Sir Fred Goodwin is not a banker or an adulterer

The finger of suspicion

So now we know. Previously Sir Fred Goodwin went to great lengths to try to convince us he was no longer a banker. Some feel he never was one. Now he has tried to convince the world he was not an adulterer or more accurately to stop us knowing he is an adulterer. The super injunction world is collapsing fast. I don't really care what Sir Fred gets up to in his private life. It's when it drifts into his public life. However, it would have been more gracious and courageous if he had admitted his wrongdoing and let the dust settle gracefully.

All he has done now is to confirm in the minds of the British public that the world of banking with his ilk in charge was a generally nasty, corrupt and self-serving industry. Banking has gradually lost its soul over the years. It is now more a heartless, avaricious industry rather than a caring, informative and constructive one.

Lord Stoneham has done us all a favour by revealing this nonsense of secrecy. It is in the public interest if those at the centre of a failing bank, one that would have been forcibly folded if the taxpayer had not coughed up blood to support it, are involved in personal relationships that may compromise corporate governance.

Unilever and Procter & Gamble in price fixing fine

"It cleans unmentionable stains too!"

You'd think corporate business would be changing their ways, what with the combined forces of internet bloggers and consumer organisations keeping a beady eye on them. The latest industry with corporate backsliders in trouble is the detergent business. Unilever and Procter & Gamble have been fined 315m euros (£280m, $456m) for fixing washing powder prices in eight European countries. They admitted they were running a cartel. It must be something in the mindset of the directors of these companies. Do they sit in their boardrooms plotting and planning these scams? If so, it's about time the shareholders took them aside and gave them a good rinsing. How many packets of detergent do they need to sell in order to recoup £280 million? A complete waste of economic time.

Anyone surfing the net will see the tide is against such practices. In this era of restraint, such activities offer no gain. The cartel's cosy arrangement was revealed by a tip-off to the European Commission by a competitor. The Commission called the investigation "Purity". Pity the two corporates don't get as white as the washing powders they promote.

Of bankers and soldiers

British bankers are in discussions about the possibility of reducing New Year bonuses from £7bn to £4bn. The expectation is that the £7bn figure will be paid, but one banker said, "Maybe we can cut that to £4bn. But although that would be a huge reduction, £4bn is still a big number - and we'll still face attacks." I still don't think they get it. It isn't necessarily about the money. It's about the greedy attitude in the face of a grave financial crisis hitting the country. Whilst many face the New Year with unemployment on the horizon, these cheesy characters are arguing the toss about bonuses.

"One of the great paradoxes about all of this is that ministers would love us to agree to cut bonuses, but they're powerless to stop us being prosecuted under competition law," a banker has said. If that was reported correctly, then it sounds like they are hiding behind a perceived prosecution. Did it ever occur to this banker that it might not be in the public interest to mount a prosecution?

The BBC reports that British banks are said to be irked that Wall Street is resistant to the idea of a mutual agreement on restricting bonuses. "There's no chance that the big US investment banks will follow our example, which means that business and good people could leave London for New York or elsewhere, if we're seen to be paying less than the market rate," another banker said. Good people? If we are all in this together, what is so good about just going after the market rate. Are the so-called good bankers only motivated by money?

Yesterday was Remembrance Sunday. Plenty of soldiers died fighting for freedom and a better world. Soldiers are still dying today and if these current conflicts don't end soon will continue to die. Those that died laid down their lives for their country.

It seems that good bankers are reluctant to lay down even part of their bonuses for their country. Doesn't that say an awful lot about the culture that has infected the once noble profession of banking?

Spivs and gamblers to be rounded up?

Vince Cable has refused to apologise for attacking excessive bank bonuses paid to "spivs and gamblers". CBI director general Richard Lambert said Mr Cable was right to call for shareholders to act in the wider public interest, but he added, "It's odd that he thinks it sensible to use such emotional language. The case for corporate takeovers is that they allow control of poorly run businesses to pass into more efficient hands. Mr Cable has harsh things to say about the capitalist system. It will be interesting to hear his ideas for an alternative."

