Community

Nope Chris

I was not undervaluing MiFID and the other directives but rather stating the obvious that we all need to move on and concentrate on the many important issues hitting FS. MiFID has already been implemented and from here on the path has been laid.

I do not believe that the media facination with MiFID should be perpetuated, rather that we should all be putting MiFID into the context of the many directives you listed, which are forming a politically inspired single market of equals with standardised protection and increased customer services.

The new venues that are being set up are having a mixed birth I noted and also wanted to draw people's attention to the very powerful position of the Stock Exchanges. All I believe have responded superbly with changes to meet their customers requirements and with exceptional technology utilised.

I do not believe that most FS firms are floundering! There is no evidence of this, bar the media attempting to show a industry in crisis. However, I believe the real crisis is not with MiFID or anything close but a genuine global financial turmoil, unseen for many decades, if ever! In this situation attention should be given to solving the risk issues that have been well documented and detected in many of the headline storys in the financial pages.

Taken within the context of what FS firms are facing all the Directives should form a single strategy and not be seen in isolation and treated like buses. This view will be hampered if MiFID keeps being trumpeted.

MiFID I believe has already been included by many firms within their strategic business and systems development. I do not see any evidence that any firm is teetering on non compliance. This may change of course but until then its irresponsible to present the FS industry as being unable to cope with MiFID

I firmly believe that the Banking industry are able to work out and already know what their plans are and how they will comply . New trading venues will be added if that is part of their business development. Each firm has their own agenda and some will gain and some will not, as is normal in business.

It is not a time to be shortsighted and focus on MiFID, where far bigger challenges lie ahead. This was the point I was drawing attention too and why for most professionals in FS, MiFID is old news!    

Yes Andy thats the problem!

In another age the quiet dispatch of people was recorded by a Stock Exchange committe. When anyone was employed they were checked against those records. Of course no one was employed with a bad track record. It was always in the interests of the market in general that bad eggs were thrown out

I see the ethical position of both the Bank and its employees as key to building a barrier against acts of fraud no matter our large or small. Transparancy is important and why i call for heavey sanctions against those responsible as well as those who comit the act

We must all try and build industry wide ethical busines operations in this industry as when one falls down in likely to affect many others and ultimatley damage the reputation of the industry and market itself. So strong rules, high ethics and tough sanctions that are transparant and recorded against future employment

Dealing rooms have to be operated in an envoronment of trust first and foremost. Trust between the bank and its employees (This is a two way trust street) and then between the client and the dealing room. Ethics must be imbeded within everyone within financial services. If there is a breakdown of ethics the penality should be terminal! This not much different from the days on the Stock Exchange floor that was virtually self regulating

I do not see lie detectors as building any form of trust rather creating a negative environment. However technology to measure and monitor performance can be a deterent as would the recording of telephones (Including mobiles)

My view is to make indiviudual on the board personally responsible with strong sanctions including job loss. This would make those in control of the bussiness take care attention to people,systems and controls. Be it on their own head view from the FSA would have a huge impact 

Thank you Elizebeth, lets hope that the industry wises up to the real problem and the real solutions available!

I do hope that the Corporate Action vendors and the various industry committes and groups concentrate on the processes within any FS firm and as importantly the agencies that need to be included for industry wide STP for Corporate Actions

Nope! Disagree again

Despositors would have been picked up by other banks, as would the mortgage book and all other assets of value, leaving the rump for disposal at the best price available. No Government intervention needed, as the Banking industry would have absorbed the business.

Losses would have been mainly with shareholders (but that is the risk for all shareholders) and employees and that is sad, but a fact of life!

The Government will try and justify their decisions of course and will present facts that suit their version, however distorted. So people should use their brains and work out where fault lies and what would have been a better resolution. Rather than follow Government spin. 

The railways are not a good example! If it was organised like on the continant it would have worked well and actually had nothing to do with privatisation just how it was designed!

I can't really agree with much of that analysis. Politics and business work together best when they keep within their own boundaries. Politics and business never mixes well.

The privatisation program in the eighties Thatcher Government was successful because it released companies from state control. This policy was adopted worldwide.

I am not sure that any Government nationalisations have ever proved profitable over the long term. The survival of the fittest should prevail and if a business gets into trouble, market forces will normally take on the asset.

It is pointless to look at either Tory or Labour statements on nationalisation as both look similar in conclusion although coming from different starting points. However, the use of tax payer's money to buy an ailing business has to be questionable and in EU terms may be even illegal.

In the past the Bank of England would have managed the Northern Rock situation, one could argue that is nationalisation by another name. The difference is when Governments take over control using our money.

A simple question for everyone: Would you have used your family's money to buy a house that was losing its value by the hour? If the answer is no then why would you support the Government? If the answer is yes, I doubt your sanity! 

The fact is that when Banks start operating like the local Bookies, this will create a bubble, just waiting to burst. People will borrow as much as the banks will allow. Things are fine for a while, whilst inflation is in check and the asset (e.g. Property) goes up in value and everyone enjoys full employment, but then.....!

The financial institutions must take the lions share of the blame, followed soon after by the regulators (What were they regulating?) and then the Govenment/Treasury.

Joe Public should understand more about financial services and then perhaps they will not be seduced by the willingnes of FS instititions to lend more than people can afford. The old value, "that you only borrow what you can afford to pay back", should take prominence for all. My old grandad taught me that!

Your quite right about the STP missing link with tax reclaims and I do not think any corporate actions vendor is acuatually marketing this as part of their STP promotions. However, STP within corporate actions has been created by most of the CA vendors and something we have been testing for the last six years through our benchmarks, created and scored by an independent industry panel. The industry has been satisfied with the increasing capability of the CA systems that are now extending into areas of risk managment.

So you can feel very confident that the CA vendors are not spinning a line but genuine in their presentations. We know, we proved it!

It might be interesting to see if the various tax authorities would engage in a technology solution for withholding tax that would I'm sure be intergrated to by the existing CA vendors. We could then extend this concept to other agencies within the CA Industry processes and really move to industry wide STP rather than internal automation of parts of the process as done today.