lehman Bros it wasn't and look at the result. (Un)Fortunately when you owe someone £200bn it does become their problem!
The other issue is the regulatory system. In theory regulation should be broadly the same across the EU. Same rules etc. In practice, regulators vary wildly: the German regulators are weak. Irish regulation is a joke. And so on.
The quality of regulation in the country where a bank is based is a factor which investors, clients and customers (the more savvy ones) do take into account. It is certainly something which the banks themselves take into account.
Quite so. The idea that the ESMA could provide a credible structure for the provision of financial services in the EU without any input from London looks quite far fetched to me. Even if they did it would rapidly fall behind practice as it develops in the dominant market of the time zone.
The other practical difficulty for banks planning a move is shortage of suitable office space:
The legal system, employment laws: there are lots of factors which affect where businesses locate themselves. French employment law is a total nightmare, for instance.
Didn't Kerviel just win a case against SocGen for wrongful dismissal?
Yes. A verdict which defies reason and common-sense.
I have no idea why Forest Gate and Loxford isn't called Forest Gate and Ilford, as it includes almost all of Ilford town centre.
Not really, Valentines ward goes into Leytonstone and Wanstead.
The Commission appears to have taken each sub-region and worked around the perimeter, making up the numbers for the existing constituencies by adding wards taken from those in the centre of the sub-region. Therefore whilst many of the seats around the edges make some sort of sense, when you look at the middle of the sub-regions we essentially have seats made up of all the wards that are left. Hence "Ilford North" loses areas like Clayhall and Barkingside, that have always been regarded as core Ilford North wards, but gains other wards from the south of the Borough.
I meant the actual commercial and administrative heart of Ilford is now referred to "and Loxford".
Yes, as trailed yesterday Mike Gapes will retire and Wes Streeting will inherit a much better prospect - which he will be grateful for with Labour down to 28% in the polls.
I'm always curious as to why I've never heard of a Kerviel/Leeson that has made a genuinely extraordinary profit mind...
Try and find out who got the biggest bonus of the year. Thats who made the extraordinary profit!
Well yes but has there never been a trader that has stepped outside his or her remit and lucked out ?
I'm sure there has been, when the likes of Kerviel lose £3bn someone else is making £3bn. It's the kind of profit which gets you promotions though...
If you don't mind doing a bit of time in the clink, it sounds like the combination of French employment law and banks terrible attitude toward moral hazard puts you into a no lose situation.
So. Not Paris then.
Not sure why TSE thinks its a good idea to go there really.
It wasn't my first choice, I work with wine drinkers, they like France, one of them is Scottish, so I reckon it is to do with the Auld Alliance.
I would have preferred Barcelona, but Paris is easier to get to.
Surprised Amsterdam wasn't considered. I know it's been on the radar for a few companies who's staff are refusing to go to Paris.
It was a contender, but Paris is easier logistically, plus we have more French speakers than Netherlander speakers.
Dublin was considered, but ruled out due to the smallness of place and the ability to expand.
Berlin was ruled out because you tell half of it was run by Communists for nearly 50 years.
One of the more intriguing options was Edinburgh, in a post Brexit, post Scottish Independence world.
But that ruled out because oil would need to hit around £1 million a barrel for an iScotland to have the resource to bail out the financial services sector....
I can think of much worse places to work than Paris. Much worse.
I'm always curious as to why I've never heard of a Kerviel/Leeson that has made a genuinely extraordinary profit mind...
Try and find out who got the biggest bonus of the year. Thats who made the extraordinary profit!
Well yes but has there never been a trader that has stepped outside his or her remit and lucked out ?
I'm sure there has been, when the likes of Kerviel lose £3bn someone else is making £3bn. It's the kind of profit which gets you promotions though...
If you don't mind doing a bit of time in the clink, it sounds like the combination of French employment law and banks terrible attitude toward moral hazard puts you into a no lose situation.
So. Not Paris then.
Not sure why TSE thinks its a good idea to go there really.
It wasn't my first choice, I work with wine drinkers, they like France, one of them is Scottish, so I reckon it is to do with the Auld Alliance.
I would have preferred Barcelona, but Paris is easier to get to.
Surprised Amsterdam wasn't considered. I know it's been on the radar for a few companies who's staff are refusing to go to Paris.
It was a contender, but Paris is easier logistically, plus we have more French speakers than Netherlander speakers.
Dublin was considered, but ruled out due to the smallness of place and the ability to expand.
Berlin was ruled out because you tell half of it was run by Communists for nearly 50 years.
One of the more intriguing options was Edinburgh, in a post Brexit, post Scottish Independence world.
But that ruled out because oil would need to hit around £1 million a barrel for an iScotland to have the resource to bail out the financial services sector....
The dutch are very happy to speak english, unlike the french. Also why on earth should the financial sector expect another bailout if the shit hits the fan ? Surely all the depositor/investment banking issues from 2008 are sorted now.
I'm always curious as to why I've never heard of a Kerviel/Leeson that has made a genuinely extraordinary profit mind...
Try and find out who got the biggest bonus of the year. Thats who made the extraordinary profit!
Well yes but has there never been a trader that has stepped outside his or her remit and lucked out ?
I'm sure there has been, when the likes of Kerviel lose £3bn someone else is making £3bn. It's the kind of profit which gets you promotions though...
If you don't mind doing a bit of time in the clink, it sounds like the combination of French employment law and banks terrible attitude toward moral hazard puts you into a no lose situation.
So. Not Paris then.
Not sure why TSE thinks its a good idea to go there really.
It wasn't my first choice, I work with wine drinkers, they like France, one of them is Scottish, so I reckon it is to do with the Auld Alliance.
I would have preferred Barcelona, but Paris is easier to get to.
Surprised Amsterdam wasn't considered. I know it's been on the radar for a few companies who's staff are refusing to go to Paris.
It was a contender, but Paris is easier logistically, plus we have more French speakers than Netherlander speakers.
Dublin was considered, but ruled out due to the smallness of place and the ability to expand.
Berlin was ruled out because you tell half of it was run by Communists for nearly 50 years.
One of the more intriguing options was Edinburgh, in a post Brexit, post Scottish Independence world.
But that ruled out because oil would need to hit around £1 million a barrel for an iScotland to have the resource to bail out the financial services sector....
The Eurostar does make Paris an easier sell, I wish there was a direct train to Amsterdam rather than having to bugger about in Brussels for a while.
As for bail outs, I'm surprised its still an issue after the BRRD. It seems to have put a lot of European banks into a state of purgatory where they can't raise money because they are insolvent but the government doesn't want to pull the trigger on a bail in because it is politically poisonous to hit retail bond holders and uninsured depositors.
Before the internet, boundary reviews used to attract the attention of hardly anyone apart from a few anoraks. I've got a feeling they're going to be totally inundated by Corbyn supporters this time, which is going to make their job very difficult compared to previous occasions.
I fear that your right - which will have the potential effect of diluting those relatively few but sensible suggestions and recommendations - which would be a shame if it means that some of the frankly shocking suggestions end up staying by default.
On the grounds that the boundary commission are now likely to be swamped by idiotic comments by the instantly furious, the unsympathetic and the misinformed, I've just submitted a generally supportive comment of the proposals (especially in the North West, which is the region I know best). To my eye, the boundary commission have carried out a difficult brief well. There are a few ungainly constituencies, but this is pretty much inevitable as anyone who has attempted such tinkering will know.
While I realise that the Boundary Commission does indeed have a tricky job to satisfy all of the requirements, these requirements have led to some quite bizarre constituencies in Birmingham. I give you the Birmingham snake (aka Ladywood) - writhing its way from one side of the city to the other - and the Birmingham bone (aka Northfield) - 12 km long, and about 800m wide at its narrowest point.
