peterms Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Unless they are your windows eh? Seeing as I don't currently run a network of branches belonging to a bank that has robbed the nation, then it is unlikely to be my windows. If I had upset people to the extent that 100s of thousands of people were marching against me, the windows would probably be the least of my worries. Well personally I disagree with that kind of vigilante justice. That's not vigilante justice. Vigilante justice would probably involve the broken windows being at the top of the building, not the ground floor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunRickyRun Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Ex-Lehman chief risk officer appointed World Bank treasurer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Ex-Lehman chief risk officer appointed World Bank treasurer I'm not familiar with the staffing structure of banks, but the job title "Chief Risk Officer" would lead me to believe she was the main person in charge of assessing the risk the bank was taking, like in the period leading up to its collapse through not having assessed and managed risk, those five years that she held the role. Perhaps I'm being unfair. Maybe it was Gordon Brown's fault. I'm sure she'll do just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 They say making mistakes is the best way to learn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Here's one for you Gringo: The case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn is in doubt following reports of major holes in the credibility of the woman who alleges the former head of the IMF attacked her in May Strauss Kahn, being from the socialist side of French politics, was pushing for Greek investors to take a 'haircut' as part of the negotiations for the next bailout. Conveniently the timing of this scandal meant he had to leave the post and was replaced with the far more conservative Lagarde, Sarkozy's finance minister, who is insisting Greece pays back in full what it owes. Now she is in place the case against Kahn falls away. The timing seemed odd before and this is even more suspicious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Here's one for you Gringo: The case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn is in doubt following reports of major holes in the credibility of the woman who alleges the former head of the IMF attacked her in May Strauss Kahn, being from the socialist side of French politics, was pushing for Greek investors to take a 'haircut' as part of the negotiations for the next bailout. Conveniently the timing of this scandal meant he had to leave the post and was replaced with the far more conservative Lagarde, Sarkozy's finance minister, who is insisting Greece pays back in full what it owes. Now she is in place the case against Kahn falls away. The timing seemed odd before and this is even more suspicious. It always looked suspicious. Said this in mid-May: Strauss-Kahn may well be turn out to be a lecherous rapist bastard but it ought to be up to the prosecuting authorities to prove his guilt whereas even he is speaking in these terms, "I want to devote all my strength, all my time, and all my energy to proving my innocence." Bit OT, but I think there's a few interesting questions that need to be answered on this one. Starting with why the first announcement of his arrest came from a student in France, an activist supporter of Sarkozy, several minutes before the arrest was actually made. Now that's an interesting question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 If it was a stitch up and he is cleared it may be a positive from the point of view of the French election at least. If there is still time for him to come back into the running he would be instantly be favourite and see off Sarkozy and the very nasty Marie LaPen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted July 1, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted July 1, 2011 Apparently it is constitutionally protected speech, under the terms of US law. In the wider world of common sense, however, it would be regarded as a professional judgement. I wonder if we are also to take the professional opinions of doctors, lawyers etc as just free speech, rather than hold them to account for the professional opinions they get well paid to give? In the case of professional opinions issued by doctors, lawyers, etc. their clients do have the right to sue them etc. In the course of acquiring someone as a client, doctors and lawyers generally do give up their rights. It's strictly voluntary on their part and does not raise a free speech concern. Remember that in the case of credit ratings for bank capitalization regulations, the client of the rating agency is the seller of the security ("sell-side"). There are credit rating agencies (generally on the smaller side, it must be said) that specialize in "buy-side" ratings (hedge funds, etc. are their main clients; the traditional banking sector is generally loath to retain them, perhaps (and this is strictly uneducated guesswork) because they engage in selling such securities as well as buying them and retaining buy-side ratings would imply that Moodys/S&P/Fitch (though Fitch was, of those three, generally more pessimistic/realistic than the other two major NRSROs) were not as reliable as purported). Not surprisingly, those buy-side ratings have proven to be generally more pessimistic (and consequently more accurate) than the sell-side agencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 In the case of professional opinions issued by doctors, lawyers, etc. their clients do have the right to sue them etc. In the course of acquiring someone as a client, doctors and lawyers generally do give up their rights. It's strictly voluntary on their part and does not raise a free speech concern. I think that English law may take a different opinion - in that it is not a case of a right voluntarily given up by the professional concerned but a case of someone being a professional 'x' giving advice in a situation where their professional judgement ought to be something to be relied upon. Edit: Something about mechanics and cars springs to mind. *I'm no lawyer* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 *I'm no lawyer* You're meant to say IANAL so I can giggle like a kid at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 *I'm no lawyer* You're meant to say IANAL so I can giggle like a kid at it. Duly noted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 In the case of professional opinions issued by doctors, lawyers, etc. their clients do have the right to sue them etc. In the course of acquiring someone as a client, doctors and lawyers generally do give up their rights. It's strictly voluntary on their part and does not raise a free speech concern. I agree that doesn't raise a free speech concern. But if the ratings agencies were accountable for the shockingly bad advice they gave about many of the financial packages being traded in the lead-up to the crash, why would that raise a free speech concern? It just seems like using the valuable idea of free speech to evade accountability for professional negligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted July 2, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted July 2, 2011 In what way were they professionally negligent though? They delivered exactly what the client specifically wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 In what way were they professionally negligent though? They delivered exactly what the client specifically wanted. Yeees... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Breaking News: As part of the austerity program, the Greek government are suspending production of houmous and tzatziki. Analysts fear a double dip recession Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Breaking News: As part of the austerity program, the Greek government are suspending production of houmous and tzatziki. Analysts fear a double dip recession He he. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 So could todays summit see the death of the Euro ? i suspect the France and Germany pact will keep the lame horse running a bit longer at the expenses of European taxpayers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted July 21, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted July 21, 2011 On that note Tony, somewhat related, I got listening to Radio5 doing some interviews on this crisis last night, quite intently. A couple of things stood out. Firstly, one fella mentioned that this feeling in the UK and to a lesser extent America that theres becoming an increasingly stark choice to kill the Euro is something that just doesn't exist amongst the powers that be on the continent - it's out of the question, it's not even considered. The feeling appears to be that they will only kill the Euro when it it's that or kill themselves. Another thing a couple of the financial experts interviewed just dropped in conversation very matter of factly is that Greece cannot pay this money back. They just can't, they owe too much to ever feasibly be repaid. The money that will be given them today was described by one guy as 'kicking the can a little further down the road'. That metaphor was then turned a little by the guy following him being interviewed who said 'it's not so much kicking the can a little further down the road as kicking the can in the long grass and hoping no-one can find it', as it appears that EU knows just giving Greece money isn't going to solve a thing but they've no idea what else to do and seem to be crossing their fingers that between the time todays bail out (which all speakers agreed is basically a formality) gives Greece a boost and them next needing more money something comes up that makes the decision go away. If it weren't for the fact that that this has the potential to royally **** us too, it'd be absolutely fascinating to look at. As it is it's like looking a car crash that just happened a couple of cars ahead of you - you've had to slam the anchors on and are a little shook up, but the guys ahead could well be in a bad way but since it's just happened it's hard to tell how bad... but it doesn't look good from the wreckage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 They will reach a compromise. The single currency is worth too much to Germany and France to let it go. It will probably end up with Euro bonds though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 The compromise most likely will be eu taxpayers paying for the default instead of the bankers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts