Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Will they set up a new website, bbb.bankers.co?

Banks are just not learning.

I have for several years been a self confessed credit card rate tart.
About 5 months ago I transfered debt from a certain credit card to a Barclay Credit Card. Since then each month I have paid of the minimum amount as the card is NO Interest for 12 months.
Despite only paying the minimum monthly payments, I have just received correspondence from Barclays informing me that as they review credit limits on a regular basis they have increased my limit.
Presumably they feel that as I have made the minimum payments on time, this indicates that I can afford to repay a larger debt.
For all they know I can only afford these minimum payments and transfered debt to them from my previous card provider because I just can't afford to pay the full amount off. (I can but they can't know this).
I did not request this limit, nor do I need it.

Will they ever learn.

How you doing? Ok thanksmaking money?.getting by.got any tips?dont invest in the AIM! Cheers mate.dont mention it!

Approximately 40 or so years ago, we were quite friendly with our then bank manager and his family. Visits to each other's homes, evenings out, lunch time and early evening drinks. That kind of thing.

Amongst our many chats, he told me there were four principle guidelines used by the bank for lending out money to a borrower. He referred to them as 'The Four C's'.

I can't actually remember exactly what they were, so I've Googled for the answer.
They are still about. In fact sometimes it seems, there are five or even six of them.

Character; Capacity; Capital and Conditions

Capacity, Credit history, Capital, and Collateral

Five C's of credit

Definition:

Judgmental factors which (in theory) bankers use to evaluate the quality of a personal or small business loan application.

The first four of these are normally under the control of the applicant whereas the fifth is not:

(1) Good reputation and track record (character) that indicates a willingness to meet one's obligations,
(2) Stable and adequate capital base,
(3) Capacity to generate cash flows adequate to cover debt-service,
(4) More than adequate valuable assets for pledging as collateral, and
(5) economic and other conditions conducive to the applicant's plans.

In practice, however, the order of the importance of these factors often is: collateral, capacity, capital, conditions, and character.

The first one being the least important in a way Exec! Take a farmer for example, the value of his farm, and the way he looks after his land, can have a bearing on the value of his property. If he is a good farmer, the asset will be more valuable, if he is a bad farmer, then obviously it would be worth less. I would put more emphasis on the farmer's ability not his collateral. Bank's don't seem able to grasp this context nowadays.

In the farming community, the most needy are usually Tenant Farmers. Getting hold of good assets is therefore, extremely difficult for them. That's probably why there are such a lot of tatty farms about.

Such farmers are also fairly 'private' people and thus not too well up on finance or legalities. It is also quite difficult for them to deal with issues using mainly only reality-type reasons. eg, They might feel that 'Length of time as a customer with the bank' should be the only criteria used as a decision for the granting of an overdraft.

But I really do agree about the quality of decision making by a typical bank lender as being poor. Perhaps, the terms 'jobs worth' or 'robotic' might be more accurate. As in 'Computer says 'now' - (sounds like 'now' but means 'NO' - a la Little Britain).

Its funny that in these tatty farms.. the farmers always drive around in large diesel MercsI wonder what colour their diesel is?and they all have large mattresses.

'Computer' hasn't been saying "no" enough in the last few years!

It really is quite hard to get your head around 'Why' they actually do shove money at you and encourage you to borrow more, without more thoroughly going into the affordability of what they are wanting you to borrow.

It's as though they have an internal culture of mystical belief.

Firstly, that you will not default.
Secondly, that if you do default, then it is going to definitely be some other organisation you actually default with and not theirs.

After typing this, I re-read it and I wondered if I ought to more closely define 'they'.

I concluded, 'No'.

They were all at it. They are all still at it.

The only difference nowadays, is that they charge you more for it.

I sometimes wonder if the banks have adopted the attitude "we are all doomed, let's try to make a quick buck whilst we are here, and to hell with the consequences"!

Today's AFX News Announcement is quite pertinent.

If we saw such an announcement from the banks containing the 'vulnerability' mentioned at the end, then we might well believe the 'old' culture has gone and a 'new' one is on it's way. However, because of the awareness today concerning the possibilities of litigation, it isn't really possible or even sensible. And so we go on, all pretty much 'the same as before':

RPT-FEATURE-Time for bankers to risk an apology?
AFX

LONDON, Oct 20 (Reuters) - No-one expects a fallen Master of the Universe to say sorry. But academics say an apology -- for all the litigation risk it entails -- can be the basis of revitalised confidence and trust.

With global markets paralysed by the inability to rely on a counterparty, and as trust and accountability form the kernel of debates about effective regulation, some say a slice of humble pie now can help ensure bankers earn trust in future.

Several studies in the United States have shown doctors who openly apologised for their mistakes actually reduced their risk of being sued by patients or their families, apparently because the emotive response persuaded people to trust them.

