Barclays scandal: MP's radical plan gaining support (From Bucks Free Press)

Wycombe Council's leader works for Barclays, how much can we get out of him?

spot on - only I suspect this idea will be quashed straight away

Never mind paying to keep them in prison.. just get the money back.
~
That info will take a bit of shredding.

I hardly think Mr Diamond has necessarily caused any losses to be repaid.

Libor is calculated by asking 18 major banks in London what their planned interest rate is going to be the next day.

They then disregard the top 4 rates and the bottom 4 rates and average the remaining 10 to get the Libor rate.

It would be difficult to lay anything at Bob Diamond's door in a system like that.

If Libor was manipulated, it would take a number of other banks to be colluding too.

true voyeur - but you're ignoring the conclusion of the FSA report who penalised Barclays as a result

Forgive the pun, but more half-baked ideas from the baker.

The idea of claiming the money back is a preposterous one as the bankers have contract law firmly on their side.

Nice to see Baker trying to gain votes and raise his own profile by spouting total rubbish.
.
Maybe we should have the same rule for all the cretinous politicians of all hues consistently work for their own benefit at the expense of the rest of us.
.
Baker wants to progress his career. He couldn't care less about anyone else.

Why isn't the BFP talking about this:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/business-18713
483

Michael Shanley guilet of Tax Evasion!?!?!?

When you look at how LIBOR is determined and the vested interest of the participants, most people with a modicum of common sense will say that it's obviously open to abuse. Therefore the regulator (FSA), with their financial expertise and understanding of markets, must surely have realised that it needed to be properly regulated. So why didn't they?
.
Picking up on Steve Baker's point about making bankers personally liable, I'd suggest two things: (1) It'll just increase the market in personal indemnity insurance, as bankers will just take out insurance policies against such circumstances. (2) If you're proposing a society whereby people literally "pay the price" for the consequences of their actions, then legislators, civil servants, local government officers and MP's should share the responsiblity and be held accountable for their actions (or inactions) too.

gpn01 wrote:
When you look at how LIBOR is determined and the vested interest of the participants, most people with a modicum of common sense will say that it's obviously open to abuse. Therefore the regulator (FSA), with their financial expertise and understanding of markets, must surely have realised that it needed to be properly regulated. So why didn't they?
.
Picking up on Steve Baker's point about making bankers personally liable, I'd suggest two things: (1) It'll just increase the market in personal indemnity insurance, as bankers will just take out insurance policies against such circumstances. (2) If you're proposing a society whereby people literally "pay the price" for the consequences of their actions, then legislators, civil servants, local government officers and MP's should share the responsiblity and be held accountable for their actions (or inactions) too.

Quite right gpn01.
.
Baker is in this for the publicity.
"Look at me Joe Public, I'm having a go a the nasty bankers who get big bonuses. Aren't I a wonderful politician. Vote for me."
.
The idea is pure fantasy and unworkable, but raises Baker's profile which is his only real aim.
.
I do not support bankers and their obscene bonuses, neither do I support politicians who are only in it for themselves.

gpn01 wrote:
When you look at how LIBOR is determined and the vested interest of the participants, most people with a modicum of common sense will say that it's obviously open to abuse. Therefore the regulator (FSA), with their financial expertise and understanding of markets, must surely have realised that it needed to be properly regulated. So why didn't they?
.
Picking up on Steve Baker's point about making bankers personally liable, I'd suggest two things: (1) It'll just increase the market in personal indemnity insurance, as bankers will just take out insurance policies against such circumstances. (2) If you're proposing a society whereby people literally "pay the price" for the consequences of their actions, then legislators, civil servants, local government officers and MP's should share the responsiblity and be held accountable for their actions (or inactions) too.

Unfortunately you are very right in what you say.

But there is another way of dealing with it - stop the bonus culture by law- pay a commission based on profits just as in any other industry - the good ones will still make the big money the dross can go to Switzerland if they want and Tax so called Banks (or Share Trading companies as they really are) properly.

DonRockell wrote:

gpn01 wrote:
When you look at how LIBOR is determined and the vested interest of the participants, most people with a modicum of common sense will say that it's obviously open to abuse. Therefore the regulator (FSA), with their financial expertise and understanding of markets, must surely have realised that it needed to be properly regulated. So why didn't they?
.
Picking up on Steve Baker's point about making bankers personally liable, I'd suggest two things: (1) It'll just increase the market in personal indemnity insurance, as bankers will just take out insurance policies against such circumstances. (2) If you're proposing a society whereby people literally "pay the price" for the consequences of their actions, then legislators, civil servants, local government officers and MP's should share the responsiblity and be held accountable for their actions (or inactions) too.

