INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Yet more banking scandals

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Yet more banking scandals

#21 Post by Alan H » February 4th, 2014, 5:00 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:The price of PPI: what the banks have set aside to pay for mis-selling
Lloyds Banking Group's extra £1.8bn provision to compensate customers for past mis-selling of payment protection insurance (PPI) has taken the amount banks have set aside for the scandal to £22.2bn – enough to pay for the 2012 Olympics twice over.


The financial journalist Paul Lewis said on Twitter:
Banks set aside £22.2bn to repay missold PPI but this industrial scale fraud goes unpunished

Though, as I've said before, I think the scandal is substantially less than the banks have been forced to accept, I have no problem with those at the top being charged. The court proceeding would be fascinating too.....
And still unevidenced. However, the fallacy of appeal to personal incredulity, of course, but when have the banks ever admitted to a liability greater than they believed they were responsible for - and why?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Fia
Posts: 5480
Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm

Re: Yet more banking scandals

#22 Post by Fia » February 4th, 2014, 7:19 pm

This comment of Nick's says it all for me:
The "money" used to "pay for" the shares was only ever a creation on a computer spread-sheet. When the shares are sold, the creation will be reversed.

Can us struggling plebs have some of this "money"? Those hit by swinging benefit cuts; the half decade long wage freeze for those lucky enough to be in employment, even luckier if not on a zero hrs contract; the bedroom tax; the many clearly disabled who have either died destitute, committed suicide or as in one recent case had a heart attack in the assessment office when told they were fit to work; those forced to eat rubbish food from food banks, or being prosecuted for supermarket skip-diving; being penalised by energy companies if you can't risk a direct debit due to bank charges; add as many as you wish...

The bankers bleat and whine about eye-watering bonuses, threaten to leave if we treat them with the same disdain as the current govt treats us, and expect fancy spread sheet "money" to cover their clear ineptitude.
And what the banks actually have is our real money.

The priorities are just wrong, wrong, wrong :angry:

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Yet more banking scandals

#23 Post by Nick » February 4th, 2014, 7:20 pm

Alan H wrote: And still unevidenced.
I know this may not satisfy you, Alan, (maybe because you have some sort of agenda....?) but my conclusion is based on 30 years experience of financial services, including compliance issues, claims, regulatory bodies and regulatory procedures.

However, the fallacy of appeal to personal incredulity, of course,
So it's not personal incredulity

but when have the banks ever admitted to a liability greater than they believed they were responsible for - and why?

Because the burden of proof is different between the regulatory regime within which they operate, and that required within a court of law. The banks are screwed, and there is nothing they can do about it, as they are forbidden, by law, from taking the regulator to court.

I am prepared to accept that thousands have been missold PPI, which is a disgrace, but thousands have been able to game the system and make successful claims under the regulations, which would not have succeeded under normal contract law.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Yet more banking scandals

#24 Post by Nick » February 4th, 2014, 7:31 pm

Fia wrote:This comment of Nick's says it all for me:
The "money" used to "pay for" the shares was only ever a creation on a computer spread-sheet. When the shares are sold, the creation will be reversed.

Can us struggling plebs have some of this "money"?

Well, yes, you could of course just print money. Zimbabwe tried that, and (according to Wiki) ended up with an inflation rate of 6.5 sextillion per cent by mid November 2008.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Yet more banking scandals

#25 Post by Dave B » February 4th, 2014, 7:50 pm

Zimbabwe tried that, and (according to Wiki) ended up with an inflation rate of 6.5 sextillion per cent by mid November 2008.
I have to admit that I think we have a bunch of wallies running this country but thank something we don't have the likes of Mugabe to contend with!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Yet more banking scandals

#26 Post by Alan H » February 4th, 2014, 7:52 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote: And still unevidenced.
I know this may not satisfy you, Alan, (maybe because you have some sort of agenda....?) but my conclusion is based on 30 years experience of financial services, including compliance issues, claims, regulatory bodies and regulatory procedures.
Correct. As I've said before, it's not that I don't believe that is your firmly and genuinely held belief, but in the absence of good evidence to substantiate it...