The thing is Vince Cable isn't seeking an alternative. He just wants the present set-up cleaned up with spanking new brooms. Mr.Lambert needs to get a grip. The present corporate rodeo cannot continue as it is. Firstly, let him come clean about what these bonuses are actually for. Secondly, let him reveal the remuneration committees and their workings. And third, let's have some concrete ideas for plc shareholder democracy. Currently it is all revolving doors and everybody taking in each other's washing.

If it were all about efficient hands I'd be the first to give Mr.Lambert a flag to wave. But the BP fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico shows that corporate efficiency and corporate expediency are fighting it out centre stage at that rodeo!

Mutt and Jeff and Gordon Brown

So Gordon Brown says he "misunderstood" what the good lady said. If that's the case, he's quick to fly off the handle over something he's not sure about. Bit like the cabinet ministers who had the rough edge of his tongue. Misunderstood, indeed!

He said this in an interview with Jeremy Paxman. Plus this - "Please believe me, I have never been soft on bankers and I am not soft on bankers now and I have been very, very clear about what the banks have got to do in the future." So clear that the banks cannot muster any backbone for self-control. Sir Philip Hampton, the boss of RBS, is so weak that he has to cave in to his ultra-greedy employees (those who get the massive bonuses). "If we don't pay our top people (appropriately), they leave very quickly," he said. So these top people have no loyalty to the bank, no loyalty to the customers and no loyalty to the country (who bailed the buggers out). All they have is a craven desire to get filthy rich by making "profits" out of illusionary money. Most of it doesn't exist. It's all in some follow-my-leader account-hopping merry-go-round. They can make nothing into something. Must make an alchemist sick!

Gordon Brown hasn't done what he should do. Instead of bawling out Mrs. Duffy, why doesn't he get those bank chiefs in and tell them that it's straight jackets not flash jackets from now on. No funny money stuff. No hedging, no betting, no ducking, no diving, no derivatives, additives, sedatives, or laxatives. Just plain honest banking.

Any chance these modern day moneychangers might be able to clean up their financial temples?

Has Honour gone the same way as Prudence?

Gordon Brown once had a special flame called Prudence. She was mentioned in nearly every speech he made about the economy and in his erstwhile condemnation of greed. That was before he found his moral compass faced more directions than the planet Earth could cope with. Then Prudence was given the heave-ho. Honour is another trusty female who comes into regular contact with parliamentarians. She is there to make them behave themselves in a self-controlling way. However, she too has been violated recently, and not just by the men! Both Honour and Prudence are having a hard time.

Now we are to have candidates at this election being urged to declare details of other jobs they may have, property assets and their tax status. This is at the recommendation of a watchdog (without an electric collar I hear). So when it comes to wondering if we are electing honourable people the answer is propably not. Nobody trusts anybody these days and there is precious little doubt as to why that is. Corruption and seediness are all around us. What we will have before us are a collection of highly vetted, deeply scrutinised, morally flawless paragons of political trite and trivia. All will be "on message", none will have the slightest idea of how to respond to a question for which there is no cribbed answer. It will be ghastly.

I fear we are throwing the political baby out with the bathwater. Sending your old bathwater down the plughole is one thing, but being asked to sit in a bath full of disinfectant is quite another. I want my parliamentary representative to be a spirited advocate not a sterile apparatchik.

Manchester dis-United

If there was ever a case of dodgy dealings by legalised crooks then it must be happening at Manchester United. According to the BBC, the Glazers, the American family that technically owns the club, didn't end up responsible for the massive loans they took out to buy the club. No, they used a bit of creative accountancy to make the club liable for the debts. No wonder the fans want these light-fingered Floridians out of the way.

Not only has the club been saddled with a collossal debt, but the Glazers employ a "security firm" to stamp out resistance. One of the club's longest serving stewards got sacked for siding with the protesters. If this carries on much longer Malcolm Glazer might get the Mussolini treatment.

Better banking or what?

Most people want to live in a secure and settled country. Indecision and a financial threat to livelihoods is not welcomed. So it must be, in a democratic society, that those who control the purse strings don't get to toy with the people as if they are only there to slave away for the benefit of watching those purse strings tighten or slacken at whim.

Goldman Sachs have decided to limit bonuses of top executives to £1M this year. Very gracious of them. However, such magnanimity is dwarfed by the taxpayers' compulsory attendance at bailout time. It seems there is still no proper incentive by government to tackle this ongoing problem.

