Just a thought

[GovanAllan 0]

Millions of people have been affected, my point is it wasn't solely him. Do you think he was the only person to make a decision ever? However, maybe it was HIM who did lose you money. I'm merely pointing out the rules of Knighthood removal and why he didn't fit into it. I've already stated I don't agree with them on the whole anyway.

 

The government used all our monies, that's not in doubt but it wasn't the first crash & it won't be the last.

 

This crash was avoidable, the same way there is no need for us to be in the mess we are in just now if it had been handled properly.

 

That is the crux of the arguement the guys at the top continually pissing on the guy below from a great height and not giving a flying f#*k about the consequences, yet these same guys are hailed as the pinnacle to aspire too and given Knighthoods.

[BlueMazza 0]

This crash was avoidable, the same way there is no need for us to be in the mess we are in just now if it had been handled properly.

 

That is the crux of the arguement the guys at the top continually pissing on the guy below from a great height and not giving a flying f#*k about the consequences, yet these same guys are hailed as the pinnacle to aspire too and given Knighthoods.

 

The Knighthood was before the crash and a lot of the problems began in America due to sub-prime lending. This WAS a world wide crash. I agree those at the top don't give a shit, I really do. I just didn't agree with the process of removal either.

[GovanAllan 0]

We'll agree to disagree BM.

[craig 5,199]

Due to the "Buck stops here" mantra, Goodwin WAS instrumental. However, the global crash actually started in the US and it COULD have been avoided. All you need to do is google the name Dick Fuld. He was the CEO of Lehman and it was Lehman that effectively brought the crash upon us. Bear Stearns had been bought and everybody in the industry knew of the sub prime toxic assets issue at that point. Wall Street and the Fed were already working on a deal to try to save Lehman and, in fact, South Korea had a bid on the table that everybody wanted Lehman to accept but Fuld, having been with Lehman for 30+ years and CEO for a considerable length of time, refused to sign off on the deal. THAT is what was the initial cause of the collapse (aside from the issue of BS investments of Credit Default Swaps (CDS) and CMO's (Collateral Mortgage Obligations).

 

Had Fuld sold Lehman to Korea then the issue could very well have been avoided and the investment banks could have started deleveraging their toxic sub debt assets in an organised fashion. But the weekend that the banks knew that Lehman couldnt be saved they went into survival mode and just started dumping all their own stuff to try to save themselves, which caused the run on the banks that saw the chaotic panic we then saw in the market place.

 

In fact, had Greg Fleming not brokered a deal to sell Merrill Lynch to Bank of America (his CEO tried to prevent that one too - they have too much of an ego to let go without a fight) then the crash would have been catastrophic and far worse than even the Great Depression. We were literally 36 hours away from seeing probably the worst financial crisis EVER. The sale of Merrill Lynch, to an extent, prevented that. The failure of Bear Sterns and Lehman were BIG but Merrill would have been a different animal as they didnt just hold institutional money, they were the investment bank of choice for people's individual investments.

 

In a way you should be thankful that it didnt cost the UK taxpayer even more money..... because Hank Paulson & Ben Bernanke (Treasury Secretary and Fed Reserve chairman) were brokering a deal, after the Korean failure, to sell Lehman to Barclays. Alistair Darling, to his credit, eventually realised just how toxic Lehman was and refused to let Barclays purchase it. Just as well as they had $70 billion of toxic assets and had over $600 billion of overnight repos's which they couldnt cover. Startling numbers and a good indication of the greed that Wall Street had/has as well as the greed that the investor had/has.

 

The problem is that as all these banks were clocking up record profits primarily due to these toxic assets which nobody could truly value all of their peers fell into line and started buying them too so as not to miss the gravy train. Pressure was on CEO's to produce stellar results just like their peers. The problem is that institutions like RBS lost sight of the fact that they were primarily a bank, not an investment bank. Similarly, AIG lost sight of the fact they are an insurer, not an investment bank. Hank Greenberg made AIG the biggest insurer in the world and was at the helm of AIG for 40 years, and walked away as a pariah. Did he deserve that ? I dont think he did, but the buck stops with him, he got paid to be the public figurehead so he has to live with it. How you can take a bunch of people's mortgages, some where people arent paying, package them together, and give them a AAA S&P rating is beyond me.

 

Was Goodwin instrumental ? He is the CEO so he has to take the blame, it is effectively his company to run so when things go well he gets the credit, ala the Knighthood. When things go bad he likewise should be castigated. But he would have had subordinates who were supposed to know what they were investing in and, quite clearly, they had no idea what they were investing in with the sub prime market. THEY should also take responsibility.

 

A decent book to read is called Confidence Men - primarily about Obama's election campaign but with a strong focus on the financial collapse because it was that issue which essentially got him elected.

 

Sorry for the off-topic post