However, the fallacy of appeal to personal incredulity, of course,
So it's not personal incredulity
What isn't?

but when have the banks ever admitted to a liability greater than they believed they were responsible for - and why?

Because the burden of proof is different between the regulatory regime within which they operate, and that required within a court of law. The banks are screwed, and there is nothing they can do about it, as they are forbidden, by law, from taking the regulator to court.
I'm not talking about courts or levels of proof. Why would the banks agree to compensate for more than they (presumably) knew they were liable for? Banks are hardly in the habit of giving out more money that they need to - it's not a good business model. Presumably the regulator doesn't prevent the banks from stating publicly that the amount was more than they should have been liable for? Have they said any such thing?

I am prepared to accept that thousands have been missold PPI, which is a disgrace, but thousands have been able to game the system and make successful claims under the regulations, which would not have succeeded under normal contract law.
I'd love to believe you, Nick, but excuse me from being skeptical until I can see some definitive evidence.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Yet more banking scandals

#27 Post by Dave B » February 4th, 2014, 7:58 pm

Nick, perhaps your years in your job has inculcated you with the same mindset that all those bankers have now. Your Tory leanings probably help that bias as well.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Yet more banking scandals

#28 Post by Nick » February 5th, 2014, 3:48 pm

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote: And still unevidenced.
I know this may not satisfy you, Alan, (maybe because you have some sort of agenda....?) but my conclusion is based on 30 years experience of financial services, including compliance issues, claims, regulatory bodies and regulatory procedures.
Correct. As I've said before, it's not that I don't believe that is your firmly and genuinely held belief, but in the absence of good evidence to substantiate it...
Oh well. I have come across many examples in my career, and it also makes sense (more sense than the alternative), but you would propbably just dismiss this as anecdotal. I do not have the time money or inclination to gather the data to satisfy you, so I'll just have to leave it there. It's disappointing though, that you seem incapable of pondering an alternative possibility, given that (in my opinion at least) it is not without reason.

However, the fallacy of appeal to personal incredulity, of course,
So it's not personal incredulity
What isn't?

You appeared to be accusing me of appealing to personal incredulity. Was I wrong?

but when have the banks ever admitted to a liability greater than they believed they were responsible for - and why?

Because the burden of proof is different between the regulatory regime within which they operate, and that required within a court of law. The banks are screwed, and there is nothing they can do about it, as they are forbidden, by law, from taking the regulator to court.
I'm not talking about courts or levels of proof.
Well I was! That is the whole point! There is a crucial difference in the burden of proof under the two regimes.

Why would the banks agree to compensate for more than they (presumably) knew they were liable for?
Because they have no choice, as previously explained.

Banks are hardly in the habit of giving out more money that they need to - it's not a good business model. Presumably the regulator doesn't prevent the banks from stating publicly that the amount was more than they should have been liable for? Have they said any such thing?
Nor is it a good business model to try to argue with a regulator, who is also judge and jury. All that would happen is further character damage and larger fines.

I am prepared to accept that thousands have been missold PPI, which is a disgrace, but thousands have been able to game the system and make successful claims under the regulations, which would not have succeeded under normal contract law.
I'd love to believe you, Nick, but excuse me from being skeptical until I can see some definitive evidence.

I doubt you can provide any evidence that all the payouts are precisely right. In fact I know you can't, as I have personal knowledge of the opposite. So, in the absence of such evidence, doesn't it make sense to at least make an intelligent guess, based on reason?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Yet more banking scandals

#29 Post by Alan H » February 5th, 2014, 4:19 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:I know this may not satisfy you, Alan, (maybe because you have some sort of agenda....?) but my conclusion is based on 30 years experience of financial services, including compliance issues, claims, regulatory bodies and regulatory procedures.
Correct. As I've said before, it's not that I don't believe that is your firmly and genuinely held belief, but in the absence of good evidence to substantiate it...
Oh well. I have come across many examples in my career, and it also makes sense (more sense than the alternative), but you would propbably just dismiss this as anecdotal.
And I would be quite right to. You saying you have seen some cases is no different to a homeopath saying they have seen miraculous cures with their own eyes: they are unverified and unverifiable anecdotes. But that's not what I'm asking for evidence for! Even if you could provide such evidence, it is not evidence for your claim. Your claim was that banks have been forced to accept claims for amounts substantially more than they were responsible for - can you see that you providing evidence - even if incontrovertible - for a few people you know says nothing about the bigger picture? You may like to extrapolate, but the data cannot be stretched from a few cases to all.