I would dread to think that we exist only to act as financial sponges for what would appear to be a support system for financial spongers. Can Goldman Sachs tell us exactly what good they currently are doing for society? I know that they are doing excellent work for themselves. But do they provide a worthwhile service to us all?

I don't think they do. How can it possibly be a good deal if banks can carry on as they please, only to grab us all by the nuts when they get it a bit wrong? We are the suckers, surely? It's rather like having a bad apple in the family, a type of Terry-Thomas character, who turns up on regular occasions with such lines as "I say, old boy, spot of bother on the finance front. Met this woman, you know. Terribly into...." and you feel obliged and the rest.

Well, I hope, come the general election (May 5th apparently) we voice our opinions by voting in strong representation that can confront all the "old boy" routines and put a stop to this Las Vegas culture in the banking industry.

Obama banks on better banking

European banking shares have dropped after President Obama announced far-reaching plans to curb the activities of the biggest banks in the US. Some of these activities are akin to a Las Vegas gambler. He's not proposing restrictions other than on those deemed risky. Bank chiefs have appeared goggle-eyed recently at the prospect of their casino days ending. They threaten all manner of stuff like "leaving the country".

Obama's plans could lead to a worldwide reigning in of these profligate merchants who use the citizen consumer as fodder for their fun. Proper banking is to be welcomed. No modern society can exist without banks and it would be stupid to suggest otherwise. However, what we have here is not an issue about banking as such, but about a certain industry's right to have it all their own way every day of the year.

If a bank goes pear-shaped, then the bosses expect to be bailed out. If they make huge profits then they whine if questions are asked. I'm all in favour of the labourer being worthy of his hire, but I draw a line in the sand when it comes to scam artists considering they are worthy also.

But the biggest question of all is who calls the shots in a democratic society. Is it the elected representatives or a selected cabal of bankers? It's getting very close to High Noon!

Bugger the bankers!

In a time of deep recession, brought about in part by the headlong scramble by some bankers to make money out of loans that were past their subprime value, it would be nice to think that a kind of patriotic move might not go amiss. The bonus greed currently sweeping the City of London is very unsavoury to say the least. Angela Knight, she of the British Bankers' Association, whines on amount bankers leaving the country if they don't get more money. Even Croesus would have thought better! Well, if they are so hellbent on going, let them go. As George V might have said on his deathbed if confronted by these blackmailing types "Bugger the bankers!". Quite so.

Labour lords a'leaping!

Now we move over to the House of Lords. Two Labour peers have been naughty boys too. They face suspension from Parliament for six months after being found guilty of misconduct. That misconduct was of being willing to change laws in exchange for cash. Sounds more of like an Italian parliamentary excercise than that of a peer of the realm.

Of course they say they did nothing wrong, but they were caught on camera with microphone turn up. The Sunday Times got them bang to rights! A worm would need to be a contortionist to keep up with all the wriggling that's going on at present. Both houses of parliament need a clean sweep.

It's not as though this is new. Famously Tony Hancock, in the "Blood Donor", expounds his views on whether it is right that Cliff Richard earns ten times as much as the prime minister. Lapsing into a daydream, he mutters, "I suppose it depends on whether you like Cliff Richard and what your politics are".

That was nearly 50 years ago. Tells us something about time. Cliff Richard hasn't changed much and neither has politics, it seems.

Top AIG bosses 'to repay bonuses'

Nine of the 10 executives who received top bonuses from US insurance giant AIG have agreed to return them, New York's attorney general says. Well done. To the nine and the attorney, Andrew Cuomo. He's about to get $80 million back into the AIG coffers.

But what about the tenth? Where is he? Keeping his head down, in a huge treasure chest no doubt. Mr.Cuomo says, "A number of them have risen to the occasion and I applaud them." But after Congress went through hoops, the president went on TV to denounce the debacle and every TV pundit had his/her ten cents worth.

At least the tide appears to be turning. Any chance of Sir Fred Goodwin get twinges of a similar nature?

