Not as good a story

[RP]

But quite interesting, I thought.

[Tosh]

Nah. It'll never catch on. Much easier to blame some market trader in his Porsche selling dodgy CDOs than some politician who is otherwise too busy fiddling his expenses.

 

Some good points made, and certainly some of it not new.

 

Wife has been saying for months that letting Lehman go without a plan will be looked back on as the single most stupid economic act for decades. The article - and it's criticism of the new regulation - is clearly thinking along similar lines

[RP]

Nah. It'll never catch on. Much easier to blame some market trader in his Porsche selling dodgy CDOs than some politician who is otherwise too busy fiddling his expenses.

 

Some good points made, and certainly some of it not new.

 

Wife has been saying for months that letting Lehman go without a plan will be looked back on as the single most stupid economic act for decades. The article - and it's criticism of the new regulation - is clearly thinking along similar lines

 

 

The fact that Lehman was allowed to collapes was a scandal - purely based on personal dislike at the top of the political tree for the management at Lehman.

[smithdown]

The System strikes again!

[Redwire]

The fact that Lehman was allowed to collapes was a scandal - purely based on personal dislike at the top of the political tree for the management at Lehman.

 

Not letting Lehmans collapse is the complete opposite to what the article is advocating.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Redwire

[Jarg Armani]

Wife has been saying for months that letting Lehman go without a plan will be looked back on as the single most stupid economic act for decades.

Almunia's alright though. Letting Flamini go without a plan was far worse imo.

[RP]

Not letting Lehmans collapse is the complete opposite to what the article is advocating.

 

 

It says that banks must be allowed to fail - that is true.

 

I am saying that the reasons why Lehman was allowed to fail were purely due to the fact that one person (and his cronies) had a vendetta against Lehman senior management for many years and they were only too happy to see them fold. They were allowed to fail for the wrong reasons.

[Redwire]

It says that banks must be allowed to fail - that is true.

 

I am saying that the reasons why Lehman was allowed to fail were purely due to the fact that one person (and his cronies) had a vendetta against Lehman senior management for many years and they were only too happy to see them fold. They were allowed to fail for the wrong reasons.

 

I'm confused. Should they have been allowed to fail or not?

[Rimbeux]

Not letting Lehmans collapse is the complete opposite to what the article is advocating.

 

 

Not in chaos, but with a mechanism for allowing it to happen without chasing good money after bad or spreading panic through the system. Confidence maintained by secrecy and undisclosed risk, allowing much of risk to be off the balance sheet, causes major panic when it's uncovered.

[Walrus]

Almunia's alright though.

[RP]

I'm confused. Should they have been allowed to fail or not?

 

 

 

F*** me, it's not difficult.

[Redwire]

F*** me, it's not difficult.

 

Sorry, I must still be befuddled after hearing the shock news that the IEA are calling for looser regulation of financial markets.

[Falconhoof]

I'd be suspicious of anything the IEA has to say. It gave Thatcher all her big ideas and that did us few favours.

[Des]

Yeah, nice impartial article that.

[DanielS]

Not surprised the IEA thinks this way, but I would have thought this kind of revisionism would have the decency to wait at least a year or two before raising its ugly head. At this rate they'll be trying to get the "market forces dictate we pay senior staff their weight in diamonds" excuse out of the cupboard by Christmas.

[Tosh]

Not surprised the IEA thinks this way, but I would have thought this kind of revisionism would have the decency to wait at least a year or two before raising its ugly head. At this rate they'll be trying to get the "market forces dictate we pay senior staff their weight in diamonds" excuse out of the cupboard by Christmas.

 

MPs are close to using that for their own "snout in trough" behaviour

[matty]

 

Of course it's true, the general public are always looking for ways to avoid blaming politicians for stuff.

 

Christ on a bike, it's like being in the Spectator's editorial meeting...

[matty]

MPs are close to using that for their own "snout in trough" behaviour

Do you think claiming for a new garden path or some scatter cushions equates to massively dodgy deals designed to get you a bonus measured in millions of pounds?

[Mike]

i like the fact that lehmans collapsed, i also like the fact that barcap acquired them. possibly.

[Paddy 66]

Seems to me they are simply trying to shift the blame away from themselves onto the US and to some extent the UK government. Fair enough the governments have some responsibility, but only in as far as they didn't regulate the banks enough and should have prevented those greedy b*****ds from being able to created the chaos they have. There should be people facing criminal charges over the clearly fraudulent activities undertaken by some of their mates.

 

As for letting banks fail, they don't address the issue of how those individuals who have money deposited with the bank or who may have shares are protected so they don't lose what could be their life savings. But then again they won't be interested in the general public just the fact they want the public to beleive it wasn't the greed and action taken by their sort who caused the problems.

[Murphman]

Here's 'half a story' briefly related to me earlier, apologies for it's sketchiness, perhaps RP or somebody can expand.

 

The Lehman directors held huge share holdings which were in effect their pension fund. They borrowed heavily against the shares, when they got into trouble a Korean buyer came in but valued the shares at a fraction of their previous worth which would have meant the Lehman directors would have massive crystalised debt so they blanked the offer hoping the government would just bail them out.

 

Feck off Des.

Edited May 13, 2009 by Murphman

[Des]

This all goes above my head.

 

You should really make that your new sig.

[Murphman]

You should really make that your new sig.

 

 

I walked into that didn't I

[RP]

Yeah, nice impartial article that.

 

 

I haven't seen any genuinely impartial articles, to be honest.

 

But of course you know best.

 

Well Matty knows best (total impartiality there ), but you know what I mean. You;re right up there with Matty.

[John am Rhein]

The fact that Lehman was allowed to collapes was a scandal - purely based on personal dislike at the top of the political tree for the management at Lehman.

 

is that ultimately down to a Goldman Sachs/Lehman Bros. rivalry?