I do not have the time money or inclination to gather the data to satisfy you, so I'll just have to leave it there. It's disappointing though, that you seem incapable of pondering an alternative possibility, given that (in my opinion at least) it is not without reason.
We can ponder all we like, but we cannot conclude something that the evidence does not say.

So it's not personal incredulity
What isn't?

You appeared to be accusing me of appealing to personal incredulity. Was I wrong?
No. You've misunderstood. I said:
However, the fallacy of appeal to personal incredulity, of course, but when have the banks ever admitted to a liability greater than they believed they were responsible for - and why?
It was my appeal to personal incredulity to believe that bankers would admit to greater than they believed they were due. That would stretch my credulity to beyond breaking point.

Banks are hardly in the habit of giving out more money that they need to - it's not a good business model. Presumably the regulator doesn't prevent the banks from stating publicly that the amount was more than they should have been liable for? Have they said any such thing?
Nor is it a good business model to try to argue with a regulator, who is also judge and jury. All that would happen is further character damage and larger fines.
No. I was not saying that they should have argued with the regulator, but that they could have made a statement that they had agreed to a deal with the regulator, even though the money they had to refund was far greater than they believed was the extent of the mis-selling. However, even if they did argue with the regulator, I find it extraordinary that the regulator would increase the fines just because they did! And are you implying that the banks just rolled over when the regulator came calling - or did they try to argue their case anyway?

I am prepared to accept that thousands have been missold PPI, which is a disgrace, but thousands have been able to game the system and make successful claims under the regulations, which would not have succeeded under normal contract law.
I'd love to believe you, Nick, but excuse me from being skeptical until I can see some definitive evidence.

I doubt you can provide any evidence that all the payouts are precisely right. In fact I know you can't, as I have personal knowledge of the opposite. So, in the absence of such evidence, doesn't it make sense to at least make an intelligent guess, based on reason?
But I'm not claiming that they are precisely right, so I have nothing to provide any evidence for! You made the claim that they were substantially above what they were actually responsible for, yet have provided no evidence.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Yet more banking scandals

#30 Post by Nick » February 5th, 2014, 5:18 pm

Alan H wrote:And I would be quite right to. You saying you have seen some cases is no different to a homeopath saying they have seen miraculous cures with their own eyes: they are unverified and unverifiable anecdotes. But that's not what I'm asking for evidence for! Even if you could provide such evidence, it is not evidence for your claim. Your claim was that banks have been forced to accept claims for amounts substantially more than they were responsible for - can you see that you providing evidence - even if incontrovertible - for a few people you know says nothing about the bigger picture? You may like to extrapolate, but the data cannot be stretched from a few cases to all.
Sampling technique would suggest I am on to something, but the sample size isn't large enough to be certain. It still demonstrates a likely possibility, though. You don't want to accept that. Oh well, that's up to you.

I do not have the time money or inclination to gather the data to satisfy you, so I'll just have to leave it there. It's disappointing though, that you seem incapable of pondering an alternative possibility, given that (in my opinion at least) it is not without reason.
We can ponder all we like, but we cannot conclude something that the evidence does not say.
Why dismiss the evidence I claim? Even if it is not enough to be certain, it should lead you to query the alternative you seem to be supporting.