Yeah, we've got one of those in W Yorks (and edging into N Yorks): Normanton, Castleford and Outwood. From its shape, it could be Wakefield Shark.
I'm always curious as to why I've never heard of a Kerviel/Leeson that has made a genuinely extraordinary profit mind...
Try and find out who got the biggest bonus of the year. Thats who made the extraordinary profit!
Well yes but has there never been a trader that has stepped outside his or her remit and lucked out ?
I'm sure there has been, when the likes of Kerviel lose £3bn someone else is making £3bn. It's the kind of profit which gets you promotions though...
If you don't mind doing a bit of time in the clink, it sounds like the combination of French employment law and banks terrible attitude toward moral hazard puts you into a no lose situation.
So. Not Paris then.
Not sure why TSE thinks its a good idea to go there really.
It wasn't my first choice, I work with wine drinkers, they like France, one of them is Scottish, so I reckon it is to do with the Auld Alliance.
I would have preferred Barcelona, but Paris is easier to get to.
Surprised Amsterdam wasn't considered. I know it's been on the radar for a few companies who's staff are refusing to go to Paris.
It was a contender, but Paris is easier logistically, plus we have more French speakers than Netherlander speakers.
Dublin was considered, but ruled out due to the smallness of place and the ability to expand.
Berlin was ruled out because you tell half of it was run by Communists for nearly 50 years.
One of the more intriguing options was Edinburgh, in a post Brexit, post Scottish Independence world.
But that ruled out because oil would need to hit around £1 million a barrel for an iScotland to have the resource to bail out the financial services sector....
The dutch are very happy to speak english, unlike the french. Also why on earth should the financial sector expect another bailout if the shit hits the fan ? Surely all the depositor/investment banking issues from 2008 are sorted now.
It's not so much a bailout, as stability.
Mark Carney is one of the few the central bankers in the world to put together the resources to ensure stability on June 24th,
I have no idea why Forest Gate and Loxford isn't called Forest Gate and Ilford, as it includes almost all of Ilford town centre.
Not really, Valentines ward goes into Leytonstone and Wanstead.
The Commission appears to have taken each sub-region and worked around the perimeter, making up the numbers for the existing constituencies by adding wards taken from those in the centre of the sub-region. Therefore whilst many of the seats around the edges make some sort of sense, when you look at the middle of the sub-regions we essentially have seats made up of all the wards that are left. Hence "Ilford North" loses areas like Clayhall and Barkingside, that have always been regarded as core Ilford North wards, but gains other wards from the south of the Borough.
Yes that is the problem with the too tight range of plus/minus 5% . The BC have started each region pretty well but when they get to the last few constituencies they are struggling with left over bits that are mismatches . In Kent for example they start of well with East Kent and end with a dogs breakfast in the High Weald .
The other issue is the regulatory system. In theory regulation should be broadly the same across the EU. Same rules etc. In practice, regulators vary wildly: the German regulators are weak. Irish regulation is a joke. And so on.
The quality of regulation in the country where a bank is based is a factor which investors, clients and customers (the more savvy ones) do take into account. It is certainly something which the banks themselves take into account.
Quite so. The idea that the ESMA could provide a credible structure for the provision of financial services in the EU without any input from London looks quite far fetched to me. Even if they did it would rapidly fall behind practice as it develops in the dominant market of the time zone.
The other practical difficulty for banks planning a move is shortage of suitable office space:
The legal system, employment laws: there are lots of factors which affect where businesses locate themselves. French employment law is a total nightmare, for instance.
Didn't Kerviel just win a case against SocGen for wrongful dismissal?
I'm always curious as to why I've never heard of a Kerviel/Leeson that has made a genuinely extraordinary profit mind...
Anyone taking the sort of risk which could lead to profits of that order would be in breach of so many policies, risk limits and the rest that it ought not to get past the controls that ought to be in place. Usually those who breach these limits are those who have made some sort of smallish loss and are hoping to make it back; they don't; it gets worse; they double up, hide etc and away it goes. Or they think that because they made a small profit that taking on bigger risk will make them a bigger profit.
Or they breach them because they think they ought to take more risk and make more profits. I have investigated people who have done just that and they have gone to disciplinary.
I'm always curious as to why I've never heard of a Kerviel/Leeson that has made a genuinely extraordinary profit mind...
Try and find out who got the biggest bonus of the year. Thats who made the extraordinary profit!
Well yes but has there never been a trader that has stepped outside his or her remit and lucked out ?
I'm sure there has been, when the likes of Kerviel lose £3bn someone else is making £3bn. It's the kind of profit which gets you promotions though...
If you don't mind doing a bit of time in the clink, it sounds like the combination of French employment law and banks terrible attitude toward moral hazard puts you into a no lose situation.
So. Not Paris then.
Not sure why TSE thinks its a good idea to go there really.
It wasn't my first choice, I work with wine drinkers, they like France, one of them is Scottish, so I reckon it is to do with the Auld Alliance.
I would have preferred Barcelona, but Paris is easier to get to.
Surprised Amsterdam wasn't considered. I know it's been on the radar for a few companies who's staff are refusing to go to Paris.
It was a contender, but Paris is easier logistically, plus we have more French speakers than Netherlander speakers.
Dublin was considered, but ruled out due to the smallness of place and the ability to expand.
Berlin was ruled out because you tell half of it was run by Communists for nearly 50 years.
One of the more intriguing options was Edinburgh, in a post Brexit, post Scottish Independence world.
But that ruled out because oil would need to hit around £1 million a barrel for an iScotland to have the resource to bail out the financial services sector....
I can think of much worse places to work than Paris. Much worse.
Well, yes just about everywhere in Africa and the Middle East for a start. However, within the EU I should have thought Paris would be well down the list as the optimal place to do business.
I think people are making a mistake to think it's ONLY the Tory MPs who are directly going to lose their seats who would be tempted to rebel. Remember, even if a Tory MP is projected to still have a safe seat on the new boundaries, most of them are still going to get a chunk of extra constituents moved into their constituency - that inevitably means a heavier workload in terms of constituency casework. Will all of them really be voting for that, when they already feel overworked as it is?
That would be a terrible reason to reject the proposals, besides given that on average their constituencies were already on the bigger side, will it really be that much extra work.
Yes. Have a look at the spreadsheet which details what % of old constituencies are going into the new ones -- outside of the South East, most Tory MPs' new seats are a fair bit bigger than their old ones. It doesn't usually put their jobs in danger, because it's usually just a chunk of another Tory seat which is being moved into their new one, but it still means more constituents and thus a heavier workload.
In Australia they have just 150 MPs for a population of 23 million. On the same basis we would have about 430 MPs. Germany has 631 MPs for 81 million. That would be equivalent to 515 in the UK.
But we have the world's only Upper House wot is bigger than its respective Lower House, so if anything it's the Lords wot needs cutting!
Kevin Schofield @PolhomeEditor 59m59 minutes ago Senior Conservative source says there a "60-40" chance the boundary changes WON'T happen.
Absolute tosh in my opinion. The idea the next election might be fought on boundaries 20 years out of date is unthinkable.
Why, when the voting system itself is a century out of date?
The voting system is perfect and doesn't need updating.
The great thing about PB is the wide range of intelligent and informed analysis and argument that is posted here. It's just a shame we have to scroll through mindless trolling like yours in order to benefit from it.
Kevin Schofield @PolhomeEditor 59m59 minutes ago Senior Conservative source says there a "60-40" chance the boundary changes WON'T happen.
Absolute tosh in my opinion. The idea the next election might be fought on boundaries 20 years out of date is unthinkable.
