H.O.L Test case appeal. Judgement Declared. ***See Announcements***

[srfrench]

Nothing willhappen on Manday Jazzy.

 

No judgement was expected before 26th October....... that's where a lot of people were getting confused.

 

I think it's reasonably safe to say that the judgement will handed down soon.....probably in the next few weeks.

 

Patience........you've come this far......fingers crossed eh?

[yourbank]

Worst case scenario is December 17th which is the recess for the Supreme Court. So I reckon we are looking at sometime in November(if I was a betting man).

[determindator]

I would like to have answers to a couple of sums. First, do we know how much in reclaimed Bank charges is being held in the Court system? Secondly what sort of figure approximately has not been claimed?

 

Can we have a forecast of Bank bonuses for the coming year, I believe a figure of six billion pounds is being pushed around?

[yourbank]

I would like to have answers to a couple of sums. First, do we know how much in reclaimed Bank charges is being held in the Court system? Secondly what sort of figure approximately has not been claimed?

Figures are available on the net with regards to question 1.

I don't think any specific figures are available with regards to unclaimed charges.

Can we have a forecast of Bank bonuses for the coming year, I believe a figure of six billion pounds is being pushed around?

Bank bonuses are nothing to do with bank charges reclaiming so no idea and don't care to be honest so I hope someone else can make a widely speculative guess.

[determindator]

Thank you for your reply YB. I look forward to anyone who can contribute to the questions I have asked. In the big scheme of things YB the Bank Bonuses fiasco could be more involved in the refund of Bank Charges than you think.

Edited October 25, 2009 by determindator

[InformedSearcher]

I believe that the 'big bonuses' are really to do with (risk) investment sections. Some deals make the bank millions in a few minutes and of course that would mean a bonus for the one(s) taking the risk. Of course such investment entails high risk element. A reminder of the problems would be referenced to mark lesson years ago. There again if he'd made the bank millions then he would have had hero status. One should remember that only investment sections of the bank use human decisions whereas the main stream banking we are concerned about is predominantly people getting the answers from installed bespoke software.

 

Michael

[determindator]

I'm looking at this as the banks saying to themselves 'Taking everything into consideration, the money owed to the tax payer via the Government etc etc, can we afford to pay bonuses to staff?' If the answer is 'no' then, as working for a company is a 'team' effort, then you can't have bonuses. It's all about caring and sharing.

[srfrench]

So then IS..........where did some of money that they made a killing on in risk based investments come from?

 

Just a thought bud.....

[charley2212]

? Is the uk s money from banks wired say to the asian markets over night or a friday evening and used on the money/ stock markets etc overnight , weekend and put back again next morning / monday , obviously never leaving the bank but used none the less. and this the simplified version . also the three day cheque clearing system three days , and collectively the interest ? do we believe what we are told ,

just a thought , and sorry if being thick here

[InformedSearcher]

Well if you think about it the average bank had 4 sectors to its operation. Main line banking services (as in bank accounts). Then they have an investment section (meaning risk and big bonuses if succesful). You have other services (mortgages, insurance, savings and the like). Then finally you have credit cards and associated services.

They all work indepently however when you get into financial problems they are permitted to be 'data exchanged'. If you read T&C's you'll find they can be offset against each other plus defaulting can mean the end of any current accounts.

Now you see the reasons you can never speak to a company director because those too are divided into their predominant roles. They come together at board meetings but are responsible for their own divisions and sections. Of course within that board you have the MD, Secretary and CEO leading with the others beneath them. Within the board you'll also have an HR director and internal directors excempt from the 'customer facing' sides of their operation.

Well organised management structures mean that not one entity should be able to encroach on the other. However in the current situation you have 2 problems, one is the investments (that failed) and the other the Unfair bank charges case. So this situation is unusual in that heavy burden is placed on 50% of the companies 'exposure'. I could add that insurances are under pressure for example wrongly sold PPI but nothing like the first two.