No. You've misunderstood. I said:"However, the fallacy of appeal to personal incredulity, of course, but when have the banks ever admitted to a liability greater than they believed they were responsible for - and why?" It was my appeal to personal incredulity to believe that bankers would admit to greater than they believed they were due. That would stretch my credulity to beyond breaking point.
Thanks for the explanation; I misunderstood your point. But as you would be the first to say, that is no reason at all. :wink:

Nor is it a good business model to try to argue with a regulator, who is also judge and jury. All that would happen is further character damage and larger fines.
No. I was not saying that they should have argued with the regulator, but that they could have made a statement that they had agreed to a deal with the regulator, even though the money they had to refund was far greater than they believed was the extent of the mis-selling.
This has effectively happened. Thousands and thousands of appeals have been decided by the ombudsman, i n the light of which the banks have altered to grounds on which they reject claims, as they have a very good idea of what the ombudsman will decide. there is no point in making further work for themselves, when they have good evidence that they will lose.

However, even if they did argue with the regulator, I find it extraordinary that the regulator would increase the fines just because they did!
Extraordinary it may be, but banker bashing seems to be a national sport, these days. If they banks ran arouund claiming that the regulator was wrong, I have no doubt at all that the regulator would increase the size of the fines to "encourage them not to", and to "change their culture" and such like.

And are you implying that the banks just rolled over when the regulator came calling - or did they try to argue their case anyway?
See above.

I'd love to believe you, Nick, but excuse me from being skeptical until I can see some definitive evidence.
I hope you will accept my word for the cases I have come across. Why are you skeptical of the claims I have made about the claimants? (That some see the PPI scandal as a way to get some money out of the banks.)

I doubt you can provide any evidence that all the payouts are precisely right. In fact I know you can't, as I have personal knowledge of the opposite. So, in the absence of such evidence, doesn't it make sense to at least make an intelligent guess, based on reason?
But I'm not claiming that they are precisely right, so I have nothing to provide any evidence for! You made the claim that they were substantially above what they were actually responsible for, yet have provided no evidence.
As far as I'm concerned, I have provided enough reason for one to suspect that not everything is as it seems. In a court of law, a guilty verdict should not be given if there is doubt. There may be evidence either way, but doubt is important.

(I'm not saying that the banks have nothing to answer for; they do. But I am claiming that the claims have been exaggerated.)

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Yet more banking scandals

#31 Post by Alan H » February 5th, 2014, 6:25 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:And I would be quite right to. You saying you have seen some cases is no different to a homeopath saying they have seen miraculous cures with their own eyes: they are unverified and unverifiable anecdotes. But that's not what I'm asking for evidence for! Even if you could provide such evidence, it is not evidence for your claim. Your claim was that banks have been forced to accept claims for amounts substantially more than they were responsible for - can you see that you providing evidence - even if incontrovertible - for a few people you know says nothing about the bigger picture? You may like to extrapolate, but the data cannot be stretched from a few cases to all.
Sampling technique would suggest I am on to something, but the sample size isn't large enough to be certain. It still demonstrates a likely possibility, though. You don't want to accept that. Oh well, that's up to you.
Alternatively, your cases are outliers. If and when you can provide evidence that they are not, I can consider changing my neutral position.

I do not have the time money or inclination to gather the data to satisfy you, so I'll just have to leave it there. It's disappointing though, that you seem incapable of pondering an alternative possibility, given that (in my opinion at least) it is not without reason.
We can ponder all we like, but we cannot conclude something that the evidence does not say.
Why dismiss the evidence I claim? Even if it is not enough to be certain, it should lead you to query the alternative you seem to be supporting.
You're missing the point Nick. I'm not dismissing the evidence you say you have - what I am dismissing is your unfounded extrapolation. However, if you can provide evidence that it can be extrapolated, then it can be examined.

No. You've misunderstood. I said:"However, the fallacy of appeal to personal incredulity, of course, but when have the banks ever admitted to a liability greater than they believed they were responsible for - and why?" It was my appeal to personal incredulity to believe that bankers would admit to greater than they believed they were due. That would stretch my credulity to beyond breaking point.
Thanks for the explanation; I misunderstood your point. But as you would be the first to say, that is no reason at all. :wink:
There would be all sorts of reasons to start from a working hypothesis that an organisation, whose sole reason for existence was to make money for its shareholders and whose continued existence depended on being successful at fulfilling that one aim, would do what it could to protect and maximise that money.