Why, when the voting system itself is a century out of date?
The voting system is the same for all voters (even if in any one election cycle it may favour supporters of one or two parties over others. But remember, which parties it favours can change without changing the system. With the exception of UKIP, all main GB parties have benefited at one point or another, and all parties have been penalized at one point or another).
Not adjusting boundaries means that inequalities between voters arise.
Before the internet, boundary reviews used to attract the attention of hardly anyone apart from a few anoraks. I've got a feeling they're going to be totally inundated by Corbyn supporters this time, which is going to make their job very difficult compared to previous occasions.
I fear that your right - which will have the potential effect of diluting those relatively few but sensible suggestions and recommendations - which would be a shame if it means that some of the frankly shocking suggestions end up staying by default.
On the grounds that the boundary commission are now likely to be swamped by idiotic comments by the instantly furious, the unsympathetic and the misinformed, I've just submitted a generally supportive comment of the proposals (especially in the North West, which is the region I know best). To my eye, the boundary commission have carried out a difficult brief well. There are a few ungainly constituencies, but this is pretty much inevitable as anyone who has attempted such tinkering will know.
While I realise that the Boundary Commission does indeed have a tricky job to satisfy all of the requirements, these requirements have led to some quite bizarre constituencies in Birmingham. I give you the Birmingham snake (aka Ladywood) - writhing its way from one side of the city to the other - and the Birmingham bone (aka Northfield) - 12 km long, and about 800m wide at its narrowest point.
Yeah, we've got one of those in W Yorks (and edging into N Yorks): Normanton, Castleford and Outwood. From its shape, it could be Wakefield Shark.
It's bad enough with London buildings; please don't extend the convention to constituencies..
Any MPs complaining about the reduction in their numbers, might wish to reflect on the events that led to that commitment in the Conservative manifestos of 2010 and 2015.
Why is there a frog standing directly behind Trump?
That’s Pepe. He’s a symbol associated with white supremacy.
I actually think the Clinton camp has genuinely lost it. They've all gone crazy. From a speech about a non existent movement which is really a bunch of edgy teenagers on 4chan to a full article about Pepe the frog being a white supremacist symbol, they've either lost complete use of higher brain function or they've hired a couple of complete jokers.
I think people are making a mistake to think it's ONLY the Tory MPs who are directly going to lose their seats who would be tempted to rebel. Remember, even if a Tory MP is projected to still have a safe seat on the new boundaries, most of them are still going to get a chunk of extra constituents moved into their constituency - that inevitably means a heavier workload in terms of constituency casework. Will all of them really be voting for that, when they already feel overworked as it is?
That would be a terrible reason to reject the proposals, besides given that on average their constituencies were already on the bigger side, will it really be that much extra work.
Yes. Have a look at the spreadsheet which details what % of old constituencies are going into the new ones -- outside of the South East, most Tory MPs' new seats are a fair bit bigger than their old ones. It doesn't usually put their jobs in danger, because it's usually just a chunk of another Tory seat which is being moved into their new one, but it still means more constituents and thus a heavier workload.
In Australia they have just 150 MPs for a population of 23 million. On the same basis we would have about 430 MPs. Germany has 631 MPs for 81 million. That would be equivalent to 515 in the UK.
But we have the world's only Upper House wot is bigger than its respective Lower House, so if anything it's the Lords wot needs cutting!
And they can't be expelled, even when convicted of criminal offences.
Any MPs complaining about the reduction in their numbers, might wish to reflect on the events that led to that commitment in the Conservative manifestos of 2010 and 2015.
I'm always curious as to why I've never heard of a Kerviel/Leeson that has made a genuinely extraordinary profit mind...
Try and find out who got the biggest bonus of the year. Thats who made the extraordinary profit!
Well yes but has there never been a trader that has stepped outside his or her remit and lucked out ?
I'm sure there has been, when the likes of Kerviel lose £3bn someone else is making £3bn. It's the kind of profit which gets you promotions though...
Not true. Our own Kerviel - Adoboli - lost money not because it was going to the counterparty on the other side of the trade. It was the margin calls (similar to a deposit) which had to be paid to the exchange where he was making his bets. As his trades turned against him, the margin which had to be paid was increased and in ca. six weeks the amount he had to pay i.e. the amount lost increased from £220 million to £1.5 billion, when the trades were finally closed out. That was a result of him having utterly misread the market and it turning against him. Exactly the same MO as Leeson and Barings. He should not have been taking any sort of risk at all as he was meant only to be trading for clients. How he managed to evade the controls is another story. You won't hear a word of truth out of him, mind, despite his attempts in recent weeks to reinvent himself.
Why is there a frog standing directly behind Trump?
That’s Pepe. He’s a symbol associated with white supremacy.
I actually think the Clinton camp has genuinely lost it. They've all gone crazy. From a speech about a non existent movement which is really a bunch of edgy teenagers on 4chan to a full article about Pepe the frog being a white supremacist symbol, they've either lost complete use of higher brain function or they've hired a couple of complete jokers.
I'm level profit on HRC/Trump right now - might have to reconsider that (Though the prices will probably hold right till about Midnight Nov 8th...)
The quality of regulation in the country where a bank is based is a factor which investors, clients and customers (the more savvy ones) do take into account. It is certainly something which the banks themselves take into account.
Quite so. The idea that the ESMA could provide a credible structure for the provision of financial services in the EU without any input from London looks quite far fetched to me. Even if they did it would rapidly fall behind practice as it develops in the dominant market of the time zone.
The other practical difficulty for banks planning a move is shortage of suitable office space:
The legal system, employment laws: there are lots of factors which affect where businesses locate themselves. French employment law is a total nightmare, for instance.
Didn't Kerviel just win a case against SocGen for wrongful dismissal?
I'm always curious as to why I've never heard of a Kerviel/Leeson that has made a genuinely extraordinary profit mind...
Anyone taking the sort of risk which could lead to profits of that order would be in breach of so many policies, risk limits and the rest that it ought not to get past the controls that ought to be in place. Usually those who breach these limits are those who have made some sort of smallish loss and are hoping to make it back; they don't; it gets worse; they double up, hide etc and away it goes. Or they think that because they made a small profit that taking on bigger risk will make them a bigger profit.
Or they breach them because they think they ought to take more risk and make more profits. I have investigated people who have done just that and they have gone to disciplinary.
Indeed, and once the loss is of a particular size, they are losing their jobs anyway, so have nothing to lose personally in trying to make it back.
Plus, if they stay out of jail, such traders are usually in high demand once they have been fired. (But we're talking about traders who bet the farm 5x leveraged and lose. Not those who commit some kind of fraud eg Kweku, Leeson, etc.)
I'm always curious as to why I've never heard of a Kerviel/Leeson that has made a genuinely extraordinary profit mind...
Try and find out who got the biggest bonus of the year. Thats who made the extraordinary profit!
Well yes but has there never been a trader that has stepped outside his or her remit and lucked out ?
I'm sure there has been, when the likes of Kerviel lose £3bn someone else is making £3bn. It's the kind of profit which gets you promotions though...
If you don't mind doing a bit of time in the clink, it sounds like the combination of French employment law and banks terrible attitude toward moral hazard puts you into a no lose situation.
So. Not Paris then.
Not sure why TSE thinks its a good idea to go there really.
It wasn't my first choice, I work with wine drinkers, they like France, one of them is Scottish, so I reckon it is to do with the Auld Alliance.
I would have preferred Barcelona, but Paris is easier to get to.
Surprised Amsterdam wasn't considered. I know it's been on the radar for a few companies who's staff are refusing to go to Paris.
