Capitalist: "Government is screwing up the banks!"YMix wrote:But these people are not capitalists! They are government agents! And the financial markets haven't failed! Show me one that failed! And laws are bad and should be broken because they are made by the government!
Ahem.
Ibrahim: "Its' cause they're all Racists!"Ibrahim wrote:Capitalist: "Government is screwing up the banks!"YMix wrote:But these people are not capitalists! They are government agents! And the financial markets haven't failed! Show me one that failed! And laws are bad and should be broken because they are made by the government!
Ahem.
Socialist: "Banks are screwing up the government!"
Realist: "We're all screwed!"
Hedonist: "Let's screw!"
"We become wiser by adversity; prosperity destroys our appreciation of the right."Typhoon wrote:~ Abraham LincolnNearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.
JP Morgan cuts Q1 profits on fears traders hid losses
The largest bank in the United States said it was reducing its net income for the first quarter by $459m to $4.92bn because it had discovered information that "raises questions about the integrity" of values placed on certain trades.
The much-publicised loss, caused by a bad derivatives trades in its Chief Investment Office (CIO), is more than double the bank's original estimate of $2bn.
The loss and restatement were unveiled with second-quarter results showing a profit of $4.96bn, compared with a $471m loss in same three months last year. The quarter to June includes the bank's disclosure of the trading loss on May 10.
Brilliant.Ibrahim wrote:Capitalist: "Government is screwing up the banks!"YMix wrote:But these people are not capitalists! They are government agents! And the financial markets haven't failed! Show me one that failed! And laws are bad and should be broken because they are made by the government!
Ahem.
Socialist: "Banks are screwing up the government!"
Realist: "We're all screwed!"
Hedonist: "Let's screw!"
Simple Minded wrote:"We become wiser by adversity; prosperity destroys our appreciation of the right."Typhoon wrote:~ Abraham LincolnNearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.
Seneca
"I'll say this for adversity, people seem to be able to stand it, and that's more than I can say for prosperity."
"Everything in the world may be endured except continual prosperity."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Current story of "The West"....?
~ after Abe LincolnNearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him prosperity.
I enjoyed it also. However the truth is it is impossible to tell where banks and government begin or end, which is the problem.Typhoon wrote:Brilliant.Ibrahim wrote:Capitalist: "Government is screwing up the banks!"YMix wrote:But these people are not capitalists! They are government agents! And the financial markets haven't failed! Show me one that failed! And laws are bad and should be broken because they are made by the government!
Ahem.
Socialist: "Banks are screwing up the government!"
Realist: "We're all screwed!"
Hedonist: "Let's screw!"
Private banks can and do screw up, so do state owned banks. Why is that?Mr. Perfect wrote:I enjoyed it also. However the truth is it is impossible to tell where banks and government begin or end, which is the problem.
We need to build a wall of separation between bank and state. Tinker would do it, I would do it, but moderates never will. So it will continue for some time.
And there is tremendous profit opportunity here, I think it is your patriotic duty to profit of this stuff and put the wealth to good use, until it all runs out.
Right. That shifts the problem... somewhat.Mr. Perfect wrote:They are run by human beings.
In all human activity, the risk is managed (not entirely removed) by law and law enforcement. It begs the question; who decide on the rules in the financial industry and how are those rules enforced. It seems to me that since law and law enforcement is usually delegated to the government.. it cannot totally stay out.Mr. Perfect wrote:Yes. Governments should not create the illusion of mitigated risk on human activity. It can't be done.
Law and law enforcement allow for a FED, FDIC, Freddie Fannie that did what they did and do what they do. Thy are protected.Mr. Perfect wrote:We're not talking about law enforcement, we are talking about central planning entities like Fed, FDIC, Freddie Fannie, who distort markets to achieve political aims.
If people do things that are allowed by law.. they simply have the right to do so. Too bad for you if you don't like some of those behaviors. If you consider some of those behaviors unacceptible because it causes tremendous damage to many human lives.. you may want to change the law. Don't see any space there. To review and revise laws is part of life.Fraud is fraud, no one is talking about getting rid of that, we're talking about getting rid of illusions and mirages that make stupid people (Harvard Democrats) run off cliffs.
You could get rid of those things without touching law enforcement. They are not law enforcement themselves.Parodite wrote: Law and law enforcement allow for a FED, FDIC, Freddie Fannie that did what they did and do what they do. Thy are protected.