However, even if they did argue with the regulator, I find it extraordinary that the regulator would increase the fines just because they did!
Extraordinary it may be, but banker bashing seems to be a national sport, these days. If they banks ran arouund claiming that the regulator was wrong, I have no doubt at all that the regulator would increase the size of the fines to "encourage them not to", and to "change their culture" and such like.
Yes, and a well-deserved sport it is too.

And are you implying that the banks just rolled over when the regulator came calling - or did they try to argue their case anyway?
See above.
So, did they just roll over or did they try to fight it?

I'd love to believe you, Nick, but excuse me from being skeptical until I can see some definitive evidence.
I hope you will accept my word for the cases I have come across. Why are you skeptical of the claims I have made about the claimants? (That some see the PPI scandal as a way to get some money out of the banks.)
I'm not sure how I can say this any more plainly: I don't not believe what you say about your personal experience; it's just that you have not managed to justify extrapolating it to what might have happened nationwide!

I doubt you can provide any evidence that all the payouts are precisely right. In fact I know you can't, as I have personal knowledge of the opposite. So, in the absence of such evidence, doesn't it make sense to at least make an intelligent guess, based on reason?
But I'm not claiming that they are precisely right, so I have nothing to provide any evidence for! You made the claim that they were substantially above what they were actually responsible for, yet have provided no evidence.
[/quote]As far as I'm concerned, I have provided enough reason for one to suspect that not everything is as it seems. In a court of law, a guilty verdict should not be given if there is doubt. There may be evidence either way, but doubt is important.

(I'm not saying that the banks have nothing to answer for; they do. But I am claiming that the claims have been exaggerated.)

I doubt you can provide any evidence that all the payouts are precisely right. In fact I know you can't, as I have personal knowledge of the opposite. So, in the absence of such evidence, doesn't it make sense to at least make an intelligent guess, based on reason?
But I'm not claiming that they are precisely right, so I have nothing to provide any evidence for! You made the claim that they were substantially above what they were actually responsible for, yet have provided no evidence.
As far as I'm concerned, I have provided enough reason for one to suspect that not everything is as it seems. In a court of law, a guilty verdict should not be given if there is doubt. There may be evidence either way, but doubt is important.

(I'm not saying that the banks have nothing to answer for; they do. But I am claiming that the claims have been exaggerated.)[/quote]Yet we still have no good evidence to believe that!

What, it seems to me, you are entitled to claim given the evidence you say you have, is that some cases have been awarded more than you believe they should have been entitled to. For the sake of argument, let's say that you are talking about five cases out of ten. It is entirely possible that those are the only five cases that have - in your opinion - been overpaid. Perhaps that's not likely and you may be right, but there are no grounds for assuming anything about the total population of complaints. You cannot say that because 50% of the ten cases you have personal knowledge of were given excessive payouts, that 50% of all (however many thousands there are) are equally excessive. You just do not have the data to support that, however likely you feel it may be.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Yet more banking scandals

#32 Post by Nick » February 7th, 2014, 4:05 pm

Alan H wrote:Alternatively, your cases are outliers. If and when you can provide evidence that they are not, I can consider changing my neutral position.
In any normal distribution the number of cases I have come across is highly unlikely to be outliers. Nor do I consider your position to be neutral.

We can ponder all we like, but we cannot conclude something that the evidence does not say.
I have come across sufficient cases in my professional life which convince me of the case. I am disappointed you take such a challenging attitude to such a statement, but that's up to you.

Why dismiss the evidence I claim? Even if it is not enough to be certain, it should lead you to query the alternative you seem to be supporting.[/quote]You're missing the point Nick. I'm not dismissing the evidence you say you have - what I am dismissing is your unfounded extrapolation. However, if you can provide evidence that it can be extrapolated, then it can be examined.[/quote]If, in a sample of cases, one finds certain consistencies, then one is entitled to draw conclusions, to varying degrees of certainty. Standard sampling technique.