It was a contender, but Paris is easier logistically, plus we have more French speakers than Netherlander speakers.
Dublin was considered, but ruled out due to the smallness of place and the ability to expand.
Berlin was ruled out because you tell half of it was run by Communists for nearly 50 years.
One of the more intriguing options was Edinburgh, in a post Brexit, post Scottish Independence world.
But that ruled out because oil would need to hit around £1 million a barrel for an iScotland to have the resource to bail out the financial services sector....
I can think of much worse places to work than Paris. Much worse.
Well, yes just about everywhere in Africa and the Middle East for a start. However, within the EU I should have thought Paris would be well down the list as the optimal place to do business.
Rome, Milan, Barcelona, Prague, Munich, but not many others, I think.
I think people are making a mistake to think it's ONLY the Tory MPs who are directly going to lose their seats who would be tempted to rebel. Remember, even if a Tory MP is projected to still have a safe seat on the new boundaries, most of them are still going to get a chunk of extra constituents moved into their constituency - that inevitably means a heavier workload in terms of constituency casework. Will all of them really be voting for that, when they already feel overworked as it is?
That would be a terrible reason to reject the proposals, besides given that on average their constituencies were already on the bigger side, will it really be that much extra work.
Yes. Have a look at the spreadsheet which details what % of old constituencies are going into the new ones -- outside of the South East, most Tory MPs' new seats are a fair bit bigger than their old ones. It doesn't usually put their jobs in danger, because it's usually just a chunk of another Tory seat which is being moved into their new one, but it still means more constituents and thus a heavier workload.
And anyone who votes against the three line whip to pass these much-needed reforms should be told their case load will be reduced to zero ...
Absolutely. The work of the whips starts now, in moving the people around to make everyone happy. A complicating factor will be 19 MEPs, some of whom will want a job too. There will accommodation of key ministers out of marginals, of those who will retire and those who can be persuaded by a dimplmatic role or a kick to the red branches, etc. A bit of work to do but there's a couple of years and more revisions to come.
But anyone who dares vote against the result can expect to face deselection. This will be the most important vote of this Parliament and there will the mother of all three line whips on it.
So how many PBers are now in a "new" constituency, how many live in the same constituency as before?
I think Shepherds Bush green has moved from Hammersmith to a new constituency called Ealing Central and Shepherds Bush. Not sure how safe that will be for Labour (I presume).
Kevin Schofield @PolhomeEditor 59m59 minutes ago Senior Conservative source says there a "60-40" chance the boundary changes WON'T happen.
Absolute tosh in my opinion. The idea the next election might be fought on boundaries 20 years out of date is unthinkable.
Why, when the voting system itself is a century out of date?
The voting system is the same for all voters (even if in any one election cycle it may favour supporters of one or two parties over others. But remember, which parties it favours can change without changing the system. With the exception of UKIP, all main GB parties have benefited at one point or another, and all parties have been penalized at one point or another).
Not adjusting boundaries means that inequalities between voters arise.
Comparing apples with oranges.
The only voters that matter under the current system are swing voters in marginal seats. Who get all the attention from the principal parties' campaigning (pre-Corbyn, who hence is doomed) and at whom most policy innovations are targeted. Everyone else can go hang.
The comments are truly joyous to behold, even for the Guardian. They know (in their heart of hearts) that the proposals are a democratic improvement of the current situation, but they don't like it one bit. Heh.
The 14 unchanged seats in the North West, all Labour held:
Blackley & Broughton Chorley Garston & Halewood Knowsley Leigh Makerfield Manchester Gorton Manchester Withington Salford & Eccles St Helens North St Helens South & Whiston Wigan Worsley & Eccles South Wythenshawe & Sale East
I think people are making a mistake to think it's ONLY the Tory MPs who are directly going to lose their seats who would be tempted to rebel. Remember, even if a Tory MP is projected to still have a safe seat on the new boundaries, most of them are still going to get a chunk of extra constituents moved into their constituency - that inevitably means a heavier workload in terms of constituency casework. Will all of them really be voting for that, when they already feel overworked as it is?
That would be a terrible reason to reject the proposals, besides given that on average their constituencies were already on the bigger side, will it really be that much extra work.
Yes. Have a look at the spreadsheet which details what % of old constituencies are going into the new ones -- outside of the South East, most Tory MPs' new seats are a fair bit bigger than their old ones. It doesn't usually put their jobs in danger, because it's usually just a chunk of another Tory seat which is being moved into their new one, but it still means more constituents and thus a heavier workload.
In Australia they have just 150 MPs for a population of 23 million. On the same basis we would have about 430 MPs. Germany has 631 MPs for 81 million. That would be equivalent to 515 in the UK.
But we have the world's only Upper House wot is bigger than its respective Lower House, so if anything it's the Lords wot needs cutting!
I recall from my local government days that the Department of the Environment, as was, used the cube-root of the population of a district to determine the number of members of councils. By that measure, the Commons should be approximately 400 members.
Kevin Schofield @PolhomeEditor 59m59 minutes ago Senior Conservative source says there a "60-40" chance the boundary changes WON'T happen.
Absolute tosh in my opinion. The idea the next election might be fought on boundaries 20 years out of date is unthinkable.
Why, when the voting system itself is a century out of date?
The voting system is the same for all voters (even if in any one election cycle it may favour supporters of one or two parties over others. But remember, which parties it favours can change without changing the system. With the exception of UKIP, all main GB parties have benefited at one point or another, and all parties have been penalized at one point or another).
Not adjusting boundaries means that inequalities between voters arise.
Comparing apples with oranges.
The need to redraw constituency boundaries at regular intervals in as politically neutral a manner as possible is a major weakness in the FPTP system.
''But anyone who dares vote against the result can expect to face deselection. This will be the most important vote of this Parliament and there will the mother of all three line whips on it.''
Talking of whipping, can labour be really sure of blairites who are stepping down and stepping out?
A quick out and back to Lymington Pier yesterday afternoon ended up taking 90 minutes later than it should have done, as we were stuck at Micheldever due to a broken down freight train!
I know you like riding the rails, but it's a shame you don't see a little more of the places you see. Lymington's a nice little town, and a little way away is Mr Llama's namesake, with a rather nice fort on it.
I'm always curious as to why I've never heard of a Kerviel/Leeson that has made a genuinely extraordinary profit mind...
Try and find out who got the biggest bonus of the year. Thats who made the extraordinary profit!
Well yes but has there never been a trader that has stepped outside his or her remit and lucked out ?
I'm sure there has been, when the likes of Kerviel lose £3bn someone else is making £3bn. It's the kind of profit which gets you promotions though...
If you don't mind doing a bit of time in the clink, it sounds like the combination of French employment law and banks terrible attitude toward moral hazard puts you into a no lose situation.
So. Not Paris then.
Not sure why TSE thinks its a good idea to go there really.
It wasn't my first choice, I work with wine drinkers, they like France, one of them is Scottish, so I reckon it is to do with the Auld Alliance.
I would have preferred Barcelona, but Paris is easier to get to.
Surprised Amsterdam wasn't considered. I know it's been on the radar for a few companies who's staff are refusing to go to Paris.
It was a contender, but Paris is easier logistically, plus we have more French speakers than Netherlander speakers.
Dublin was considered, but ruled out due to the smallness of place and the ability to expand.
Berlin was ruled out because you tell half of it was run by Communists for nearly 50 years.
One of the more intriguing options was Edinburgh, in a post Brexit, post Scottish Independence world.
But that ruled out because oil would need to hit around £1 million a barrel for an iScotland to have the resource to bail out the financial services sector....
