Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

Soultrader

Should We Feel Sorry for Bankers?

Should we feel sorry for bankers?  

23 members have voted

  1. 1. Should we feel sorry for bankers?

    • Yes, I feel sorry for them.
      1
    • No, I do not feel sorry for them.
      16
    • Who cares?
      6


Recommended Posts

I agree as well. I voted who cares?

 

Yep, life is harsh and every day, somewhere in the world, someone is losing out due to something that probably wasn't their fault but end of the day, I agree, who cares?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets get the frame right here.

 

When bankers decide that they are swashbuckling risk takers --- they deserve whatever evil comes their way. Have you heard of a lot of bank CEOs who are giving their bonuses back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets get the frame right here.

 

When bankers decide that they are swashbuckling risk takers --- they deserve whatever evil comes their way. Have you heard of a lot of bank CEOs who are giving their bonuses back?

 

No, but they are the ones who should be suffering.

 

'Swashbuckling risk takers' didn't cause the credit crunch or economic crisis, greedy bank CEO's did but its never the real guilty who get punished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should We Feel Sorry for Bankers?

 

Absolutely not and especially the CEOs who in the UK seem to have not only got away with not losing their positions but are still getting their bonuses. This is the only industry where abject and total failure with astronomic losses results in the same people running the show. It is total lunacy in my view.

 

 

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's unfortunate for the rank-and-file at those banks, but really I know a few of them and most of them are so arrogant it's hard to feel TOO sorry. I try though. Besides, why should they be more special than any other corporate drone that gets laid off?

 

As an aside, did anyone else laugh when they heard about Fuld getting laid out in the Lehman Bros company gym? That guy is such an arrogant ****, he deserves to be stripped of his wealth and put in a housing project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to clear any confusion I may have aroused. I do feel sorry for the likes of Gammajammer (to a degree) but NOT those who orchestrated and allowed the ludicrous mortgage lending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are bankers and there are bankers.

 

The majority of bankers making $US 100 thousand or less probably had no idea what risks their banks were taking on, while most of the CEOs, CFOs probably did and were willing participants. Margins take on risks as well as potential profits and the CEOs were eager to have their big payday and many did and some were smart to get out as Hank Paulson, the present US Treasury secretary did in 2006 with a take of more than $US 500 million from Goldman Sachs (tax free, because US laws allow tax free divest selling of stocks when you enter US government by appointment).

 

In 2004, the SEC allowed the major US investment banks to take on debt much higher than previous levels after the 5 major IBs lobbied for the rule change:

They wanted an exemption for their brokerage units from an old regulation that limited the amount of debt they could take on. The exemption would unshackle billions of dollars held in reserve as a cushion against losses on their investments. Those funds could then flow up to the parent company, enabling it to invest in the fast-growing but opaque world of mortgage-backed securities; credit derivatives, a form of insurance for bond holders; and other exotic instruments.

 

This is probably the single most damaging change in regulation that prompted the ultimate collapse or reorganization of all the US investment banks. Initially, their earnings exploded upwards, but no parabolic market is sustainable. Only 3 short years later the market collapsed and basically they all got margin calls, together with many of their partners in the hedge funds.

 

The present situation would have been a lot more manageable if they only took on debts at less than 10 to 1 instead of the 33 to 1 or even some at 60 to 1. So it is not the mortgage lending that directly led to their collapse, but the leverage that they took in the collateralized lendings.

Edited by thrunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you're the top brass, it's a like a crap shoot knowing you'll walk with a bonus if even things don't pan out (golden parachute), so why not go for broke? Think about it. If they risk, everyone loses, but still walk with a insurance policy to keep you unemployed for a few years if not a lifetime. If you win, everyone's is happy and he get even a bigger cut. So it's win-win situation. That's the kind of backward, f-ed-up incentive and message the financial or corporate breeding we endorse? Doesn't make sense for the longest time, now the consequences are playing out, guess what? People fix things only a tragedy has happen, not before. We deserve what we got. You ignore the problem long enough, it'll come back as a massive snowball.

 

The other thing that's convinced me over time is no matter how smart you are, greed still own you. All these ivy leaguers who run the show in Wall St. are only human. We worship them because of the brain power. They create all these new markets using complex math formulas, wow indeed. But when it comes to greed, nothing to envy, guys. Hell with the formula, take the bigger risk and go for the gold. In the end, they can't control greed either, just like the average joe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

But we should understand - Commercial banks had no choice. “In a time of state-sponsored easy credit all projects get financed by incautious banks with cheap, centrally supplied money. There is no market for cautiously lent money, priced correctly for the risk involved. Why would anyone pay more for funds from a cautious bank when cheaper funds are available from easier sources?” Paul Tustain. Compound that with ‘bureaucratic’ / ‘legal’ pressures to make loans to anyone who wanted to own a house… Heck, under those circumstances, I can’t even blame top level execs for demanding ‘no – lose’ compensation packages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted yes, then realized most of you were talking about CEOs.

 

As for the guys who lost their job and were really just doing what they were told, that sucks. It's devastating to get laid off, and I can't imagine how the guys at LEH must feel after their company went bankrupt. It's not like they were running around like Tarzan taking retarded risks and knowing about it. Of course they know theres risk involved, that's the nature of this business. But I sincerely doubt any of them knew the outcome. It's probably pretty rough on those with families.

 

It's very easy to sit back and point out the blame, even at CEOs. I think it's stupid, because none of us really know the whole story. Even those of us who have done a lot of research, you will still never know the entire story, therefore it's pointeless to sit back and judge - especially in hindsight. And as traders, I'm kind of surprised so many of us are taking that route.

 

I hope we all realize how hated even we are on main street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.