Bank of America fine $17 Billion dollars

Status
Not open for further replies.
ebb said:
How can you put forward the argument it was a long time ago?? Should Rolf Harris have used this defence?? Or the argument that the offenders have left their jobs?? If that's the case why do we keep banging on about Hillsborough which was 25 years ago when all the offenders have left there jobs.

The we are all on this together ethos is flawed as well. Bank workers still get decent annual pay rises, public sector don't. The only people that pay their full taxes are people who are in paye schemes not self employed where taxing is based largely on trust and honesty. We are not all in this together.
Click to expand...
Source please or I'm calling bullshit.

Mud you might want to take the lack of public sector pay rises up with Dave, not the banks, mate.
 


Flared Hicks said:
for it's part in the financial crisis.

The compensation will come in two parts: $9 billion in cash and $7 billion in consumer relief, such as modified home loans and refinanced mortgages

Any of our resident banking apologists still want to defend them?

My question is where does the fine money go? I guess we all know where it comes from - us!!

http://rt.com/business/178728-boa-record-compensation-payment/
Click to expand...


they're not very good bankers if they think 9 +7 = 17
 
It's wrong to include blame on the average Joe in the street for the financial crisis imo. People who are just trying to make ends meet/improve their famillies lifestyle are bound to act on advice from a supposed professional/expert on such financial matters.
 
monkeytassle said:
out of any given sample of individuals there will always be arseholes. sadly.
Click to expand...

Of course. The problem arises when the "arseholes", or in my view the psychopaths, are allowed to dominate and then propagate a culture. Apportioning blame to victims of the banking crash doesn't wash with me mate, never will, so best save our fingers on that one.
 
---Nemo--- said:
Of course. The problem arises when the "arseholes", or in my view the psychopaths, are allowed to dominate and then propagate a culture. Apportioning blame to victims of the banking crash doesn't wash with me mate, never will, so best save our fingers on that one.
Click to expand...
I got confused and thought I was on the Muslim thread there.
 
monkeytassle said:
I'm not defending goldies at all.


we're not all arseholes you know.

fwiw the industry is a a hell of a lot cleaner than pre-08. unrecognisable.
Click to expand...

1) Yes you are. I'm calling it crooked, deceitful and citing the SEC's case against them that they acted improperly, had a conflict of interest and deliberately deceived the market and their investors. You're saying it wasn't that bad of a deal and the people who lost money knew the risks.

2) I'm just saying Goldman are arseholes

3) That's terrific, but while I hear you say that things are much better now than they were, every single case from the bad times that's ever been discussed on here, you've been on hand to say how the behaviour of the miscreants is not so serious or immoral and everyone outside the industry is making a mountain out of a molehill

monkeytassle said:
mate people working in investment banks the world over are just other people.
Click to expand...

I thought individuals are irrelevant?

And since 2008 when everything got cleaned up, we had the Libor rigging scandal, a UK high street bank deliberately driving businesses into liquidation so they can make more money out of disposing of their assets. JP Morgan taking a 12 billion dollar fine, Goldman Sachs and other institutions are under investigation for breaking US tax evasion laws, and HSBC getting caught money laundering for the drug cartels. They did however decline to offer porn stars banking services on moral and reputation grounds, so it's good to know they have standards.
 
Last edited:
Cockney Mackem said:
1) Yes you are. I'm calling it crooked, deceitful and citing the SEC's case against them that they acted improperly, had a conflict of interest and deliberately deceived the market and their investors. You're saying it wasn't that bad of a deal and the people who lost money knew the risks.

2) I'm just saying Goldman are arseholes

3) That's terrific, but while I hear you say that things are much better now than they were, every single case from the bad times that's ever been discussed on here, you've been on hand to say how the behaviour of the miscreants is not so serious or immoral and everyone outside the industry is making a mountain out of a molehill



I thought individuals are irrelevant?
Click to expand...

1) no. no I'm not. I think I've been explicit in what my feelings on goldmans are. you are citing an SEC case which the department of justice dismissed. I was asking if the shoe was on the other foot would you have been so forthright. every tmie there is a bank thread you come on here wildly throwing your anti-goldman stance around and every time (twice prior to this) I've introduced facts for context. The people who lost money did indeed know the risks. sadly they were greedy and reached for yield. I haven't even spoken about rating agencies in this either.

2) ok fine, you have your opinions. they align with mine.

3) I have said nothing of the sort. I find it hard to make a molehill out of a global recession. like I said above the whole thing was caused by greed. banks provided the conduit for it all to happen. they were part of the puzzle, not the puzzle.

4) stop being silly. that is insider trading. wholly different to a corrupt institution which is what you were alluding to.
 
You know the fact I'm saying the Abacus case is corrupt and crooked, and you're arguing that the justice department rejected the case and that the blame lies with people other than Goldman Sachs, how is that not defending them?