The bankers' journey to restoring complete trust and confidence will be tricky but is ultimately necessary, said Daniel Diermeier, professor of regulation and competitive practice at Northwestern University's Kellogg Management School.

'Financial service CEOs are not exactly known for their humbleness ... arrogance is almost part of the necessary portfolio you have to have to make it to the top,' Diermeier said by telephone from the United States.

One case he cited in comparison was U.S. domestic airline Southwestern Airlines, which faced intense media scrutiny in 2005 after one of its passenger planes skidded off a runway, killing a six-year old boy.

Within hours of the accident its CEO told a news conference: 'there are absolutely no words to accurately state our grief and our sorrow over the tragedy.'

Newspapers quoted analysts praising his response as potentially setting a new standard for how airlines would deal with crisis.

After a drop of 1.5 percent immediately after the crash, Southwest's share price climbed by 3.5 percent within a few days and by March 2006, was 11 percent above pre-crash levels.

'(Financial services show) a totally different attitude,' Diermeier said. 'Because the products are complicated, there's a sense that you are smarter than everyone else and aggressiveness is valued.'

FEELING HORRIBLE

Since one of the first major bank collapses of the current crisis -- Britain's Northern Rock in September 2007 -- the failed institutions have demonstrated degrees of contrition.

Richard Fuld, CEO of collapsed Lehman Brothers, notably told U.S. lawmakers earlier this month he took full responsibility for his actions and felt 'horrible about what has happened to the company', but insisted he shared the blame with regulators and Congress.

The entire management of Deutsche Bank have pledged to forgo bonuses this year, following Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack last year.

But so far -- perhaps on legal advice -- actual apologies have been thin on the ground. Steven Friel, a litigation partner at solicitors Davis Arnold Cooper, says his phone has been ringing 'more often than in a long, long time'.

'Actions speak louder than words,' he said. 'To the man on the street to know that someone has forgone their bonus would be as good as an apology.'

'As soon as you start admitting liability or suggesting any culpability on your own part, you open the door to legal claims. I would not advise that anyone goes so far as apologise for their actions.'

In Britain, the CEO of regulator the Financial Services Authority (FSA) was recently reported to have apologised. 'We have said sorry and I am saying sorry for our supervisory failings,' Hector Sants was quoted in media as saying.

But while his gesture may have been welcome, he was not directly responsible for bringing down an institution.

Unlike in Japan, where the culture of apology is established, it may seem naive to expect American or British banks to go hand-on-heart.

But Keith Skeoch, CEO of Standard Life Investments, Britain's seventh-largest fund manager, said the value of saying sorry should be appreciated by looking at the cost of arrogance in the industry.

'It's the price of arrogance that investors really get concerned about ... It's about making sure there is good engagement,' Skeoch said.

Diermeier argued that in a business which depends heavily on trust, an empathetic, transparent and open approach to the public, customers and shareholders can reap gains.

'The more your dependence on trust the more it's important you understand its effect,' he said.

Fund manager Skeoch said sincere engagement is crucial in building and maintaining trust, and a company's inability to respect shareholder views can be lethal.

Saying nothing is not really an option, said Diermeier: 'Silence is treated as defensive ... if companies don't say anything we assume the worst about them.'

SHOW VULNERABILITY

Of course, the 'never apologise, never explain' dictum is not restricted to bankers. But few expect the current crisis to usher in a new dawn of humility in financial services.

However, the experts do see a precedent for slightly chastened behaviour, in accountancy.

'The real comparative case with financials is the accounting industry (which) went through this meltdown with Enron and Arthur Anderson,' Diermeier said.

'They have adjusted, not just in the way CEOs operate but the way they operate internally,' he said.

'There's much more of an understanding and awareness of reputational risk. I think that's something that will have to happen with the financial services industry.'

But -- in a point widely echoed by others, Benjamin Ho, an assistant professor of economics at the Cornell Johnson School of Management, said apologies also have to seem sincere.

'A carefully crafted legalistic apology is of no use,' he said. 'To be effective, an apology must make the apologizer vulnerable, open either to the possibility of civil suits or other sanctions, or open to the appearance of incompetence.'

(Additional reporting by Olesya Dmitracova; Editing by Sara Ledwith) Keywords: FINANCIAL/SORRY

tf.TFN-Europe_newsdesk@thomsonreuters.com

cmr

I think the banks will have no alternative other than issue apologies.

I'll draft one for them.

"We are absolutely horrified that our customers took it upon themselves to take up mortgages, loans and credit cards without so much as a thought as to the consequences. We can only apologize on their behalf to the world at large."

