• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

r-u-s-x said:
The vast majority of the "really clever people" in the top banking positions were not worried about the MBS/CLO/CDO/ABS due to past default rates and rating agencies, there were some but they were in the fringes. All that has come after is hindsight - there was no will political or from the markets for more / intrusive regulation but the opposite.
Click to expand...

No idea wha MBS etc are but yes I agree. Humans are all knowing...after the event. Time and again I'm amazed at how little we know until the crowd picks it up and then we're brilliant analysists. True foresight quite a rare thing. The banking collapse was the end of the premise that unregulated markets would ballance themselves. Was that Adam Smith and the hidden hand of the market. Well it don't work without some regulation.

One thing is for sure, if the UK had the right system to police fiancial markets, it would be better off implementing it via the EU. The European Banking Authority has global power. It is also based in London (until it moves to Paris due to Brexit). Things like fianance and global warming are not national issues, and can't be solved nationally. Which is why we need the EU - and it needs us. It has relied on the UK to drive banking regulation for example. But without us, we'll likely still follow global blocks regulation, but we won't be in control of it anymore.

Nevermind Mwahahahah its more Booo to Brexit and its monumental waste of time and downgrading of the UK.
 
Last edited:
SpurMeUp said:
What makes you think the EU will move? In the stakes of who loses most from no deal, it is quite obviously us. They lose too but we are just one of their trading partners. Germany for example still benifits from free trade with france, italy, etc etc as well as free trade deals via the EU with Canada, Japan etc. Why would they sacrifice the unity of the EU to maintain trade with our 50m consumers, knowing that we'd lose more and likely blink first?
Click to expand...

Lets see

From
 
Grays_1890 said:
Lets see

From
Click to expand...

You have no ideas or logic as to why the EU would give us a better deal, just lets see?

There is logic as to why the EU would move. They don't want to destablise the european economy for example, but this logic is outweighed by having to maintain a fair setup for members. Ireland and the rest of the EU nations have to come first over the UK, how could it be any other way? You don't seem to be able to outline any logic for the EU to move to help the UK. Which means you have blind faith.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
SpurMeUp said:
You have no ideas or logic as to why the EU would give us a better deal, just lets see?

There is logic as to why the EU would move. They don't want to destablise the european economy for example, but this logic is outweighed by having to maintain a fair setup for members. Ireland and the rest of the EU nations have to come first over the UK, how could it be any other way? You don't seem to be able to outline any logic for the EU to move to help the UK. Which means you have blind faith.
Click to expand...

I don't run the country and I'm watching line of duty

So yes

Let's see
 
In the same speech about the NI border...
"the evidence is that other arrangements are perfectly possible"
Other arrangements are possible? Ok great, then you'll never need the backstop and you don't need to worry about it. Sorted.

"abundant facilitations already available"
So there are already alternative solutions. Great, lets use them and you'll never have to trigger the backstop.

He's a clownshoe.
 
Last edited:
Rorschach said:
In the same speech about the NI border...
"the evidence is that other arrangements are perfectly possible"
Other arrangements are possible? Ok great, then you'll never need the backstop and you don't need to worry about it. Sorted.

"abundant facilitations already available"
So there are alternative solutions. Great, lets use them and you'll never have to trigger the backstop.

He's a clownshoe.
Click to expand...
We won't ever use the death penalty, but let's keep it on the statue books
 
r-u-s-x said:
higher level bankers at the time were insisting that governments should not really be regulating the markets at all. They were insisting that their was a new paradigm and CLO / MBS / CDS etc were a new / safe way to increase profit.

Under a judgement based system the same would have happened - what exactly do you think the governor would have stopped?
Click to expand...
I don't think the Governor would have just accepted that it was safe.

I also don't think anyone would have sat in front of him and claimed it either. When there are strict rules to follow and your dodgy system falls outside of them, what's to stop you?
 
Rorschach said:
In the same speech about the NI border...
"the evidence is that other arrangements are perfectly possible"
Other arrangements are possible? Ok great, then you'll never need the backstop and you don't need to worry about it. Sorted.

"abundant facilitations already available"
So there are alternative solutions. Great, lets use them and you'll never have to trigger the backstop.

He's a clownshoe.
Click to expand...

He's not really looking to deliver Brexit. He is looking to win an election. So its back to saying what you like. Campaigning. ...never mind the UK suffers in the interim. People are already poorer for all this. Our cash doesn't go as far as it did pre-2016. But yeah lets all Belive!!! Believe in those who siad Brexit would be easy, quick and simple! Believe!!
 
scaramanga said:
I don't think the Governor would have just accepted that it was safe.