The fact that banks in these circumstances 'chat' to each other to protect themselves is obvious. The biggest problem is the level of fairness - On one hand you have the banks protecting their operation and commercial interests and on the other the HoL ruling. With the best will in the world there must be 'overlapping' (but not conflicts) of interest with a few individuals. However those individuals do hold a lot of power.

.... We all wait in the hope that we (the general public) win!

 

Michael

[determindator]

So then IS..........where did some of money that they made a killing on in risk based investments come from?

 

Just a thought bud.....

 

If I read you correctly, playing with taxpayers money? Even more reason to care and share!

 

Thank you IS for your last post.

Edited October 25, 2009 by determindator

[InformedSearcher]

If I read you correctly, playing with taxpayers money? Even more reason to care and share!

 

Thank you IS for your last post.

 

 

Thank you for the kind comment!

 

Well at the time of the investment failure it was the banks operating (including their depositors) funds. In a normal course of events they might lose or gain a limited amount of invested funds. However the companies they traded with unfortunately were in the same 'boat' so the transactions worldwide failed.

We could all ponder on 'taxpayer' involvement but in reality that is post failure. The taxpayer funds would be used as required to 'set everything straight' and the rest for day to day operations. The real ongoing problem is that the funds from the past are gone and the funds currently in use must be used because they must continue to trade and make profit.

The 'bonus' element is really meaning that of success of the investment branch of a bank. This is occasionally high risk but to make profit they need to take the chances. In a normal course of events the people who are involved in the investment section are professional. However in this instance the effect was not on a single bank (or the people within it) but multiple banks throughout the world. The finer parts are of course commercially sensitive so no one is going to divulge exactly te places that the funds went to.

So that's it really, an unfortunate bit of bad trading, bad news all round. If no one gives people who are succesful any incentive then they'll look elsewhere for employment or simply not produce what is wanted.

Personally I look at a business as 'blocks'. In the case of a bank the real profit is produced in a background set of investment blocks. The side of banks as we see them are exceptionally expensive to operate with branches and staff to contend with. Having said that as I veer so far from the thread is that we are only interested in the HoL decision. Again an area none of us are privvy to. 8-)

 

Michael

[Stornoway]

Thank you for the kind comment!

 

Well at the time of the investment failure it was the banks operating (including their depositors) funds. In a normal course of events they might lose or gain a limited amount of invested funds. However the companies they traded with unfortunately were in the same 'boat' so the transactions worldwide failed.

We could all ponder on 'taxpayer' involvement but in reality that is post failure. The taxpayer funds would be used as required to 'set everything straight' and the rest for day to day operations. The real ongoing problem is that the funds from the past are gone and the funds currently in use must be used because they must continue to trade and make profit.

The 'bonus' element is really meaning that of success of the investment branch of a bank. This is occasionally high risk but to make profit they need to take the chances. In a normal course of events the people who are involved in the investment section are professional. However in this instance the effect was not on a single bank (or the people within it) but multiple banks throughout the world. The finer parts are of course commercially sensitive so no one is going to divulge exactly te places that the funds went to.

So that's it really, an unfortunate bit of bad trading, bad news all round. If no one gives people who are succesful any incentive then they'll look elsewhere for employment or simply not produce what is wanted.

Personally I look at a business as 'blocks'. In the case of a bank the real profit is produced in a background set of investment blocks. The side of banks as we see them are exceptionally expensive to operate with branches and staff to contend with. Having said that as I veer so far from the thread is that we are only interested in the HoL decision. Again an area none of us are privvy to. 8-)

 

Michael

 

This is a very simplified version of events. Not all banks have big investment banking divisions making lots of profits. In the UK Barclays and to a lesser extent RBS do (or did !) make significant profits from Investment banking but HBOS didnt and neither really did / does Lloyds. If you take HBOS as an example in terms of its 2007 total profits these were £5.4bn with £2.05bn from retail banking, £2.35bn from corporate banking (lending to businesses) and most of the rest from overseas ops, insurance and treasury. The point being that the retail part of the bank (the branches) was making a lot of money pre credit crunch.