The dutch are very happy to speak english, unlike the french. Also why on earth should the financial sector expect another bailout if the shit hits the fan ? Surely all the depositor/investment banking issues from 2008 are sorted now.
In your dreams. Look at the state of Italian banks, for instance.
I'm always curious as to why I've never heard of a Kerviel/Leeson that has made a genuinely extraordinary profit mind...
Try and find out who got the biggest bonus of the year. Thats who made the extraordinary profit!
Well yes but has there never been a trader that has stepped outside his or her remit and lucked out ?
I'm sure there has been, when the likes of Kerviel lose £3bn someone else is making £3bn. It's the kind of profit which gets you promotions though...
If you don't mind doing a bit of time in the clink, it sounds like the combination of French employment law and banks terrible attitude toward moral hazard puts you into a no lose situation.
So. Not Paris then.
Not sure why TSE thinks its a good idea to go there really.
It wasn't my first choice, I work with wine drinkers, they like France, one of them is Scottish, so I reckon it is to do with the Auld Alliance.
I would have preferred Barcelona, but Paris is easier to get to.
Surprised Amsterdam wasn't considered. I know it's been on the radar for a few companies who's staff are refusing to go to Paris.
It was a contender, but Paris is easier logistically, plus we have more French speakers than Netherlander speakers.
Dublin was considered, but ruled out due to the smallness of place and the ability to expand.
Berlin was ruled out because you tell half of it was run by Communists for nearly 50 years.
One of the more intriguing options was Edinburgh, in a post Brexit, post Scottish Independence world.
But that ruled out because oil would need to hit around £1 million a barrel for an iScotland to have the resource to bail out the financial services sector....
I can think of much worse places to work than Paris. Much worse.
Well, yes just about everywhere in Africa and the Middle East for a start. However, within the EU I should have thought Paris would be well down the list as the optimal place to do business.
Rome, Milan, Barcelona, Prague, Munich, but not many others, I think.
Not Frankfurt, Berlin, anywhere in the Netherlands, Lisbon or even the Nordics?
I'm always curious as to why I've never heard of a Kerviel/Leeson that has made a genuinely extraordinary profit mind...
Try and find out who got the biggest bonus of the year. Thats who made the extraordinary profit!
Well yes but has there never been a trader that has stepped outside his or her remit and lucked out ?
I'm sure there has been, when the likes of Kerviel lose £3bn someone else is making £3bn. It's the kind of profit which gets you promotions though...
If you don't mind doing a bit of time in the clink, it sounds like the combination of French employment law and banks terrible attitude toward moral hazard puts you into a no lose situation.
So. Not Paris then.
Not sure why TSE thinks its a good idea to go there really.
It wasn't my first choice, I work with wine drinkers, they like France, one of them is Scottish, so I reckon it is to do with the Auld Alliance.
I would have preferred Barcelona, but Paris is easier to get to.
Surprised Amsterdam wasn't considered. I know it's been on the radar for a few companies who's staff are refusing to go to Paris.
It was a contender, but Paris is easier logistically, plus we have more French speakers than Netherlander speakers.
Dublin was considered, but ruled out due to the smallness of place and the ability to expand.
Berlin was ruled out because you tell half of it was run by Communists for nearly 50 years.
One of the more intriguing options was Edinburgh, in a post Brexit, post Scottish Independence world.
But that ruled out because oil would need to hit around £1 million a barrel for an iScotland to have the resource to bail out the financial services sector....
The dutch are very happy to speak english, unlike the french. Also why on earth should the financial sector expect another bailout if the shit hits the fan ? Surely all the depositor/investment banking issues from 2008 are sorted now.
In your dreams. Look at the state of Italian banks, for instance.
Yes, but that's the fault of the EU's mad banking regulations. Italy would have bailed out its banking sector last year without the new regulations on bail outs.
A quick out and back to Lymington Pier yesterday afternoon ended up taking 90 minutes later than it should have done, as we were stuck at Micheldever due to a broken down freight train!
I know you like riding the rails, but it's a shame you don't see a little more of the places you see. Lymington's a nice little town, and a little way away is Mr Llama's namesake, with a rather nice fort on it.
Lymington is most sublime. The fort, less so: although created by good King Henry VIII it was substantially expanded as part of what remains, to this day (in real terms) the biggest ever public spending project and the biggest ever waste of government money.
"I'm supporting democratic changes. You're allowing your prejudices to affect your judgement. He's supporting rank gerrymandering on behalf of his party"
The beauty of it is that it's just as apt for either side.
Daily Express reporting that the House of Lords Constitution Committee have demanded that Theresa May obtains expilicit permission from Parliament before applying Article 50. Any other action would be wholly inappropriate.
Just who do they think they are - time to abolish the lot of these unelected nonentities
In your dreams. Look at the state of Italian banks, for instance.
Although it is worth remembering that the Italian banking problem is a very small one. The problem in Italy is that the government didn't bail out the banks when everyone else did (2008-2011), and the requirement that junior debt holders are "bailed-in".
Ultimately, the Italian issue is a problem for shareholders, for Italian households who own bank debt, and for Renzi, but is not a systematic issue.
I'd also point out that the ultimate size of your banking issue depends on two factors: 1. The structure of your banking sector, with mutual (and ex-mutual) lenders tending to have the biggest problems (see the Populare in Italy, the Caixa in Spain, the ex-building societies and Co-Op bank in the UK, and the Landesbank in Germany). 2. The amount people actually owe. Fortunately, the Italians are remarkably unindebted. There was no housing boom in Italy. Credit cards are rare. Really, the big - ultimate - issue with the Italian banking sector (other than the Populare) is that recovery rates on business debts are woeful because the Italian legal system moves at a glacial pace.
It strikes me that when Corbyn tightens his grip on Labour, the threat of abstaining on boundaries might be one of the remaining Blairites' few ways of keeping the hounds of hell off their backs.
Yes, but that's the fault of the EU's mad banking regulations. Italy would have bailed out its banking sector last year without the new regulations on bail outs.
It is extraordinary that the Italians failed to notice - when they signed up to the directive - that they were basically the only Eurozone country that had not bailed out their banks. Hmmm (they should have thought) perhaps we'd better do something proactively before the shit hits the fan.
I'm always curious as to why I've never heard of a Kerviel/Leeson that has made a genuinely extraordinary profit mind...
Try and find out who got the biggest bonus of the year. Thats who made the extraordinary profit!
Well yes but has there never been a trader that has stepped outside his or her remit and lucked out ?
I'm sure there has been, when the likes of Kerviel lose £3bn someone else is making £3bn. It's the kind of profit which gets you promotions though...
Not true. Our own Kerviel - Adoboli - lost money not because it was going to the counterparty on the other side of the trade. It was the margin calls (similar to a deposit) which had to be paid to the exchange where he was making his bets. As his trades turned against him, the margin which had to be paid was increased and in ca. six weeks the amount he had to pay i.e. the amount lost increased from £220 million to £1.5 billion, when the trades were finally closed out. That was a result of him having utterly misread the market and it turning against him. Exactly the same MO as Leeson and Barings. He should not have been taking any sort of risk at all as he was meant only to be trading for clients. How he managed to evade the controls is another story. You won't hear a word of truth out of him, mind, despite his attempts in recent weeks to reinvent himself.
While it may have been the margin calls to the exchange that "bust" him (in more ways than one!) would there not have been other parties on the other side of his trades that the exchange then owed the money to (minus fees/commission)?
Seperately but related, in one of his books Taleb talks about how an extremely high proportion of his liffetime trading profits were made during 1-2 days. His risk managers were concerned (to put it mildly) about how he had managed to make so much, although in this case (in his retelling) it had all been accomplished within his agreed limits.