There would be all sorts of reasons to start from a working hypothesis that an organisation, whose sole reason for existence was to make money for its shareholders and whose continued existence depended on being successful at fulfilling that one aim, would do what it could to protect and maximise that money.
I don't see that that works, because, by the same token, they would not as a matter of policy engage in cheating their clients becuase of the dangers which have now been shown to be inherent.

However, even if they did argue with the regulator, I find it extraordinary that the regulator would increase the fines just because they did!
Extraordinary it may be, but banker bashing seems to be a national sport, these days. If they banks ran arouund claiming that the regulator was wrong, I have no doubt at all that the regulator would increase the size of the fines to "encourage them not to", and to "change their culture" and such like.
Yes, and a well-deserved sport it is too.
Not such a neutral stance after all! :wink:

And are you implying that the banks just rolled over when the regulator came calling - or did they try to argue their case anyway?
See above.
So, did they just roll over or did they try to fight it?
They arguded their corner, but stoppedonce the decision as to how to assess the claims had been made by the regulator. They did not have the legal capacity to challenge them further, nor would it have been in their interests to try to do so after that point.

I'd love to believe you, Nick, but excuse me from being skeptical until I can see some definitive evidence.
I hope you will accept my word for the cases I have come across. Why are you skeptical of the claims I have made about the claimants? (That some see the PPI scandal as a way to get some money out of the banks.)
I'm not sure how I can say this any more plainly: I don't not believe what you say about your personal experience; it's just that you have not managed to justify extrapolating it to what might have happened nationwide!
Then I suggest you acquaint yourself with sampling techniques.

(I'm not saying that the banks have nothing to answer for; they do. But I am claiming that the claims have been exaggerated.)
Yet we still have no good evidence to believe that!
So what is wrong with the reasons I have given? Do you understand the differences between a court decision and the decision of the regulator?

What, it seems to me, you are entitled to claim given the evidence you say you have, is that some cases have been awarded more than you believe they should have been entitled to. For the sake of argument, let's say that you are talking about five cases out of ten. It is entirely possible that those are the only five cases that have - in your opinion - been overpaid.
Statistically vanishingly unlikely, and my knowledge extends to hundreds of cases, which makes it even less likely.

Perhaps that's not likely and you may be right, but there are no grounds for assuming anything about the total population of complaints.
Yes, there are. (well, drawing conclusions, rather than making assumptions).

You cannot say that because 50% of the ten cases you have personal knowledge of were given excessive payouts, that 50% of all (however many thousands there are) are equally excessive. You just do not have the data to support that, however likely you feel it may be.
My sample size is much bigger, and (as I think you know anyway) one can draw conclusions, to varying degrees of certainty. Indeed if one does not, then there is not much use for sampling at all, is there?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Yet more banking scandals

#33 Post by Alan H » February 7th, 2014, 4:47 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:Alternatively, your cases are outliers. If and when you can provide evidence that they are not, I can consider changing my neutral position.
In any normal distribution the number of cases I have come across is highly unlikely to be outliers.
Nick. You are entitled to your opinion. However, if you ever want anyone else to accept what you say, you need to provide a good argument and evidence. You believe you are typical and not an outlier, and are asking us to accept your knowledge as being correct. Can you not see just how difficult that is? I have no way of knowing whether or not you are typical and, I am suggesting, neither do you. You may well be correct, but in the absence of any evidence or justification that you are, indeed, typical, how on earth can anyone accept what you have extrapolated? This is not just that you have voiced your opinion. You are perfectly entitled to that, but I am equally entitled to doubt - not your veracity in holding that opinion - but your belief that your experiences is typical.

A minor point, but why assume the distribution is normal?

Nor do I consider your position to be neutral.
No, Nick. Suspending judgement until good evidence is provided is neutral - until you are able to provide something more robust and capable of verification that your opinion, then I am perfectly justified in suspending my judgement. But please don't try to make out that I am trying to make the opposite case to you: you told us of your experience (which I do not doubt), then you extrapolated that to the general case. Can you not see the problem here?