Over the last few years, banks have been a bit like sex and the single girl.
Remember when those sweet (or not so sweet) nothings whispered in the current girlfriends ear was enough to get you a few hours (alright minutes then) of raw unbridled sex. Those wonderful nights when neither could get or give enough, you know the cries of more, more. Same every night, with no limit on deposits or withdrawals (sorry couldn't resist).
They could have avoided the current situation if they had acted more like a married woman. Sex is only offered when they know you don't really need/want it, like when watching football or racing on TV for example. You have to work bloody hard to get any when you do want it, and when you get it the promised collateral (payback) costs are high like an expensive meal out, clothes shopping etc, leaving you thinking is it worth all the effort.
Mind you I'm sure that many present bank managers go home each night and like the wife, give that old excuse. Please, not tonight I have a headache.

Prerequisite to a night of sex............always have a pack of paracetamol in your pocket.

Kimmost people use a luffa for packingyoure a bit cocky!

I'm thinking about showing them my pet hamster. I reckon it might work every time.

I'm surprised the general concensus here seems to be 'the banks are to blame for everything for lending money to stupid people'.

Blaming the banks is a little like blaming god for putting the apple in the garden of Eden and not Eve for eating it!

This is another example of people not wanting to take responsability for their own lives/actions.

There may be exceptions, such as very very dim or mentally ill , but on the whole people taking out loans, buying bigger houses than they can afford, etc. know exactly what they're doing - a loan isn't one-sided it takes two. Most people in difficulties now stretched themselves through greed, took a gamble, and in some cases it didn't pay off - in most cases it probably will.

There are a whole host of things being sold that we have the choice of buying or not - are we going to blame the shoe shops for my wifes wardrobe being full of shoes although she can only wear one pair at a time? Do we blame off-licenses if we become alcoholics? Then why blame the banks if we become greedy?

True Oblo but on the other hand Banks are supposed to be a responsible body. There has been an element of fear/panic in the house market over the last few years resulting in people paying far too much for a property that is nowhere near it's real worth, which is far less than even now.
The Banks were responsible for ensuring that their customers could repay borrowing leaving over a substantial sum for living expenses and allowing for the inevitable slump in house prices. They did not, so I would apportion the blame at 60% Banks 40% customers.

I agree that the lenders are not fully to blame but if you put easy temptation in peoples path, like those desperate to get a foot on the property ladder or those already struggling to make ends meet, un-repayable debt occurs.
Very few people are totally immune to the devil on the shoulder.
The person who goes through life without ever getting in a bit too deep, is either very lucky, always financially viable or both.
Banks are to blame due to their very poor risk management, IE lending to those who would struggle to repay.
I mainly blame banks and those other financial institution for purchasing those sub prime debt packages that many of them now fully admit to not knowing their value or content. A bit like the old market scams where you buy a box and contents on the word of the seller that it contains something of equal or more value than its buy price.
I feel though the main blame lies with the governments that allowed such debt build ups in the first place. Whilst I am totally against the so called nanny state, governments do have a responsibility to the population to regulate. Without any regulation it is almost impossible for the public at large to know what is or what is not sound financial products, be that an investment of loan or/and interest.
But yes, some people will always blame others and never take any responsibility for their own actions, Gordon Brown being a very prominent example.
As to the future, no doubt governments will make the usual mistake of even more regulation, when what is needed is less such regulation, but better.

Just talking to myself a bit and wondering if our old friend Addo's wealthy customers were the typical sort of punters, who might have been affected in the fallout from recent offshore banking failure?

I'm reading this kind of stuff:

"Many investors did not even invest with the Icelandic banks but joined them by default after Landsbanki took over Cheshire Building Society in Guernsey while the Derbyshire Building Society was acquire by Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Isle of Man.

Wealthy investors who had their cash in offshore bonds could also lose their nest eggs. British investors have as much as 5bn in the schemes, which are used by people who intend to move or retire abroad and mostly have very high minimum investment limits.

Most of the bonds sold by big companies such as Aegon Scottish Equitable, offered an offshore cash account with the Icelandic banks as part of their bonds portfolios.

These are corporate accounts with a collective investment structure and are not automatically eligible for the kind of compensation available to ordinary investors, even if any existed.

So far, 300 Aegon bondholders have been hit with investments amounting 57m, 300 at Axa with holdings of 50m, 120 at Norwich Union with 15m of deposits. The Prudential, Skandia and Clerical Medical who also have exposures said they were investigating the extent of the problem."

More at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/....

I also feel quite sorry for the couple who sold the Caravan Park and lost circa 1.2m, which was temporarily stashed with an Isle of Man subsidiary of Icelandic bank Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander (KSF), which went bust this month.

Despite losing their sale proceeds, they also have a CGT bill of 120,000 to pay. Big Bummer!

More on it here:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article....