|
|
Post by B0ycey on Oct 25, 2022 12:06:53 GMT
The FSA was an authority not a policy or regulation. They were making sure bankers were adhering to rules that were fundamentally broken. It was replaced by actual regulation, regulation Thatcher got rid of. So maybe I won't be begging for my money back. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 25, 2022 15:04:55 GMT
The FSA was an authority not a policy or regulation. They were making sure bankers were adhering to rules that were fundamentally broken. It was replaced by actual regulation, regulation Thatcher got rid of. So maybe I won't be begging for my money back.
That Crash Gordons system of regulation failed is not disputed - what University failed to teach you about this? |
|
|
|
Post by B0ycey on Oct 25, 2022 15:13:38 GMT
The FSA was an authority not a policy or regulation. They were making sure bankers were adhering to rules that were fundamentally broken. It was replaced by actual regulation, regulation Thatcher got rid of. So maybe I won't be begging for my money back.
That Crash Gordons system of regulation failed is not disputed - what University failed to teach you about this? Don't bold the word beforehand will you Pacifico lol. It was an authority institution very much like the police who monitored and made sure the rules were adhered to and not an authority who created them. I really don't want to keep repeating who was to blame with someone who doesn't know what he is quoting. But just for clarity to the lurkers, the crash was caused by the Yanks offering mortgages to the unemployed and Thatcher deregulating our financial sector so there was no checks and balances when our banks bought those toxic assets on the belief there was a high return. Brown didn't cause that crash and is by and large considered the guy who saved the world financial sector as everyone followed his lead with QE. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Oct 25, 2022 16:14:55 GMT
Well lets hope your vote for labour makes little difference. We dont want any red tory scum representing my country , or being used as voting fodder to force england back in the EU against the english pulbics will.
Starmer shouldnt be anywhere near scottish resources. Like i say , that all scotland is to british labour , a land to be used and abused for resources and voting fodder for the political battles in England. Im old enough to remember scum like the feeble fifty labour wallopers.
As for labours core economic policy , bloomberg among others report they would rape £28 billion from a north sea oil and gas windfall , while also taking £billions more from the already established 65 % tax. Their whole core economic policy is based on scotlands resources , and we are making sure every scot knows it.
I will be voting against the labour party at each and every election as i have done for years now.
. I don't live in a border county which I expect will turn red. Doubt it very much boycey if the borders will go red. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 25, 2022 17:18:12 GMT
"The Financial Services Authority (FSA) was a quasi-judicial body accountable for the regulation of the financial services industry in the United Kingdom between 2001 and 2013"
That Crash Gordons system of regulation failed is not disputed - what University failed to teach you about this? Don't bold the word beforehand will you Pacifico lol. It was an authority institution very much like the police who monitored and made sure the rules were adhered to and not an authority who created them. I really don't want to keep repeating who was to blame with someone who doesn't know what he is quoting. But just for clarity to the lurkers, the crash was caused by the Yanks offering mortgages to the unemployed and Thatcher deregulating our financial sector so there was no checks and balances when our banks bought those toxic assets on the belief there was a high return. Brown didn't cause that crash and is by and large considered the guy who saved the world financial sector as everyone followed his lead with QE. Why do you keep answering arguments I have not made? It's a very simple question - was Crash Gordons financial regulation system a success or failure?. What did your university tell you? |
|
|
|
Post by B0ycey on Oct 25, 2022 17:37:46 GMT
Don't bold the word beforehand will you Pacifico lol. It was an authority institution very much like the police who monitored and made sure the rules were adhered to and not an authority who created them. I really don't want to keep repeating who was to blame with someone who doesn't know what he is quoting. But just for clarity to the lurkers, the crash was caused by the Yanks offering mortgages to the unemployed and Thatcher deregulating our financial sector so there was no checks and balances when our banks bought those toxic assets on the belief there was a high return. Brown didn't cause that crash and is by and large considered the guy who saved the world financial sector as everyone followed his lead with QE. Why do you keep answering arguments I have not made? It's a very simple question - was Crash Gordons financial regulation system a success or failure?. What did your university tell you? I was at uni before the crash as it happens so not much. I just know that the FSA didn't set the regulation but was making sure banking practices were above board with the little regulation they had. The problem for them, and the reason for its demise, was the regulation simply didn't exist to stop the banking crisis. That is down to Thatcher. But you can also blame the Yanks for their devious methods for selling their toxic mortgages into our market. If you want me to say the FSA was a failure, sure it failed. But it didn't deregulated or regulate as it was an institution that didn't have much power at all but to check in once and a while to make sure the figures on paper matched up to the precieved value of the assets the banks thought they had. As for Brown, his is usually the guy credited for saving the financial sector. Not the guy who crashed it. That is to say, that is how everyone but the Tories see things anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Oct 25, 2022 18:32:15 GMT