Ron Paul on the AIG bonuses

Here's Ron Paul talking to CNN about the AIG bonuses. What gets me is the way these presenters keep asking him questions as if he's a bit odd and the system is just having a temporary blip. Why don't they get to grill some of these quacks in Congress that seem to think money grows on trees?



What we have now is legalised crooks being bailed out and the illegal crooks (some kind of oxymoron, I know!) get to go to jail. What's the difference between Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and the ponzi crook, Bernie Madoff? Not a lot, I say.

How come it's OK to bundle up cash into so-called "investment vehicles" and get these vehicles to run around town on a heady high octane gas, crash them into a wall and then find out the vehicle is made of recycled toilet paper. There never was proper money in some cases. However, we are constantly being told we can't let the banks go bust. Why ever not? They are bust now. We are just pouring money into old coffers.

The Bible tells us you can't put new wine into old skins. So why are most Western governments doing just that?

Wrong horse bolts out of No.10 stables!

If I was heavily involved in horse betting I wouldn't pop round to Downing Street to ask the Celtic Clowns for any tips. Or any of their chums, either. Harriet Harman is getting very flaky these days. She thinks she can pass a new law specifically aimed at Sir Fred Goodwin's pension. What crazy notions did she wake up with yesterday morning. It was St.David's Day, when all good Welsh people display either leeks or daffodils. This government seems to have only one choice on offer and those are very different leaks. There seems to be a leakage of talent, leakage of ideas and a generally leakage of authority and basic honesty.

Sir Fred Goodwin may be a lot of things, but I think he is probably telling the gospel truth when he says that the government knew all along about his pension arrangements. Whether he is morally entitled to this whacking great treasure chest is one thing. That he is legally entitled to it is quite another.

How much is it going to cost for these treasury legal eagles to spend time sifting through this pension detail? We are not told, but it is bound to be more money wasted on a pointless gesture.

Gordon Brown is just grandstanding. Sir Fred's horse has passed the winning post! Another nag is running round Whitehall with all the equine grace of a knackered mule!

"A light touch - that's all that's needed!"

Gordon Brown is sounding a bit like a man caught with his trousers down in a brothel. "Prostitutes? Surely not, officer. They're such fine women! I've been severely misled as to the nature of this establishment". Likewise, he's blinking in the sunlight, trying to suggest to the nation that he knew nothing about Sir Fred Goodwin's pot of gold.

We now have the ridiculous situation of the prime minister trying to make Fred the Shred cave in under some Calvinistic brow beating. Maybe he should summon up the ghost of John Knox to pay a visit at Chateau Fred. Somehow I can't see the ex-banker shifting much cash from his coffers to the Treasury's.

If Brown pushes it we'll have the mother and father of all court battles. "It's a light touch, your honour", says the hapless QC for the Government. "We could have this over by lunchtime. Just a light touch....." And they drift off into pantomime land, with the dame, the ugly sisters and a baddy. "It's Fred the Shred!" "Where?" "Behind you!".

What we need is a heavy touch. Gordon Brown needs to feel the hand of the electorate on his scheming shoulders. No rough stuff, you understand, just a firm hand to guide him to the back door of No.10. The days of his New Labour Light Touch Brigade are over. We can't wait until next year. Go now!

British bankers try to deflect the blame!

This is a bit rich. The British Bankers' Association has singled out Robert Peston and the BBC for acting "injudiciously" in reporting the problems at Northern Rock, the Treasury select committee heard. What a cheek! The bankers were propping up this cowboy outfit, knowing all along that it was a South Sea Bubble impersonator, and they have the brass neck to blame somebody else.

Robert Peston said, "Northern Rock, frankly, would have collapsed, it would be where it is today, irrespective of whether there had been that retail run". So come on you bankers. Face the music fairly. You have been greedy. You have been duplicitous. And you have nearly broken the back of the country.

Why should we be so bothered by your blatherings now?

Obama tells executives $500,000 is the limit!

You'd think the average American executive would want to help his/her country in its hour of need. You'd hope so, anyway. Instead they appear to be more like Mr. Drysdale sucking up to rich, inexperienced and naive investors. President Obama is quite right to tell these anti-social trough scoffers that the game is up as far as excessive pay and perks are concerned.