And just to be clear. I'm not alluding, I'm saying Goldman Sachs is a corrupt and criminal enterprise. The fact they aren't all in jail is because they are as adept at staying one step ahead of the law as a skilled wealthy criminal with access to the best lawyers, advisers and politicians in their pocket. They are quite happy to break the law if they can get away with it and pay to make it go away if they are caught. As I said, they are under investigation for knowingly breaking US tax law.
 
Guess one thing we need to decide is: are you (or a group/company) a criminal when you break the law, or a court of law finds you guilty of a crime?
 
chr1s1973 said:
Which "handout" are you talking about? TARP? The bailouts (most of which were repaid here very quickly and again, were a short term funding issue due to the systemic failure after Lehmans). I don't remember exactly when BoA bought Merrills, I'm pretty sure it was a Thursday but it was one of a succession of failures at the time, when each week they were having these meetings with officials and firms to try and sort something out to stop liquidation, therefore a hard default. Things moved very quickly and got a lot worse for these guys after Lehmans went though, when there was nobody else left to buy this shit.
Click to expand...
The TARP funds were handed out with no truly enforceable restrictions, when SIGTARP tried to get this looked at they were shat on by the Treasury department.
Code: 
A review of investor presentations and conference calls by executives of some two dozen US-based banks by The New York Times found that "few [banks] cited lending as a priority. Further, an overwhelming majority saw the program as a no-strings-attached windfall that could be used to pay down debt, acquire other businesses or invest for the future."[70] The article cited several bank chairmen as stating that they viewed the money as available for strategic acquisitions in the future rather than to increase lending to the private sector, whose ability to pay back the loans was suspect. PlainsCapital chairman Alan B. White saw the Bush administration's cash infusion as a "opportunity capital", noting, "They didn't tell me I had to do anything particular with it."

Like asking your Dad to bail you out cos you fucked up the mortgage and then pissing off to Ibiza the following week
 
Cockney Mackem said:
Goldman, JP Morgan, HSBC and Barclays have all been fined for criminal activity. HSBC were laundering drug money.
Click to expand...
Those issues didn't lead to the financial crisis though.

HSBC, aye, criminal and it's still mind bogging that they only got fined like this.

I don't know about the others being "criminal". As I said, a lot of it is just a witch hunt. Barclays and all of the other false LIBOR submissions, while immoral, could have had been the thing that kept the system afloat.

ebb said:
How can you put forward the argument it was a long time ago?? Should Rolf Harris have used this defence?? Or the argument that the offenders have left their jobs?? If that's the case why do we keep banging on about Hillsborough which was 25 years ago when all the offenders have left there jobs.

The we are all on this together ethos is flawed as well. Bank workers still get decent annual pay rises, public sector don't. The only people that pay their full taxes are people who are in paye schemes not self employed where taxing is based largely on trust and honesty. We are not all in this together.
Click to expand...
Becuase the underlying caused of what happened have been identified and fixed by regulators. Hillsbrough dragged on as they didn't identify blame.

However, you are confusing different points. The people who actually acted in violation of laws

It's a long time ago and industry-wide things have changed immeasurably. I agree though, if they can prosecute people who they can prove acted illegally, then they should be doing that.
 
Last edited:
peil said:
The TARP funds were handed out with no truly enforceable restrictions, when SIGTARP tried to get this looked at they were shat on by the Treasury department.
Code: 
A review of investor presentations and conference calls by executives of some two dozen US-based banks by The New York Times found that "few [banks] cited lending as a priority. Further, an overwhelming majority saw the program as a no-strings-attached windfall that could be used to pay down debt, acquire other businesses or invest for the future."[70] The article cited several bank chairmen as stating that they viewed the money as available for strategic acquisitions in the future rather than to increase lending to the private sector, whose ability to pay back the loans was suspect. PlainsCapital chairman Alan B. White saw the Bush administration's cash infusion as a "opportunity capital", noting, "They didn't tell me I had to do anything particular with it."

Like asking your Dad to bail you out cos you fucked up the mortgage and then pissing off to Ibiza the following week
Click to expand...
If you look at it like they made a collective decision to fuck things up, then took money they didn't need then you are right.

However, there was so much uncertainty at the time, they took what they could get. A big issue at the time was also the credibility of the government, some of the institutions said they participated in these short term measures to show that they were supporting the measures to add credibility to the scheme and support the treasury department's measures.

HellsBells said:
All keep me in a job.
Click to expand...
I need to get in to risk, there is far more future in it than things I've done.
 
chr1s1973 said:
If you look at it like they made a collective decision to fuck things up, then took money they didn't need then you are right.

However, there was so much uncertainty at the time, they took what they could get. A big issue at the time was also the credibility of the government, some of the institutions said they participated in these short term measures to show that they were supporting the measures to add credibility to the scheme and support the treasury department's measures.


I need to get in to risk, there is far more future in it than things I've done.
Click to expand...
Do you want a job? I'll be hiring soon. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top