 

Turning to bonuses ..... the bonus pot in HBOS for 2007 was £280m split between 65,000 staff which is an average of £4.3k each. The average bank worker is on less than £20k. Its hardly the moneyfest that the media makes out....

[car2403]

Someone's going to have to dust down all these soapboxes - after 2 years, they are looking very dusty - and we might be here another 2 so they are going to get some use!!!

 

Now where is that bottle of Cillit Bang???

[InformedSearcher]

This is a very simplified version of events. Not all banks have big investment banking divisions making lots of profits. In the UK Barclays and to a lesser extent RBS do (or did !) make significant profits from Investment banking but HBOS didnt and neither really did / does Lloyds. If you take HBOS as an example in terms of its 2007 total profits these were £5.4bn with £2.05bn from retail banking, £2.35bn from corporate banking (lending to businesses) and most of the rest from overseas ops, insurance and treasury. The point being that the retail part of the bank (the branches) was making a lot of money pre credit crunch.

 

Turning to bonuses ..... the bonus pot in HBOS for 2007 was £280m split between 65,000 staff which is an average of £4.3k each. The average bank worker is on less than £20k. Its hardly the moneyfest that the media makes out....

 

With respect I refer to banks who 'DO' inestments. Banks who do not have not suffered (or should not have done so!).

Michael

[hilaryfrances]

YAWNZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

What are they doing???

[srfrench]

They probably turned left instead of right. Thus ending back in an empty House of Lords rather than the new SCoJ

[gillypam]

hi l take it no news then.

[HSBCrusher]

its a waiting game I'm afraid.

[InformedSearcher]

Did anyone see ML on Watchdog the other night? He made comment about the HoL stuff. Mind you he made comment about hardship cases that was fundamentally flawed. Hmm, he's going to become a celeb I think! LOL

Michael

[HSBCrusher]

I did.

 

its nice to see this issue being kept in the public eye... lets hope his letter from GB means something.

[Bigmac versus]

Its a disgrace the length of time this is taking and probably going to take to its conclusion, I think its one big ploy to buy time, just dont know what for.

I also find it quite strange that there is a lack of media interest in the run up to this ruling.

[HSBCrusher]

Indeed BMV, it shows how fickle the media is.

 

are bank charges selling papers? Obviously not enough.

[Bigmac versus]

Well you would expect some coverage considering the implications of the ruling, it just seems to me that everyone is fed up with the time restraints regarding the whole process and its like " oh bank charges again" , TBH its not even about the money any more (although it would be nice) its more to do with the feeling of knowing you were correct all along and the satisfaction of seeing them scurry behind whatever they can to avoid hearing I told you so.

[photoman]

Lets face it, the Government are probably damned either way upon the final outcome of this;

 

If the HOL find in favour of the Banks, then the voting public will be outraged that the Banks have received so much taxpayer money, and be allowed to continue to rip the public off. The government will be blamed for this, and it will also be taken as a sign of political weakness. Not good in the run up to a General Election.

 

If on the other hand, the HOL find against the Banks, then the banks will have to find masses of money to pay people back, weakening them further and perhaps even require they turn to the government/taxpayer for even more handouts .

This will not bode well for the economy, or for Government relationships with the Banks, and (if more fiscal support required for banks) also voters happiness with the way banks have been bailed out yet again, with yet more taxpayers money, in order to pay them back their own money. Again, not good in the run up to a General Election.

 

So, I imagine the Government are hoping resolution of this issue will come after the next General Election, so that either:

If another party wins, then the next government will get have to deal with the implications of the ruling.

or

If they do get back into office, the ruling will arrive at the beginning of a new term, rather than near the end of one, and so near to a General Election.