This is not directed at all excutives. Only those who have seriously screwed up and are sticking their fingers in the bailout bowl. I think the president is very much in order telling them that restraint is needed. After all $500,000 is still a fair whack for them to live off.

"People are still getting huge bonuses despite the fact that they’re getting taxpayer money, which I think infuriates the public," Obama has said. It does indeed. It also shows how out of touch these people are with reality. They portray the worst features of human greed and decadence. None of it is for the benefit of others. If it was, they wouldn't be begging for public funds.

Out with the money changers!

Most of us are familiar with the money changers being summarily thrown out of the temple, as described in the New Testament. This current episode of the goings-on of greedy money changers has only one aspect different. Instead of God's House being defiled, it is our own country that has been defiled. However, the results are not too dissimilar.

The Daily Mail had a good headline today. As I went into my local newsagent this afternoon, it was staring up at me from the rack. It screamed at me about bonuses. We have been forced to hand over £37 billion to bankers who have been inept, injudicious and ill-informed. They, in turn, gobbled up £17 billion in bonuses last year.

Now what sort of business loses money, other peoples money, and still has the affrontery to claim justification for such arrant greed?

Gordon Brown is a man with a large vocabulary in his body language. Recently he has taken to impersonating a toothless man attempting to chew gum when confronted with difficult questions. When asked why these people should not repay their bonuses for the good of the nation he simply took on this new aspect of body talk. Again, when asked if anyone was going to be investigated for possible criminal activity (as in the US), he repeated the impersonation.

If these bankers had an ounce of moral fibre they would hand back SOME of this largesse. However, what we find is the sort of behaviour like that of Sir Fred Goodwin, lately of RBS, pleading well into the early hours for his cup to runneth over even now. Some knight!

In all my disgust at their behaviour, I agreed with someone this morning who said, on the radio, that the banks were not wholly to blame. We as borrowers could have said NO. That is very true. However, whilst personal responsibility is usually limited to within the family, corporate responsibility goes much wider.

By taking in the toxic loans, repackaging them, and flogging them off to the next fall guy in the pack, they have destroyed the financial system as we know it. They may not be crooks as a judge would know them, but they have been judged crooks by the outside world.

What is an informed investor?

Recently people have been popping up on the TV screens suggesting that those who have lost money (others have gone off with it!) were probably "informed investors", so they should have known. Alistair Darling is one such. He explained to the general public and the House of Commons (those that may not know everything) that the local councils were "informed". Robert Peston, of the BBC, notes this:-

Concerns have been raised by MPs about local councils in England which may have invested in Iceland. Mr Darling replies to the point about local authorities, saying they are a "more informed investor" than ordinary customers of the Icelandic banks but the situation is "evolving".

When a BBC reporter asked about the Kenty County Council's £50 million, the councillor in charge said Moody's had said the Icelandic banks were top notch, so they went ahead with investing. On Moody's site they say:-

Moody's Investors Service is among the world’s most respected and widely utilized sources for credit ratings, research and risk analysis. Moody’s commitment and expertise contribute to stable, transparent and integrated financial markets, protecting the integrity of credit.

This sounds all rather hollow as nobody knows (not even Moodys it seems) what is happening and therefore I would suggest that there are no "informed investors" in the current climate. What is absolutely certain is that there have been a number of bankers who have bought dubious loan accounts at best and at worst been involved in calculated frauds on a massive scale.

We are being told constantly that "the banks don't trust each other". If that is the case, then that is the only valid information that an investor can be informed of. I would like to see two things happen. First, a complete trawl of each and every bank to find out how many and what value these toxic loans are. Second, that the present management either agrees to a set of terms or they make way for those who will clean up the businesses. How on earth will the taxpayers of the United States, United Kingdom and other European countries feel that their £20,000 a head offering will be of any use?

It beggars belief that the present situation can continue WITHOUT the necessary clean-up operation. When the toxins have been removed, we will all be "informed investors"!

Fuld versus the fiesty female and the fitness fist!

This fiesty take on Fuld's oblivious thoughts on his own diabolical credit crunching show that the media is allowing folks to let rip. Apparently some guy socked him one whilst he was in the gym with a heart monitor on. It all get's more bizarre.

He should have been tagged with a credit monitor, but hey, that's a fantasy I suppose!