The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
Boo.erbowere
"You are clearly a socialist as you argue for more state interference in all things"
The words of a numpty who
A. claims to know about banking IT but doesn't think there was a year 2000 problem for banks. Lloyds alone will have expended hundreds, possibly 1000 years of total staff work years in correcting the issues.
B. Just finished arguing the credit crunch was caused by too little regulation.
C. Was arguing plane builders should be self regulated because "they would alwsys do it properly and be safe" ... at the same time Boeing "self regulating" had just led to two airplane disasters with the Airmax 737. Boeing then said it fixed the faults and was ready to fly again. The real regulators said no. What happened next ? Boeing found another fault. Result of boomerbowers theory of regulation ? Two plane disasters and loss of billions to the industry. They miggt get glying again in 2020.
It is very hard to imagine someone so consistently wrong as you and so intent on proving it. The list of incorrect theories you bang on about goes on and on.
Fitch drops Turkey's credit rating further because of Erdogan's sacking of Cetinkaya, head of the central bank. Fitch stress the importance of an independent bank in maintaining stability. Turkey take delivery of Russian missile system. Chances of EU accession fade even further. They've been wondering about it for 30 years but so far managed to meet one of the EU's 30 picy area requirements.
Boomerbower
You have not been paying attention. Firstly as I have often told you, I am not a socialist, and nothing I have said suggests it. Other than that nothing you said is at odds with anything I said nor does it have any bearing on what I said. That doesn't mean I agree with what you said. Poor regulation failed to prevent and check bad actions being taken, but that didn't cause the problems. They issues were diverse and caused primarily by people working at the head of commercial banks not central banks. Given the quality of your 1st email, that's the end of my interest in the conversation.
The statement I was commenting on was ".... Bankers. The world would be a much better place without them."
That's a bit different to saying you think some banks should cut some staff, which I would probably agree with. The bank workers who do bother me are those, the handful who caused the financial crisis by their diverse actions and then walked away with pockets loaded. The world has not recovered from their economic damage and its effects have gone way beyond just money into impact on politics.
Wids
Banks may or may not make too much profit. Most people complain of the opposite here and profits for some are thin on the ground. Top bankers certainly make too much money in my view, but then again so do people at the top of energy companies and social media giants.
That's not the point though, your suggestions is we should get rid of bankers and banks, neither of which can survive without the other. The vast majority of bank staff provide infrastructure and capabilities as essential as water, power etc. Without banks and bank staff functioning society would collapse inside weeks. It's why banks are included in national critical infrastructiure.
It didn't fly over my head in any way whatsoever. It is just plainly foolish to suggest we can do without banks or bankers. There is no alternative and they are inevitable.
If you can't tie together a typo with a correction its little wonder you don't understand how economies work. Try arguing America should save all electricity workers following the power cuts there.
Sure Wids, get rid of "bankers", rely on you to deliver wages in gold to nurses doctors police schoolteachers electricity workers pay for imports and fuel. Don't forget to deliver the gold for oil or uou will be using a bjorse and cart.
Don't know what the banks including Lloyds coupd have done to avoid this. The BBA went to court to fight it, lost and Lloyds decided not to appeal. With zero chance of winning yhey stood only to risk further calls of being broken up and more opprobrium. Lloyds then were criticised for rejecting too many claims and firing them off to the ombudsman. There was no room not to pay up. Drag the real culprits back to face the music, bar them from holding any responsible post, fine them, jail them but I don't see jow ee can blame people paying up. Try it with your parking tickrts.
No. I am master of my spelling though Erv. I just can't be assed with checking my typing at times. Neither relate to grammar
An example of bad grammar would be "grammatical correctness aren't z science". You struggle with the big and small subjects it seems. I wouldn't bother with the latter normally but since you highlighted it....
"that's where we all went wrong? AHO is a remainer"
In what way has Lloyds 'gone wrong' in this respect?
The remit of LSE and admin working for them extends to deleting whatever they choose. It's their site. Agree with their approach or not, and sometimes I do not, that is their absolute right or remit. Legally they are bound on some mattrrs to delete. The rest is at their discretion. Not rocket surgery.
The end of PPI will see increased profits announcements and increased caital accruing, available not least for dividends. It is impossible to avoid seeing that help the share price. he storm. e that, DB's gives some exaYou're right.
No need TFE - wrong and right are simply way markers to the truth. Deutschebank and its kind are meat and drink to this board I would say personally, a means of gauging Lloyds progress by comparing and contrasting if nothing else.
Sigh. I explained this TFE. Let me go through it again for you. Once only th0ugh. Tryto grasp it first time. I will try a number of ways to describe it to help so we do not have to become pen-pals on the subject.
You also said "That will be 74,000 jobs lost by 2022"
That is incorrect.. as I mentioned - The 74,000 figure is the target headcount they are aiming for - not the total number of jobs they plan to cut by 2020.
In other words they are cutting the workforce by 1 in 5 i.e. 20%, i.e. 18,000 out of an existing 92,000. Bringing the number to a resultant total of people working in the company by 2022 to 74,000.
DB's peak jobs were a little over 100,000 around 2008. So the actual fall in job numbers is relatively small, partly because jobs cuts have been offset by job increases due to acquisitions.
That's what "DB's actual job reductions have been relatively small and often offset by acquisitions" means.
I was being polite when I said it's an easy mistake to make. Do try to get this first time, or at least second, - it's not rocket surgery. Focus on this and see if you can grasp this. Move onto geopolitics and economics later I suggest, that's substantially trickier.
TheFarEnd
Pardon me saying so but I think your figures might be wrong. 74k are not the cuts, the aim is to get to 74,000 I think. DB's actual job reductions have been relatively small and often offset by acquisitions. It's a thing investors do not like. The peak around 2008 was only a bit over 100k. In contrast Lloyds has gone from about 132k to 72k. DB's problems are not primarily Brexit at all imho. The credit crunch, an unfortunate dependency on derivatives, complexity, poor business loans and trades seem to be some of their root problem. This has been compounded by visibly bad management, dodgy dealings, very clumsy IT systems, infighting, poor management decisions and lack of transparency /hiding issues. John Cryan the Brit had three years as ceo and barely scratched the surface. Fines of £11b, 2.5, and more besides were icing on the cake. There's exposure to other antiquated European banks too.
In stark contrast, I grumble about AHO's salary but he has taken Lloyds in almost exactly the opposite direction with bold cuts and focus on core business competencies and real profits and costs. We are very fortunate. Keep it simple never works in banking, keep it as simple as possible, focus on cost and profit and stamp out nonsense is always right and pays dividends in the end. Imho.