Why do you keep answering arguments I have not made? It's a very simple question - was Crash Gordons financial regulation system a success or failure?. What did your university tell you? As for Brown, his is usually the guy credited for saving the financial sector. Not the guy who crashed it. That is to say, that is how everyone but the Tories see things anyway. I think Brown was the one that said he had eliminated boom and bust and then missed the signs of the biggest crash since the 1930s making him look a right Charlie. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Oct 25, 2022 19:45:10 GMT
As for Brown, his is usually the guy credited for saving the financial sector. Not the guy who crashed it. That is to say, that is how everyone but the Tories see things anyway. I think Brown was the one that said he had eliminated boom and bust and then missed the signs of the biggest crash since the 1930s making him look a right Charlie. Probably but the Westminster party rely on a week is a long time in politics and the electorate are meant to be complete Morons. Which in fairness is true in many a case. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 25, 2022 21:17:24 GMT
Why do you keep answering arguments I have not made? It's a very simple question - was Crash Gordons financial regulation system a success or failure?. What did your university tell you? I was at uni before the crash as it happens so not much. I just know that the FSA didn't set the regulation but was making sure banking practices were above board with the little regulation they had. The problem for them, and the reason for its demise, was the regulation simply didn't exist to stop the banking crisis. That is down to Thatcher. So what were Gordon Brown and Tony Blair doing in the decade before the crash?. Also if the Regulator doesn't set the regulation who does? - perhaps it's the Chancellor? - step forward Crash Gordon... |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 25, 2022 21:20:49 GMT
As for Brown, his is usually the guy credited for saving the financial sector. Not the guy who crashed it. That is to say, that is how everyone but the Tories see things anyway. I think Brown was the one that said he had eliminated boom and bust and then missed the signs of the biggest crash since the 1930s making him look a right Charlie. Well as well as convincing himself that he had eliminated boom and bust he also thought he had saved the world - being modest is something that you can never accuse Crash Gordon of.  |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Oct 26, 2022 2:23:04 GMT
Liz Truss was promising tax cuts that traditional Tories love. Rishi Sunak recognised that's not possible because of the state of the nation's finances post Covid. Indeed Vinny. I'm no Tory, but Sunak is the only person who understands the problem the UK is in right now. This mess started before Truss it should be said. We borrowed unsustainable levels with Covid and that borrowing was going to continue under Truss meaning it spooked the market. Now it is about balancing the books. There are some tough calls to make and it doesn't necessarily mean Austerity. But if we want the services we all expect, I expect tax rises at the very least. Hows about those on furlough pay the free money they got back, now they are working again? |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Oct 26, 2022 5:36:24 GMT
I was at uni before the crash as it happens so not much. I just know that the FSA didn't set the regulation but was making sure banking practices were above board with the little regulation they had. The problem for them, and the reason for its demise, was the regulation simply didn't exist to stop the banking crisis. That is down to Thatcher. But you can also blame the Yanks for their devious methods for selling their toxic mortgages into our market. If you want me to say the FSA was a failure, sure it failed. But it didn't deregulated or regulate as it was an institution that didn't have much power at all but to check in once and a while to make sure the figures on paper matched up to the precieved value of the assets the banks thought they had. As for Brown, his is usually the guy credited for saving the financial sector. Not the guy who crashed it. That is to say, that is how everyone but the Tories see things anyway. I had a long exchange with another poster on this forum's predecessor covering this issue. I'm afraid the effect of the font size and shape on my eyes will preclude me from entering into a similar exchange here. From my perspective, the idea of 'exploiting' the potential of the market to produce tax revenues for investment in public services was sound, and very much needed at the time. However, the risks taken to bring the idea to fruition were reckless and Brown should (and has to an extent) accept responsibility for his role in the resulting crisis.
Briefly then; the FSMA of 2000 did, in fact, confer rule/regulation making powers on the FSA. Sir Howard Davies, chair of the FSA at the time, gave a speech in 2002 warning of the dangers of synthetic CDOs (the main culprit in spreading the risk through the banks) and stated quite clearly that the regulator would be taking a heightened interest in their progress in the markets. Despite this stated intent, the market in and holdings of CDOs and synthetc CDOs grew exponentially between 2000 and 2008 resulting in the GFC and the collapse/near collapse of the UK's banking sector.
Given the FSA appeared to be aware of the risks, but failed to act. The only reasonable conclusion (or so it seems to me) is that the claims made by the FSA and set out in Lord Turner's report that Brown insisted on light touch regulation and prevented the FSA from regulating properly must be true. I think it's fair to say Brown's subsequent, shall we say partial, admissions appear to bolster the point.