I'm not the one complaining, everyone around me tells me banks are reckless criminals, and I can't find a law they broke, not any that pertain to our economic disaster. You are talking to the wrong guy.If people do things that are allowed by law.. they simply have the right to do so. Too bad for you if you don't like some of those behaviors.
That's true, I would like to delete oceans of law, but I want to also delete oceans of agencies. Random slash and burn will suffice.If you consider some of those behaviors unacceptible because it causes tremendous damage to many human lives.. you may want to change the law. Don't see any space there. To review and revise laws is part of life.
Pension funds hide true cost to consumers
Purchasers of personal pensions are being misled about the level of hidden costs and charges, according to a report published by the RSA (Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts Manufactures and Commerce).
Following a year-long investigation into the pensions industry, Seeing through the British Pension System found that 21 out of 23 providers denied there were any additional charges other than the annual management charge (AMC) and administration costs.
Written by David Pitt Watson, a leading pension fund manager and RSA researcher Harinder Mann, the report concludes there is a huge danger of inappropriate pensions being sold to unsuspecting customers.
The report uncovers how those selling pensions fail to reveal what is charged for such items as audit and custodial costs, and other hidden costs including taxes, stock lending fees and broking commissions.
Furthermore, even when costs are declared, it is not done in a way in which typical pension savers are likely to understand. The enormous impact of fees, where an extra 2 percent annual charge can, over the lifetime of a pension, result in a halving of pension benefit, is not understood by individual consumers or by small employers, the report concludes.
"For markets to work effectively, consumers need to know what they are buying. It is extraordinary that, after so many years, such a system is not in place in this country," David Pitt Watson said.
"It is vital people have access to straightforward, accurate, high quality information. Our report provides simple, low cost suggestions which will benefit all pension suppliers who wish to succeed on the basis of the value of the products they sell. But more importantly, by providing this information, Britons can have greater confidence in the saving system, and enjoy better, higher pensions for less cost."
The report found that in Denmark, a full clear statement is provided to pension holders. It concludes that the same could, and indeed must be made available in Britain if the pension market is to work effectively. With auto-enrolment into pensions shortly to be introduced, the report warns that small businesses have little idea about which providers represent good value for money and that there is a huge danger that they will be sold expensive and inappropriate products.
The report notes that the DWP has inadvertently allowed the removal of consumer protections that presently cover workplace pensions — without which there is a real danger of these otherwise admirable reforms resulting in a mis-selling scandal.
The report recommends that pension funds learn from their European counterparts (in particular Denmark) who provide an annual statement (presented like a bank statement) which reconciles their investment savings. It also calls for the introduction of a 'statement before purchase' which shows the likely effect that fees will have on their pension outcome.
"Our research shows that customers simply do not understand the pensions they are buying, because they are being badly misled about the true nature of costs and charges," RSA researcher Harinder Mann said.
"Under these circumstances, markets will fail; customers will buy bad products and good pension suppliers are likely to be replaced by bad ones. Yet simple systems exist to solve this problem, which are used in countries such as Denmark. Our report provides simple, low cost suggestions which would help Britons enjoy greater confidence in the saving system."
Depends on the amount skimmed.Mr. Perfect wrote:This is the old bucket shop argument, ie if my stock broker is skimming in the spread he must be a bad guy.
False binary choice.Mr. Perfect wrote:Well would you prefer in the end to have a skimming broker that makes you money or a squeaky clean guy that loses your money. Opinions vary.
Claiming to be erudite in matters financial, or other, does not make one so esp on an anonymous board.Mr. Perfect wrote:The level that people can't comprehend financial matters never, ever ceases to amaze me. Every time I think I've seen the limit someone goes over.
Feel free to add choices.Typhoon wrote: Depends on the amount skimmed.
A trillion here and a trillion there and soon you're talking real money.
False binary choice.
The arguments tend to settle the debate.Mr. Perfect wrote: Claiming to be erudite in matters financial, or other, does not make one so esp on an anonymous board.
If you're unhappy with how much the government is skimming you, you should move to another government.Mr. Perfect wrote:Eg, if you are not happy with the returns at a given fund you can simply change to another fund, regardless of how much in fees they take honestly or dishonestly.