On places that are awful to work one regularly gets approached with cold-call offers on LinkedIn in the infrastructure sector to work in the Middle East by recruiters.
One such zero-effort approach was, "Hi - would you be interested in an opportunity to work on the Riyadh metro?"
Why is there a frog standing directly behind Trump?
That’s Pepe. He’s a symbol associated with white supremacy.
Whilst Trump is launching his paid maternity leave policy Clinton is getting worked up over frog memes... Interesting set of priorities. Clinton will lose if she keeps up her lying and general incompetence.
A quick out and back to Lymington Pier yesterday afternoon ended up taking 90 minutes later than it should have done, as we were stuck at Micheldever due to a broken down freight train!
I know you like riding the rails, but it's a shame you don't see a little more of the places you see. Lymington's a nice little town, and a little way away is Mr Llama's namesake, with a rather nice fort on it.
Sunil didn't take his Railways Anonymous meetings at all seriously: "I would be in a semi-circle with all these recovering trainspotters plus our advisor, then put my hand up in order to sneak off to the loo to read Rail Magazine, go back to them and then exclaim "I got 30 seconds clean!". I was taking the piss, but I was doing it to myself..."
I think people are making a mistake to think it's ONLY the Tory MPs who are directly going to lose their seats who would be tempted to rebel. Remember, even if a Tory MP is projected to still have a safe seat on the new boundaries, most of them are still going to get a chunk of extra constituents moved into their constituency - that inevitably means a heavier workload in terms of constituency casework. Will all of them really be voting for that, when they already feel overworked as it is?
That would be a terrible reason to reject the proposals, besides given that on average their constituencies were already on the bigger side, will it really be that much extra work.
Yes. Have a look at the spreadsheet which details what % of old constituencies are going into the new ones -- outside of the South East, most Tory MPs' new seats are a fair bit bigger than their old ones. It doesn't usually put their jobs in danger, because it's usually just a chunk of another Tory seat which is being moved into their new one, but it still means more constituents and thus a heavier workload.
In Australia they have just 150 MPs for a population of 23 million. On the same basis we would have about 430 MPs. Germany has 631 MPs for 81 million. That would be equivalent to 515 in the UK.
But we have the world's only Upper House wot is bigger than its respective Lower House, so if anything it's the Lords wot needs cutting!
If it were filled with experts, then size shouldn't matter. Political appointments need to be stopped/heavily curtailed.
Try and find out who got the biggest bonus of the year. Thats who made the extraordinary profit!
Well yes but has there never been a trader that has stepped outside his or her remit and lucked out ?
I'm sure there has been, when the likes of Kerviel lose £3bn someone else is making £3bn. It's the kind of profit which gets you promotions though...
If you don't mind doing a bit of time in the clink, it sounds like the combination of French employment law and banks terrible attitude toward moral hazard puts you into a no lose situation.
So. Not Paris then.
Not sure why TSE thinks its a good idea to go there really.
It wasn't my first choice, I work with wine drinkers, they like France, one of them is Scottish, so I reckon it is to do with the Auld Alliance.
I would have preferred Barcelona, but Paris is easier to get to.
Surprised Amsterdam wasn't considered. I know it's been on the radar for a few companies who's staff are refusing to go to Paris.
It was a contender, but Paris is easier logistically, plus we have more French speakers than Netherlander speakers.
Dublin was considered, but ruled out due to the smallness of place and the ability to expand.
Berlin was ruled out because you tell half of it was run by Communists for nearly 50 years.
One of the more intriguing options was Edinburgh, in a post Brexit, post Scottish Independence world.
But that ruled out because oil would need to hit around £1 million a barrel for an iScotland to have the resource to bail out the financial services sector....
The dutch are very happy to speak english, unlike the french. Also why on earth should the financial sector expect another bailout if the shit hits the fan ? Surely all the depositor/investment banking issues from 2008 are sorted now.
In your dreams. Look at the state of Italian banks, for instance.
Yes, but that's the fault of the EU's mad banking regulations. Italy would have bailed out its banking sector last year without the new regulations on bail outs.
Exactly right. If the Italians are allowed to do what the Spanish have already done (as they probably will, in time) then the Italian banking problems are resolved.
I think people are making a mistake to think it's ONLY the Tory MPs who are directly going to lose their seats who would be tempted to rebel. Remember, even if a Tory MP is projected to still have a safe seat on the new boundaries, most of them are still going to get a chunk of extra constituents moved into their constituency - that inevitably means a heavier workload in terms of constituency casework. Will all of them really be voting for that, when they already feel overworked as it is?
That would be a terrible reason to reject the proposals, besides given that on average their constituencies were already on the bigger side, will it really be that much extra work.
Yes. Have a look at the spreadsheet which details what % of old constituencies are going into the new ones -- outside of the South East, most Tory MPs' new seats are a fair bit bigger than their old ones. It doesn't usually put their jobs in danger, because it's usually just a chunk of another Tory seat which is being moved into their new one, but it still means more constituents and thus a heavier workload.
In Australia they have just 150 MPs for a population of 23 million. On the same basis we would have about 430 MPs. Germany has 631 MPs for 81 million. That would be equivalent to 515 in the UK.
But we have the world's only Upper House wot is bigger than its respective Lower House, so if anything it's the Lords wot needs cutting!
If it were filled with experts, then size shouldn't matter. Political appointments need to be stopped/heavily curtailed.
In your dreams. Look at the state of Italian banks, for instance.
Although it is worth remembering that the Italian banking problem is a very small one. The problem in Italy is that the government didn't bail out the banks when everyone else did (2008-2011), and the requirement that junior debt holders are "bailed-in".
Ultimately, the Italian issue is a problem for shareholders, for Italian households who own bank debt, and for Renzi, but is not a systematic issue.
I'd also point out that the ultimate size of your banking issue depends on two factors: 1. The structure of your banking sector, with mutual (and ex-mutual) lenders tending to have the biggest problems (see the Populare in Italy, the Caixa in Spain, the ex-building societies and Co-Op bank in the UK, and the Landesbank in Germany). 2. The amount people actually owe. Fortunately, the Italians are remarkably unindebted. There was no housing boom in Italy. Credit cards are rare. Really, the big - ultimate - issue with the Italian banking sector (other than the Populare) is that recovery rates on business debts are woeful because the Italian legal system moves at a glacial pace.
Italian bank issues may not by systemic in the way that Lehmans was. But the psychological effect on people in Europe if another banking system in a major European country collapses or gets into trouble and how people may react is unknown. They may react more strongly precisely because they thought these issues had been cured. The financial sector has little credit left with the public.
Exactly right. If the Italians are allowed to do what the Spanish have already done (as they probably will, in time) then the Italian banking problems are resolved.
The Spanish banking problem cost around EUR400bn to sort out. The Italian one requires perhaps EUR35bn. (The difference being that property development loans, which dominated the books of the Spanish Caixa, are the easiest way for banks to lose to staggering amounts of money.)
Yes, but that's the fault of the EU's mad banking regulations. Italy would have bailed out its banking sector last year without the new regulations on bail outs.
It is extraordinary that the Italians failed to notice - when they signed up to the directive - that they were basically the only Eurozone country that had not bailed out their banks. Hmmm (they should have thought) perhaps we'd better do something proactively before the shit hits the fan.
I still don't understand why Renzi doesn't just bail them out and dare the EU to intervene or reverse the bailouts. If they try they will literally be clearing the way for an M5S victory and eventually Itexit. If they don't he might even win his referendum as it will lead to in improvement in economic conditions.
"I'm supporting democratic changes. You're allowing your prejudices to affect your judgement. He's supporting rank gerrymandering on behalf of his party"
The beauty of it is that it's just as apt for either side.