As to the argument it was a world-wide phenomenon and there was nothing government or regulators could have done; it's simply not true. Both the Canadian and Australian financial systems were better regulated and did not suffer the same fate as the USA and much of Europe.
|
|
|
|
Post by B0ycey on Oct 26, 2022 6:54:36 GMT
I was at uni before the crash as it happens so not much. I just know that the FSA didn't set the regulation but was making sure banking practices were above board with the little regulation they had. The problem for them, and the reason for its demise, was the regulation simply didn't exist to stop the banking crisis. That is down to Thatcher. So what were Gordon Brown and Tony Blair doing in the decade before the crash?. Also if the Regulator doesn't set the regulation who does? - perhaps it's the Chancellor? - step forward Crash Gordon... The FSA wasn't a regulator, I have said that countless times now. They were an authority the same way the police are an authority who also doesn't make the laws they enforce either who made sure what little regulation there was was in the banking sector was being enforced. They just made sure the banks kept their finances in order, kept to a fractional reserve, no cowboys like leeson doing the rounds and made sure their assets were the precieved value to what the banks claimed they were. The problem was the rules they were enforcing weren't good enough because Thatcher deregulated the sector and it became a hive of cowboys in the two decades beforehand. The FSA failed in the sense that the checks and balances weren't there. As for Brown and Blair re regulating the sector... like Major before then, sure they should have. But nobody knew what type of bubble Thacther had set up for us. I guess you need to know there is a problem before it can be fixed. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 26, 2022 7:02:04 GMT
So what were Gordon Brown and Tony Blair doing in the decade before the crash?. Also if the Regulator doesn't set the regulation who does? - perhaps it's the Chancellor? - step forward Crash Gordon... The FSA wasn't a regulator, I have said that countless times now. They were an authority the same way the police are an authority who also doesn't make the laws they enforce either who made sure what little regulation there was was in the banking sector was being enforced. They just made sure the banks kept their finances in order, kept to a fractional reserve, no cowboys like leeson doing the rounds and made sure their assets were the precieved value to what the banks claimed they were. The problem was the rules they were enforcing weren't good enough because Thatcher deregulated the sector and it became a hive of cowboys in the two decades beforehand. The FSA failed in the sense that the checks and balances weren't there. As for Brown and Blair re regulating the sector... like Major before then, sure they should have. But nobody knew what type of bubble Thacther had set up for us. I guess you need to know there is a problem before it can be fixed. So the person who was to blame was not those who decided on what the regulations would be and how they would be enforced during the preceding decade but someone who had been out of office for almost 20 years?.. Hmm.... somehow I get the feeling that you will say/do anything to excuse Crash Gordons role in this fiasco. Next you will be telling us it was Thatchers fault that we started a war in Iraq and nothing at all to do with New Labour.. |
|
|
|
Post by B0ycey on Oct 26, 2022 7:10:06 GMT
I was at uni before the crash as it happens so not much. I just know that the FSA didn't set the regulation but was making sure banking practices were above board with the little regulation they had. The problem for them, and the reason for its demise, was the regulation simply didn't exist to stop the banking crisis. That is down to Thatcher. But you can also blame the Yanks for their devious methods for selling their toxic mortgages into our market. If you want me to say the FSA was a failure, sure it failed. But it didn't deregulated or regulate as it was an institution that didn't have much power at all but to check in once and a while to make sure the figures on paper matched up to the precieved value of the assets the banks thought they had. As for Brown, his is usually the guy credited for saving the financial sector. Not the guy who crashed it. That is to say, that is how everyone but the Tories see things anyway. I had a long exchange with another poster on this forum's predecessor covering this issue. I'm afraid the effect of the font size and shape on my eyes will preclude me from entering into a similar exchange here. From my perspective, the idea of 'exploiting' the potential of the market to produce tax revenues for investment in public services was sound, and very much needed at the time. However, the risks taken to bring the idea to fruition were reckless and Brown should (and has to an extent) accept responsibility for his role in the resulting crisis.
Briefly then; the FSMA of 2000 did, in fact, confer rule/regulation making powers on the FSA. Sir Howard Davies, chair of the FSA at the time, gave a speech in 2002 warning of the dangers of synthetic CDOs (the main culprit in spreading the risk through the banks) and stated quite clearly that the regulator would be taking a heightened interest in their progress in the markets. Despite this stated intent, the market in and holdings of CDOs and synthetc CDOs grew exponentially between 2000 and 2008 resulting in the GFC and the collapse/near collapse of the UK's banking sector. Given the FSA appeared to be aware of the risks, but failed to act. The only reasonable conclusion (or so it seems to me) is that the claims made by the FSA and set out in Lord Turner's report that Brown insisted on light touch regulation and prevented the FSA from regulating properly must be true. I think it's fair to say Brown's subsequent, shall we say partial, admissions appear to bolster the point. As to the argument it was a world-wide phenomenon and there was nothing government or regulators could have done; it's simply not true. Both the Canadian and Australian financial systems were better regulated and did not suffer the same fate as the USA and much of Europe. I am willing to accept that warnings were being made and that Brown ignored them Equivocal. I guess given the finance is the biggest sector in the economy and we were in a boom period, like in 1929 nobody thought the bubble was bursting anytime soon and the lobbyists were wining and dining our leaders to go along with it all. But like all bubbles when it pops it pops. And sure Brown preferred low regulation, it seems every Chancellor does. And as Brown was in charge at the time, there are those who blame him and perhaps rightly so. If the crash happened when Osborne was Chancellor, he would deserve the blame instead because those who led always take the responsibility. But at the same time we all need to understand why the crash occurred. Yanky mortgages, toxic loans and Thatchers deregulation. There was nothing Brown did that contributed to the crash. As long as we both agree on that, I will accept he should have brought in the checks and balances before the crash and not after. |
|