Unfortunately you are very right in what you say.

But there is another way of dealing with it - stop the bonus culture by law- pay a commission based on profits just as in any other industry - the good ones will still make the big money the dross can go to Switzerland if they want and Tax so called Banks (or Share Trading companies as they really are) properly.

Something that people just don't seem to "get" is this about the bonus culture:
.
(1) Most of us have pension plans. These work by investing money in shares of companies. This is with the expectation that the value of the shares will rise and/or dividends will be paid.
.
(2) Share prices rise because of the profitibility of a business is deemed by the market (= pension funds, insurance companies, businesses and private shareholders) to be healthy.
(3) A company makes a bigger profit by incentivising its employees to contribute to its profit.
(4) In manufacturing this may be done by working harder, reducing the cost of production, etc, etc. In the service sector (e.g. finance) it's done by identifying potential "opportunities" and exploiting them accordingly.
(5) End result is that employees (e.g. bankers) are paid bonuses in order to make bigger profits for the employer. This leads to an increaes in shareholder wealth which in turns leads to our pension plans getting better.

In other words, bankers (and others in the finance sector) are incentivised in order to benefit you. If you don't want them to behave in this way on your behalf then insist that your pension portfolio doesn't include investments in the finance sector. Then take the moral high ground because the manufacturing sector often exploits third world workers. Ensure your portfolio doesn't include enineering that may involve the defence sector (after all people get killed by weapons), insist that you don't invest in energy (pollution, etc) or natural resources (exploitation of land in third world), etc. etc. You don't end up with much left to invest in :-(

gpn01 wrote:

DonRockell wrote:

gpn01 wrote:
When you look at how LIBOR is determined and the vested interest of the participants, most people with a modicum of common sense will say that it's obviously open to abuse. Therefore the regulator (FSA), with their financial expertise and understanding of markets, must surely have realised that it needed to be properly regulated. So why didn't they?
.
Picking up on Steve Baker's point about making bankers personally liable, I'd suggest two things: (1) It'll just increase the market in personal indemnity insurance, as bankers will just take out insurance policies against such circumstances. (2) If you're proposing a society whereby people literally "pay the price" for the consequences of their actions, then legislators, civil servants, local government officers and MP's should share the responsiblity and be held accountable for their actions (or inactions) too.

Unfortunately you are very right in what you say.

But there is another way of dealing with it - stop the bonus culture by law- pay a commission based on profits just as in any other industry - the good ones will still make the big money the dross can go to Switzerland if they want and Tax so called Banks (or Share Trading companies as they really are) properly.

Something that people just don't seem to "get" is this about the bonus culture:
.
(1) Most of us have pension plans. These work by investing money in shares of companies. This is with the expectation that the value of the shares will rise and/or dividends will be paid.
.
(2) Share prices rise because of the profitibility of a business is deemed by the market (= pension funds, insurance companies, businesses and private shareholders) to be healthy.
(3) A company makes a bigger profit by incentivising its employees to contribute to its profit.
(4) In manufacturing this may be done by working harder, reducing the cost of production, etc, etc. In the service sector (e.g. finance) it's done by identifying potential "opportunities" and exploiting them accordingly.
(5) End result is that employees (e.g. bankers) are paid bonuses in order to make bigger profits for the employer. This leads to an increaes in shareholder wealth which in turns leads to our pension plans getting better.

In other words, bankers (and others in the finance sector) are incentivised in order to benefit you. If you don't want them to behave in this way on your behalf then insist that your pension portfolio doesn't include investments in the finance sector. Then take the moral high ground because the manufacturing sector often exploits third world workers. Ensure your portfolio doesn't include enineering that may involve the defence sector (after all people get killed by weapons), insist that you don't invest in energy (pollution, etc) or natural resources (exploitation of land in third world), etc. etc. You don't end up with much left to invest in :-(

Some of us -Had pensions but thanks to the way these hard working and very selfless people wasted the money - I along with a lot of others saw my pension fund shredded to almost nothing. Lost in admin costs, poor yields and companies using pension funds to bey companies that I once worked for.

And still the get their bonus's. sorry but there comes a point where the Moral ground is not being walked on by those who continually moan that we just don't understand how hard they work, that they are worth the money or that bonuses are part of their pay package.

Bonus is exactly that. A Bonus is a reward for good work and a thank you for putting yourself out above and beyond what you are being paid for - not a given or part of a pay package.

None of the pension companies have done anything to make up for the losses but they all still pay bonuses for failure and nonperformance.