RBS posts £5.2bn loss.....

Discussion in 'Economics' started by geezer466, Feb 28, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Treble champers all round........All is well in the City....

    RBS posts £5.2bn loss in 'chastening year' - Telegraph

    State-run RBS to pay up to 250 million pounds in bonuses - FT | Reuters

    Seems the UK press except the FT was strangely silent on the last story had to go to reuters for the link.

    So they fiddled LIBOR... As did other banks but where the fines equate to pretty much half the bonus pool and no actual jail time for those involved where is the dis-incentive?

    Or is it the Banks see fiddling and illegal behaviour as justifiable in the pursuit of profit (and bonuses).
  2. Still get their bonuses. So no panic at RBS.
    Good job its state owned or it might have been in trouble.

  3. **** me! Banks can't win can they!

    You bitch and moan if they make billions of dollars in profit, and divvy it up amongst their workers, or you bitch and moan when they fail.
  4. Alsacien

    Alsacien LE Moderator

    It is a bit like that.

    Can someone tell me if its a "we hate bankers day", or a "we need to protect The City" day - I sometimes get confused......
    • Like Like x 2
  5. And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
    Gave proof thro' the night that our PA was still there.
  6. Wordsmith

    Wordsmith LE Book Reviewer

    I think the problem is the banks or bankers seem to be willing to take stupid risks in the pursuit of financial rewards or ego boosts.

    One of the reasons RBS went tits up was it was run by Fred the Shred Goodwin whose ego outstripped his talents and whose purchase of ABN Amro was a colossally stupid decision that was called as such by the majority of financial analysts at the time.

    Banking is meant to be inherently prudent. One of the reasons banks and bankers get such a bad press is that the standard of their decision making in the years running up to the Lehman crash was abysmally poor and their standard of honesty as to the root causes after the event was seriously lacking.

    • Like Like x 1
  7. If we want a return on our 'investment' it is in our interests to see that banking returns once again to a respected status. Keep giving it a kicking will only harm that recovery. You cannot have it both ways.
  8. Banking and other financial services are of course 'earners' for the City and benefit the overall economy, but they still need to learn that they must operate inside the law.

    Stephen Hestor said on R4 this morning that RBS are saying that if you disregard the losses they made a healthy profit..

    I foresee a healthy career in politics for Mr Hestor when he has enough of banking.
  9. Wordsmith

    Wordsmith LE Book Reviewer

    The only way banking will return to a respected status is if senior bankers rediscover their moral compass and start taking more responsible, long term decisions. One of the reasons banking is in disrepute is that many of its senior executives began to behave more like barrow boys in an east end market than executives responsible for the safe and judicious investment of trillions of pounds.

    Respect is easily lost if you start behaving like a spiv - and it is not so easily regained.

    • Like Like x 3
  10. I totally agree. Surely we should give some credit for the attempts being made to ensure this fiasco can't happen again. I am pretty sure that the majority working in banking are convinced of your statement too, of course there will be rotten apples as in any business which will ensure it is a long hard road for them to travel. It is necessary for the UK to support the financial sector, get it back on its feet and return the support it has been given. Alternatively we can continue to offer no support and see it go down the drain with our money.
  11. The biggest trouble for bankers is that they are now perceived in a totally different light to they were before the crisis. It isn't just the crisis, it's the Libor scandal the selling PPI scandal the endowment mortgage scandal. I had naively thought that banks as institutions were the epitome of respect and to be trusted implicitly. The bank managers was a rather stern uncle who would tell you off if you were getting a little flash and advice you how to invest your money wisely and make it go as far as you can.

    I think with most people it's not the World banking crisis but it's the realisation that the banks you thought you could trust, who stood for authority, honesty and integrity. The ones the very expression you can bank on it was coined for aren't the upright and honest people you thought they were and they will sell you a heap of junk as much as the next men. I'm sure the sums in compensation that are being paid out may go some way to soothe hurt feelings but there still remains, who can you trust if you cannot trust your high street bank?
  12. They are human beings. It is your choice whom you decide to trust and put up on a pedastel. Personally I trust and respect those I know, for anyone else I reserve judgement. Those who make wrong choices on whom to trust end up disappointed, but in reality who is to blame?
  13. I do not think anyone complained too much about the banks making billions until they were to big to fail and we had to bail them out. That they took tax payers bail out money and still expect us to think they are capable of being trusted is, perhaps, an indication or how arrogant and out of touch they were and, it would appear, remain.

    If the company you work for has made a loss how can it pay bonuses? Some will say "but our division did really well so we should get a bonus"; wrong, your company made a loss and you are lucky you are still getting paid (and without tax payers money your company would not exist). Be thankful for that and when we make a profit you may get a bonus. Alternatively leave and get a job in another bank!
    • Like Like x 2
  14. Indeed they are human beings but I'm talking about the institutions that are banks. It is perfectly understandable that the odd banker might be less than honest but the banks themselves regulated themselves and worked hard to be the image they sold to the public.

    There are certain institutions that you ought to be able to trust and , on the whole you can trust. It is the institution you're putting your faith in not the individual. PPI wasn't the odd shady individual flouting bank policy, it was bank policy and it was forced on the individual working in the bank who was told to not only sell it but to stuff it down everyone's throat regardless of needs or suitability.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. The institution that is a bank. Hmmm. That seems to me a bit like trusting in God. The 'institution' (bank) the same as 'the Church' the reality is it is just people. The same as 'society'. It is people, human beings. WE made a mistake, WE are paying for our own mistakes. Perhaps once we deal with realities instead of the images we are fed we will begin to make progress.