I also don't think anyone would have sat in front of him and claimed it either. When there are strict rules to follow and your dodgy system falls outside of them, what's to stop you?
Click to expand...
Accept what was safe? It was not a dodgy system at the time the vast majority were comfortable it was low risk.

I personally spoke to some major bankers at the time and attended a lot of conferences with market leaders, it's an instance where the market didn't know best

At a stretch CLOs would have been banned, which would have had limited impact.

I honestly can't remember but were the SEC rules based at the time?
 
Last edited:
r-u-s-x said:
Accept what was safe? It was not a dodgy system at the time the vast majority were comfortable it was low risk.

I personally spoke to some major bankers at the time and attended a lot of conferences with market leaders, it's an instance where the market didn't know best

At a stretch CLOs would have been banned, which would have had limited impact.

I honestly can't remember but were the SEC rules based at the time?
Click to expand...
I remember being sat in front of a speech in the early-mid 2000s where some clueless yank was discussing the differences between the rule-based SEC and the principles-based FSA. We all sat and ridiculed him for not understanding that the creation of the FSA was what had killed the judgement-based rule of the Bank of England.

So it was definitely before that, but I don't know how far.

In terms of the safety of the mechanisms used, I don't think any recent Governor would have allowed a system whereby auditors and insurers were as complicit as they were. Whilst layers upon layers made the truth very difficult to determine, it was the job of both to ensure the solidity of the products. Both looked the other way and nobody asked them not to.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Was the global fiancial crisis controlled from the UK? Silly to split hairs on UK histroy when it affected most countries no??
Click to expand...
No Chancellor or PM could have avoided the crisis entirely. But anyone better than a halfwit would have steered clear of claiming to have ended the cycle of boom and bust. They would have used that knowledge to pay down debt and invest when times were good, and they would have been better prepared and more insulated from a recession.
 
scaramanga said:
I remember being sat in front of a speech in the early-mid 2000s where some clueless yank was discussing the differences between the rule-based SEC and the principles-based FSA. We all sat and ridiculed him for not understanding that the creation of the FSA was what had killed the judgement-based rule of the Bank of England.

So it was definitely before that, but I don't know how far.

In terms of the safety of the mechanisms used, I don't think any recent Governor would have allowed a system whereby auditors and insurers were as complicit as they were. Whilst layers upon layers made the truth very difficult to determine, it was the job of both to ensure the solidity of the products. Both looked the other way and nobody asked them not to.
Click to expand...
At the time more or less every expert were saying that they were sound. Both ABS/MBS and CDS which were the main cause - rule based or principle would not change that. They used 50 years of historical evidence without realising shifting risk from the issuer meant it was obsolete.

You can never say for certain but I am very confident that it's the case.. I am not arguing that rule based is better than principle but only that either in this instance would have reached similar conclusions.

The market, the regulators, the quants and the auditors all got it wrong.

What principle did they break?
 
r-u-s-x said:
At the time more or less every expert were saying that they were sound. Both ABS/MBS and CDS which were the main cause - rule based or principle would not change that. They used 50 years of historical evidence without realising shifting risk from the issuer meant it was obsolete.

You can never say for certain but I am very confident that it's the case.. I am not arguing that rule based is better than principle but only that either in this instance would have reached similar conclusions.

The market, the regulators, the quants and the auditors all got it wrong.

What principle did they break?
Click to expand...
I agree with most of that other than the auditors getting it wrong. The auditors didn't look, and that was a major part of the problem. I don't think a governor would have let it slide without one of the big 4 partners being asked to come in and getting grilled. I also don't think he's have accepted any answer they could give him.
 
scaramanga said:
I agree with most of that other than the auditors getting it wrong. The auditors didn't look, and that was a major part of the problem. I don't think a governor would have let it slide without one of the big 4 partners being asked to come in and getting grilled. I also don't think he's have accepted any answer they could give him.
Click to expand...
The auditors take their valuation techniques from the market and the majority were triple A and considered safe, they didn't have the tools to do much different.

Any one he got in would have said the same thing that they were legit and safe, at the time no one realised the risk, everything else is hindsight. There were very few dissenting voices and wouldn't have overridden the senior guys giving advice.

Again what don't you think the governor would let slide? I still don't know what you think he could /would stop

Actually we are going in circles, going to leave it there. Principal or rule would have led us to the same conclusion, the governor wouldn't have overridden the market /experts. The market wouldn't have told him any different, they were not conning anyone but genuinely wrong.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back