Supertramp Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 I am not politically aligned like most people on here and can spot good and bad policies no matter who suggests them but have Miliband and Balls gone completely bonkers with their proposed reforms? Close down branches? How will that help? And why is he trying to hurt retail banking when it was the investment banks that cocked up. Mental, he hasn't got a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickiethecat Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Those on the left in politics have no idea how the banking system works and are motivated purely by jealousy and class hatred. You only have to look at the lefties on here blaming everything from the benefits culture to the state of the economy on "greedy bankers". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 I am not politically aligned like most people on here and can spot good and bad policies no matter who suggests them but have Miliband and Balls gone completely bonkers with their proposed reforms? Close down branches? How will that help? And why is he trying to hurt retail banking when it was the investment banks that cocked up. Mental, he hasn't got a clue. If you look at some of the advice that Darling got from Balls when they were in a position of doing stuff it is clear that they had, and presumably still have no idea. However.... Splitting up the banks - mmm possibly good possibly bad.... Good. 1. No big monopoly, so no stifling of the market, more choice for the consumer 2. If one bank fails doesnt have a big impact on the rest. 3. Means that we can implement moral hazard a lot more easily which may make them more accountable. Bad. 1. No bank can be really large which means they may not have financial clout to introduce new products 2. They are more susceptible to market effects, so they cannot offer as good rates, as good loans etc as they need to be more cautious and protect reserves. 3. 1 and 2 may lead to less competition 4. More susceptible to being taken over by outside conglomerates 5. They may decide on forming unofficial cartels to get the benefits of size and protection. On the whole I don;t like the idea but it's not as bad as it seems perhaps. I don;t know - I'd like to look at it a deal more first. Now how about this for a proposal...? Currently the asset protection scheme effectivly protects all your assets unless you've got a really large amount of cash deposited with a bank. I think we should scrap that idea. Seriously. Let's make it so that only say 75% of your assets are protected by the Govt, after say the first 10k. Why is this good? Well at the moment the average customer has no interest in the strength of the bank. As such they do not force moral hazard on the banks because they have no reason to. Now if you make it so that people can lose money - they will take a deal of notice. Like when Norther Rock had issues? It would mean that any bank would have to be very careful because if it looked rather shaky, then it would end up having problems and closing because people would pull out of it. Ergo if this were brought in, and if the Govt was serious about casting a bank to the wolves if it went wrong then perhaps they would behave a little - or hopefully a lot - better than they historically have. Also I'd make every retail bank account holder able to attend the AGM and cast a vote. Even without having any shares in the bank. It'd be interesting to see what the results of that were...:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Do they even have the legal power to split up the banks? If they tried surely the banks first move would be to relocate to another country away, then the government couldn't touch them?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.