Yes, the reaction to the proposals are a very irregular verb, judging by the comments so far.
I'm always curious as to why I've never heard of a Kerviel/Leeson that has made a genuinely extraordinary profit mind...
Try and find out who got the biggest bonus of the year. Thats who made the extraordinary profit!
Well yes but has there never been a trader that has stepped outside his or her remit and lucked out ?
I'm sure there has been, when the likes of Kerviel lose £3bn someone else is making £3bn. It's the kind of profit which gets you promotions though...
Not true. Our own Kerviel - Adoboli - lost money not because it was going to the counterparty on the other side of the trade. It was the margin calls (similar to a deposit) which had to be paid to the exchange where he was making his bets. As his trades turned against him, the margin which had to be paid was increased and in ca. six weeks the amount he had to pay i.e. the amount lost increased from £220 million to £1.5 billion, when the trades were finally closed out. That was a result of him having utterly misread the market and it turning against him. Exactly the same MO as Leeson and Barings. He should not have been taking any sort of risk at all as he was meant only to be trading for clients. How he managed to evade the controls is another story. You won't hear a word of truth out of him, mind, despite his attempts in recent weeks to reinvent himself.
While it may have been the margin calls to the exchange that "bust" him (in more ways than one!) would there not have been other parties on the other side of his trades that the exchange then owed the money to (minus fees/commission)?
Seperately but related, in one of his books Taleb talks about how an extremely high proportion of his liffetime trading profits were made during 1-2 days. His risk managers were concerned (to put it mildly) about how he had managed to make so much, although in this case (in his retelling) it had all been accomplished within his agreed limits.
No - there were no counterparties. It was all smoke and mirrors and cancelled / hidden trades. He claimed wrongly that there were counterparties and, in the end, it was the lies about this which eventually caught him before he finally made his "confession".
In your dreams. Look at the state of Italian banks, for instance.
Although it is worth remembering that the Italian banking problem is a very small one. The problem in Italy is that the government didn't bail out the banks when everyone else did (2008-2011), and the requirement that junior debt holders are "bailed-in".
Ultimately, the Italian issue is a problem for shareholders, for Italian households who own bank debt, and for Renzi, but is not a systematic issue.
I'd also point out that the ultimate size of your banking issue depends on two factors: 1. The structure of your banking sector, with mutual (and ex-mutual) lenders tending to have the biggest problems (see the Populare in Italy, the Caixa in Spain, the ex-building societies and Co-Op bank in the UK, and the Landesbank in Germany). 2. The amount people actually owe. Fortunately, the Italians are remarkably unindebted. There was no housing boom in Italy. Credit cards are rare. Really, the big - ultimate - issue with the Italian banking sector (other than the Populare) is that recovery rates on business debts are woeful because the Italian legal system moves at a glacial pace.
Italian bank issues may not by systemic in the way that Lehmans was. But the psychological effect on people in Europe if another banking system in a major European country collapses or gets into trouble and how people may react is unknown. They may react more strongly precisely because they thought these issues had been cured. The financial sector has little credit left with the public.
The issue is that as it stands the Italian banking sector is unable to function properly and that means it is dragging the Italian economy down with it. If they rescue the sector then it will be a net gain, even in the very short term.
Politically if it is done in defiance of the EU then it might have popular support as well.
As a matter of practical politics, it would have been much more sensible for Cameron to have kept the number of constituencies unchanged. That at least would have removed one spurious argument against the plan.
Still, it's amusing to see the extraordinary contortions of logic being used by the left to justify the current manifest unfairness. I particularly enjoyed this little gem:
However, the evidence is that the register is less complete in urban areas (especially within London), among recent movers and private renters, Commonwealth and EU nationals, non-white ethnicities, lower socioeconomic groups, citizens with mental disabilities and young people. This means that these groups will receive less representation in Parliament. Political inequality will be hard wired into the composition of the House of Commons.
In other words, people who aren't registered (or in some cases even eligible) to vote should be counted in the Labour column.
Yes, but that's the fault of the EU's mad banking regulations. Italy would have bailed out its banking sector last year without the new regulations on bail outs.
It is extraordinary that the Italians failed to notice - when they signed up to the directive - that they were basically the only Eurozone country that had not bailed out their banks. Hmmm (they should have thought) perhaps we'd better do something proactively before the shit hits the fan.
I still don't understand why Renzi doesn't just bail them out and dare the EU to intervene or reverse the bailouts. If they try they will literally be clearing the way for an M5S victory and eventually Itexit. If they don't he might even win his referendum as it will lead to in improvement in economic conditions.
The bit that sticks in my throat is that the biggest bank bail outs in the Eurozone (in Euro terms, rather than percent of GDP) were in Germany!
I think Renzi is trying to be a "good European" and come up with a solution that satisfies the hawks in Berlin. Hence all the messing around with Aliante.
But you're right: if no compromise is reached, then I think he'll just bail them out and dare the EU to do something. Frankly, sticking two fingers up at the EU on the verge of the referendum might be just what he needs to win it
As a matter of practical politics, it would have been much more sensible for Cameron to have kept the number of constituencies unchanged. That at least would have removed one spurious argument against the plan.
Still, it's amusing to see the extraordinary contortions of logic being used by the left to justify the current manifest unfairness. I particularly enjoyed this little gem:
However, the evidence is that the register is less complete in urban areas (especially within London), among recent movers and private renters, Commonwealth and EU nationals, non-white ethnicities, lower socioeconomic groups, citizens with mental disabilities and young people. This means that these groups will receive less representation in Parliament. Political inequality will be hard wired into the composition of the House of Commons.
In other words, people who aren't registered (or in some cases even eligible) to vote should be counted in the Labour column.
As a matter of practical politics, it would have been much more sensible for Cameron to have kept the number of constituencies unchanged. That at least would have removed one spurious argument against the plan.
Still, it's amusing to see the extraordinary contortions of logic being used by the left to justify the current manifest unfairness. I particularly enjoyed this little gem:
However, the evidence is that the register is less complete in urban areas (especially within London), among recent movers and private renters, Commonwealth and EU nationals, non-white ethnicities, lower socioeconomic groups, citizens with mental disabilities and young people. This means that these groups will receive less representation in Parliament. Political inequality will be hard wired into the composition of the House of Commons.
In other words, people who aren't registered (or in some cases even eligible) to vote should be counted in the Labour column.
Yes, because a MP represents all their constituents, not just registered voters.
But one vote should be worth more or less the same, whichever constituency you live in. It's unfair to the voters generally to award extra representation to voters in inner urban areas.
Yes, but that's the fault of the EU's mad banking regulations. Italy would have bailed out its banking sector last year without the new regulations on bail outs.
It is extraordinary that the Italians failed to notice - when they signed up to the directive - that they were basically the only Eurozone country that had not bailed out their banks. Hmmm (they should have thought) perhaps we'd better do something proactively before the shit hits the fan.
"I'm supporting democratic changes. You're allowing your prejudices to affect your judgement. He's supporting rank gerrymandering on behalf of his party"
The beauty of it is that it's just as apt for either side.
Yes, the reaction to the proposals are a very irregular verb, judging by the comments so far.
People can just summarise them with: "I support the Tories" or "I support Labour"
Of course, everyone on both sides immediately raises hackles and explains that no, THEY are being rational and logical in defence of fairness and democracy; it's the other buggers who are allowing their partisan allegiance to affect them. It's a pure coincidence how it happens to fall down along party lines, after all.
Yes, but that's the fault of the EU's mad banking regulations. Italy would have bailed out its banking sector last year without the new regulations on bail outs.
