4 Former UBS Dealers Playing Investment Poker with Customer Accounts

[Silverbird]

Four former dealers at UBS plundered customer accounts to trade and dumped the resulting losses on them, Britain's financial regulator said, further denting the battered Swiss bank's reputation.
The scandal has cost UBS more than $55 million as the Financial Services Authority slapped on an 8 million pound ($13.2 million) penalty — its third largest ever — and the bank compensated clients by more than $42 million.....
http://www.cnbc.com/id/33709201

 

[phil]

At least the Brits have a sense of decency when it comes to finance. I find it absolutely criminal that we've deregulated our markets to the point that this can happen. No no, we don't want GOVERNMENT to come in and regulate our banking business. Except, of course, when the banks fail. THEN they become the government's responsibility.

 

[grandma]

... No no, we don't want GOVERNMENT to come in and regulate our banking business. Except, of course, when the banks fail. THEN they become the government's responsibility.

That The Government Decided to take control of the banks was The Government's decision. ...because They wanted it? The `too big to fail' banks have not had to take any responsibility for their actions; yet the homeowner, even the leasee's, have been left to their own devices... living on the street, in cars, in the woods, while the homes/houses sat empty & became fodder for deliquents. If the gov't hadn't Wanted control of the financial sector of the U.S., why didn't they give the Bailout to the people themselves to use to pay those mortgages, etc. If I recall it was because we were told: the people don't know how to spend their money - too dumb, etc. And even had , We, the People, spent it `wrongly,' it would at least have been put back into circulation at the local businesses.

 

[phil]

So, what's your answer here? Deregulate the financial market even further? Or do you propose, as you seem to imply, more government in the form of socialism. If the answer is the latter, then you may want to check out your other posts to the contrary.

That The Government Decided to take control of the banks was The Government's decision. ...because They wanted it? The `too big to fail' banks have not had to take any responsibility for their actions; yet the homeowner, even the leasee's, have been left to their own devices... living on the street, in cars, in the woods, while the homes/houses sat empty & became fodder for deliquents. If the gov't hadn't Wanted control of the financial sector of the U.S., why didn't they give the Bailout to the people themselves to use to pay those mortgages, etc. If I recall it was because we were told: the people don't know how to spend their money - too dumb, etc. And even had , We, the People, spent it `wrongly,' it would at least have been put back into circulation at the local businesses.

 

[grandma]

So, what's your answer here? Deregulate the financial market even further? Or do you propose, as you seem to imply, more government in the form of socialism. If the answer is the latter, then you may want to check out your other posts to the contrary.

Where on earth, Phil, do you get the idea that this post reads like I am for More Government? Or is this a ploy :suspicious: inspired by the classic question:
"Have you quit beating your wife, yet?"

My implication was: let those large banks (and the over-paying themselves industries) take their consequences.
We are certainly being allowed to... even being Mandated (a political word if I ever heard one !!) to.
Folks with Lowly Incomes were enticed by every means available to these industries to get into debt way beyond their means. So who got the bail-outs & the ultra bonuses? And who got the shaft, the blame & spewed upon for being so financially ignorant of the `ways & means of the wordly-wise?
(And before you :notrust: decide to make this into a `personal review' let me inform you none of my family is at either end of this spectrum.)

 

[phil]

I'll simply let your own words speak for themselves. It makes it much easier. It's not a "personal" attack, unless of course your own words are a personal attack. What you're asking for is for the government to basically seize control of the banks entirely. The people in question owed money to the banks, didn't they? So your proposal to bypass the lending institutions directly to the debtors would entail a seizue of the bank's assets. My proposal was for regulation, but this idea of seizing assets would indicate a radical form of socialism. Is this what you're after? Is this your idea of "less government"?


Your original post:
That The Government Decided to take control of the banks was The Government's decision. ...because They wanted it? The `too big to fail' banks have not had to take any responsibility for their actions; yet the homeowner, even the leasee's, have been left to their own devices... living on the street, in cars, in the woods, while the homes/houses sat empty & became fodder for deliquents. If the gov't hadn't Wanted control of the financial sector of the U.S., why didn't they give the Bailout to the people themselves to use to pay those mortgages, etc. If I recall it was because we were told: the people don't know how to spend their money - too dumb, etc. And even had , We, the People, spent it `wrongly,' it would at least have been put back into circulation at the local businesses.

Where on earth, Phil, do you get the idea that this post reads like I am for More Government? Or is this a ploy :suspicious: inspired by the classic question:
"Have you quit beating your wife, yet?"

My implication was: let those large banks (and the over-paying themselves industries) take their consequences.
We are certainly being allowed to... even being Mandated (a political word if I ever heard one !!) to.
Folks with Lowly Incomes were enticed by every means available to these industries to get into debt way beyond their means. So who got the bail-outs & the ultra bonuses? And who got the shaft, the blame & spewed upon for being so financially ignorant of the `ways & means of the wordly-wise?
(And before you :notrust: decide to make this into a `personal review' let me inform you none of my family is at either end of this spectrum.)

 

[grandma]

I'll simply let your own words speak for themselves. It makes it much easier.
.

Seeing as how I don't see your twist on my post, I'll have to admit it is as I suspected:
THIS IS a ploy :suspicious: inspired by the classic question:
"Have you quit beating your wife, yet?"

OVER and OUT !

 

[phil]

Then just read what you write. I think the question should properly be the classic question:
"Have you quit reading your own writing, yet?"

Seeing as how I don't see your twist on my post, I'll have to admit it is as I suspected:
THIS IS a ploy :suspicious: inspired by the classic question:
"Have you quit beating your wife, yet?"