Skip to comments.Bankers in favour of paying global fee
Posted on 01/29/2010 5:39:32 PM PST by Cheap_Hessian
Some of the worlds most prominent bankers have come out in favour of a global bank wind-down fund, a concession from the industry after weeks of fighting proposals for new taxes in the US and Europe.
Josef Ackermann, chief executive of Deutsche Bank, told the Financial Times on Friday : To help solve the too-big-to-fail problem Im advocating a European rescue and resolution fund for banks. Of course, the capital for this fund would have to come from banks to a large degree.
Bob Diamond, president of Barclays , also supported the idea of a global levy, which could see banks contribute tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars over a period of years.
I think every G20 country would like to have an insurance scheme that would help cover the cost of any future bank failure, he told the FT at the World Economic Forum in Davos. A co-ordinated global system is preferable to an unlevel playing field.
(Excerpt) Read more at ft.com ...
A co-ordinated global system is preferable to an unlevel playing field.
The ultimate tyranny is when you restrict competition and make the "rules" global because then we can not improve or escape our situation.
And what happens when this gigantic fund gets raided by its owner just like every other fund we’ve ever created?
So.....the Global Warming wealth transfer scheme has stalled, so this is Plan B. Paging, Al Gore......
bankers don’t really care about across the board fees; they just pass them on to us.
Well, just make the problem bigger and the problem is solved. Right?
Well, at that point they will be too big to save. This war on risk is quite foolish.
And the government likes it because it is actually a hidden tax. The bankers get cursed for it, not the congress.
Let them fail.
connection to barclays (and other banks)
Not global warming, but some interesting Al Gore talk on the thread.
The financials are incapable of managing their risk due to a complete lack of ethics in the boardroom. So as usual, the little guy is going to be the one screwed because don't you dare believe for a second the banks won't simply raise fees on customers to offset these payments to the global slush fund of stupidity. I'm sure they'll put the UN in charge of this just to make certain its a total trainwreck.
This really doesn’t inspire confidence in the American business community.
Nice spin in the headline, which SHOULD BE, “A Couple of European Bankers In Favor of Paying Global Fee”. Let the Euros pay any kind of fee they think they should, and leave us out of it. Thanks Cheap_Hessian.
The large banks hope to control the financial field and really will go along with any govt scheme as long as they have protection from their smaller competitors. They will just pass along the costs. Your local credit union never looked so good. They don’t charge you for a checking account or your savings. They give good car loans and they can do the same mortgage terms as the so called big banks..since they all sell them to Fannie and Freddie..eliminate them from your financial affairs. Be gone Citi, Wells, BofA etc. Go to hell.
We are, alas, out of the golden age of credit unions. Right after the Savings and Loans failures and scandals, and as the Carter-era usurious lending rates came down but were still far higher than today, there was room in there for credit unions to thrive and grow, and still offer more services and no (or much lower) fees than banks, and I remain in the same credit union after 30 years. But we’ve had ever-lower interest rates for the past twenty years or so, really more, with very little in the way of an uptick for over ten years (over twelve, come to think of it). My mortgage is an ARM, and has trended lower over the past 13 or 14 years (however long it’s been), the only increases in my house payment having been due to property tax increases (the payment has risen occasionally to cover the escrow w/d, even though I always get a check for the balance).
Our low interest rates have been made possible by huge growth, tax cuts (things like accelerated depreciation, one of the more important cuts from the Reagan years), and in spite of budget deficits that were at the time stunning (chump change now). Even when the dollar has slid, and tax receipts have dropped, interest rates have barely budged. The savings rates have dropped and remain low — except for foreign governments which buy US securities with the cash from trade surpluses vs the US. Individual savings shifted into mutual funds and direct stock investments since about 1982 — the beginning of the historically unprecedented 28 year bull market (even when it’s bearish, it’s remained a bull market).
This is some weird stuff here.
More of our money will be taken to support things we oppose.
Thank you world libs. :D
After all, some bank has to be designated to temporarily hold and administer those acquired funds, don’t they?
And with the UN involved, the level of potential corruption becomes...worldwide.
And the UN already has the best available working system for the corrupt hiding of any and all financial transactions.
Precisely the problem, there is no war the political class will not use the funds for other vote buying schemes, leaving it again on the taxpayer to pick up the mess. It gets paid by the consumer the first time and the taxpayer the last time.
Banks are not being robbed, They have always robbed the little people. Took their money and bought power, more money= more power= more money and it never stops! Every thing trickles town to the poor people who will have to pay more and more until they have nothing more to pay with.... then what ? Slavery ?
They know it’s not about global warming, it’s about power and more wealth !