It is extraordinary that the Italians failed to notice - when they signed up to the directive - that they were basically the only Eurozone country that had not bailed out their banks. Hmmm (they should have thought) perhaps we'd better do something proactively before the shit hits the fan.
I still don't understand why Renzi doesn't just bail them out and dare the EU to intervene or reverse the bailouts. If they try they will literally be clearing the way for an M5S victory and eventually Itexit. If they don't he might even win his referendum as it will lead to in improvement in economic conditions.
The bit that sticks in my throat is that the biggest bank bail outs in the Eurozone (in Euro terms, rather than percent of GDP) were in Germany!
I think Renzi is trying to be a "good European" and come up with a solution that satisfies the hawks in Berlin. Hence all the messing around with Aliante.
But you're right: if no compromise is reached, then I think he'll just bail them out and dare the EU to do something. Frankly, sticking two fingers up at the EU on the verge of the referendum might be just what he needs to win it
Yes, Hyporealestate was pretty massive, even bigger than our bailouts iirc.
What do you make of the Deutsche/Commerzbank merger rumours? Strikes me as a HP Compaq type of deal, two pieces of junk flying into each other.
Comments
Hornchurch & Upminster
Kingston & Surbiton
Richmond Park
Twickenham
Wards:
Aldborough
Bridge
Fairlop
Fullwell
Hainault
Roding
Chadwell
Newbury
Seven Kings
I can't recall any policy stuff from Hillary so far - just lots of identity politicking. Really interesting to see where this goes over the next couple of weeks.
I would have preferred Barcelona, but Paris is easier to get to.
I am led to believe that the people who registered in the run-up to the referendum are more evenly distributed - although unlike IER I haven't actually seen any figures. Common sense would suggest that last minute registrations would tend to be more likely in areas of transient population, but if the actual pattern was more even than the IER reduction this reduces the strength of Labour's complaint. Obviously if the late registrations are completely evenly spread then it makes no difference to the boundaries as proposed.
Dublin was considered, but ruled out due to the smallness of place and the ability to expand.
Berlin was ruled out because you tell half of it was run by Communists for nearly 50 years.
One of the more intriguing options was Edinburgh, in a post Brexit, post Scottish Independence world.
But that ruled out because oil would need to hit around £1 million a barrel for an iScotland to have the resource to bail out the financial services sector....
The Commission appears to have taken each sub-region and worked around the perimeter, making up the numbers for the existing constituencies by adding wards taken from those in the centre of the sub-region. Therefore whilst many of the seats around the edges make some sort of sense, when you look at the middle of the sub-regions we essentially have seats made up of all the wards that are left. Hence "Ilford North" loses areas like Clayhall and Barkingside, that have always been regarded as core Ilford North wards, but gains other wards from the south of the Borough.
Thought this story might be of professional interest to you, if you have not already seen it:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-13/wells-fargo-eliminates-product-sales-goals-for-retail-bankers
Surely all the depositor/investment banking issues from 2008 are sorted now.
As for bail outs, I'm surprised its still an issue after the BRRD. It seems to have put a lot of European banks into a state of purgatory where they can't raise money because they are insolvent but the government doesn't want to pull the trigger on a bail in because it is politically poisonous to hit retail bond holders and uninsured depositors.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/13/boundary-changes-tories-ruthless-gerrymandering?CMP=share_btn_tw
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Maryland_US_Congressional_District_3_(since_2013).tif/lossless-page1-400px-Maryland_US_Congressional_District_3_(since_2013).tif.png
Or, indeed, its Second:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Maryland_US_Congressional_District_2_(since_2013).tif/lossless-page1-400px-Maryland_US_Congressional_District_2_(since_2013).tif.png
Mark Carney is one of the few the central bankers in the world to put together the resources to ensure stability on June 24th,
Or they breach them because they think they ought to take more risk and make more profits. I have investigated people who have done just that and they have gone to disciplinary.
WHAT IN THE ACTUAL ???????????????????????????????
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/
Why is there a frog standing directly behind Trump?
That’s Pepe. He’s a symbol associated with white supremacy.
Not adjusting boundaries means that inequalities between voters arise.
Comparing apples with oranges.
Plus, if they stay out of jail, such traders are usually in high demand once they have been fired. (But we're talking about traders who bet the farm 5x leveraged and lose. Not those who commit some kind of fraud eg Kweku, Leeson, etc.)
But anyone who dares vote against the result can expect to face deselection. This will be the most important vote of this Parliament and there will the mother of all three line whips on it.
Blackley & Broughton
Chorley
Garston & Halewood
Knowsley
Leigh
Makerfield
Manchester Gorton
Manchester Withington
Salford & Eccles
St Helens North
St Helens South & Whiston
Wigan
Worsley & Eccles South
Wythenshawe & Sale East
https://twitter.com/JeremyCorbyn4PM/status/775665384829485056
Talking of whipping, can labour be really sure of blairites who are stepping down and stepping out?
And your precious Dave? Where is he??
Birmingham Hodge Hill
Burton
Cannock Chase
Coventry North East
North Shropshire
South Staffordshire
Sutton Coldfield
You're allowing your prejudices to affect your judgement.
He's supporting rank gerrymandering on behalf of his party"
The beauty of it is that it's just as apt for either side.
Just who do they think they are - time to abolish the lot of these unelected nonentities
Ultimately, the Italian issue is a problem for shareholders, for Italian households who own bank debt, and for Renzi, but is not a systematic issue.
I'd also point out that the ultimate size of your banking issue depends on two factors: 1. The structure of your banking sector, with mutual (and ex-mutual) lenders tending to have the biggest problems (see the Populare in Italy, the Caixa in Spain, the ex-building societies and Co-Op bank in the UK, and the Landesbank in Germany). 2. The amount people actually owe. Fortunately, the Italians are remarkably unindebted. There was no housing boom in Italy. Credit cards are rare. Really, the big - ultimate - issue with the Italian banking sector (other than the Populare) is that recovery rates on business debts are woeful because the Italian legal system moves at a glacial pace.
Chelmsford
Epping Forest
Hitchin & Harpenden
Thurrock
Waveney
West Suffolk
The comments are interesting too.
Seperately but related, in one of his books Taleb talks about how an extremely high proportion of his liffetime trading profits were made during 1-2 days. His risk managers were concerned (to put it mildly) about how he had managed to make so much, although in this case (in his retelling) it had all been accomplished within his agreed limits.
One such zero-effort approach was, "Hi - would you be interested in an opportunity to work on the Riyadh metro?"
My response, "No."
"I would be in a semi-circle with all these recovering trainspotters plus our advisor, then put my hand up in order to sneak off to the loo to read Rail Magazine, go back to them and then exclaim "I got 30 seconds clean!". I was taking the piss, but I was doing it to myself..."
Politically if it is done in defiance of the EU then it might have popular support as well.
I think Renzi is trying to be a "good European" and come up with a solution that satisfies the hawks in Berlin. Hence all the messing around with Aliante.
But you're right: if no compromise is reached, then I think he'll just bail them out and dare the EU to do something. Frankly, sticking two fingers up at the EU on the verge of the referendum might be just what he needs to win it
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/13/traditional-blue-british-passport-could-return-home-office-hints/
"I support the Tories"
or
"I support Labour"
Of course, everyone on both sides immediately raises hackles and explains that no, THEY are being rational and logical in defence of fairness and democracy; it's the other buggers who are allowing their partisan allegiance to affect them.
It's a pure coincidence how it happens to fall down along party lines, after all.
What do you make of the Deutsche/Commerzbank merger rumours? Strikes me as a HP Compaq type of deal, two pieces of junk flying into each other.