We can ponder all we like, but we cannot conclude something that the evidence does not say.
I have come across sufficient cases in my professional life which convince me of the case. I am disappointed you take such a challenging attitude to such a statement, but that's up to you.
You still seem to think I doubt your experience! I do not. I will say again that I do not doubt your experience, just your lack of justification in extrapolating your personal experience to the general, nationwide condition.

Why dismiss the evidence I claim? Even if it is not enough to be certain, it should lead you to query the alternative you seem to be supporting.
You're missing the point Nick. I'm not dismissing the evidence you say you have - what I am dismissing is your unfounded extrapolation. However, if you can provide evidence that it can be extrapolated, then it can be examined.
If, in a sample of cases, one finds certain consistencies, then one is entitled to draw conclusions, to varying degrees of certainty. Standard sampling technique.
That only works if the sample is randomly selected from the population. Your sample of one person and a small number of cases from your experience is anything but random.

See above.
So, did they just roll over or did they try to fight it?
They arguded their corner, but stoppedonce the decision as to how to assess the claims had been made by the regulator. They did not have the legal capacity to challenge them further, nor would it have been in their interests to try to do so after that point.
What? The banks don't have the legal capacity to challenge them further??? But why would it not be in their best interests to continue? They might have won and saved themselves vast sums of that stuff they like to collect.

I hope you will accept my word for the cases I have come across. Why are you skeptical of the claims I have made about the claimants? (That some see the PPI scandal as a way to get some money out of the banks.)
I'm not sure how I can say this any more plainly: I don't not believe what you say about your personal experience; it's just that you have not managed to justify extrapolating it to what might have happened nationwide!
Then I suggest you acquaint yourself with sampling techniques.
See above comment about random sampling.

(I'm not saying that the banks have nothing to answer for; they do. But I am claiming that the claims have been exaggerated.)
Yet we still have no good evidence to believe that!
So what is wrong with the reasons I have given? Do you understand the differences between a court decision and the decision of the regulator?
I certainly do, but we are not going to get any further until we can clear up the issue of the extent of any exaggeration.

What, it seems to me, you are entitled to claim given the evidence you say you have, is that some cases have been awarded more than you believe they should have been entitled to. For the sake of argument, let's say that you are talking about five cases out of ten. It is entirely possible that those are the only five cases that have - in your opinion - been overpaid.
Statistically vanishingly unlikely, and my knowledge extends to hundreds of cases, which makes it even less likely.
Again, your sample is not random, so extrapolation is not justified. I'll say it again: you may be right in your opinion, but you have not provided any justification for your extrapolation.

Perhaps that's not likely and you may be right, but there are no grounds for assuming anything about the total population of complaints.
Yes, there are. (well, drawing conclusions, rather than making assumptions).
Wrong.

You cannot say that because 50% of the ten cases you have personal knowledge of were given excessive payouts, that 50% of all (however many thousands there are) are equally excessive. You just do not have the data to support that, however likely you feel it may be.
My sample size is much bigger, and (as I think you know anyway) one can draw conclusions, to varying degrees of certainty. Indeed if one does not, then there is not much use for sampling at all, is there?
OK, let's, for the sake of argument, assume your sample was random. What degree of uncertainty does that give and to what confidence level?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Yet more banking scandals

#34 Post by Nick » February 9th, 2014, 5:04 pm

Oh dear. This is becoming tiresome. I’ll try again.

My experience covers all sorts of areas. For clarity, I have never sold a PPI contract to any of my clients, ever. More appropriate would be AS, ASU or PHI, which over 30 years I have recommended never, very occasionally, and frequently (when not otherwise covered) respectively. So I have no affection for PPI.

Not only direct experience of clients, but separate direct experience of claimants. I have heard many and frequent stories of “how to make a successful claim”, virtually whatever the history of the case.

More widely, I have been briefed, and heard lectures from, compliance firms and officers, as well as representatives of the regulators themselves, concerning grounds for claim, and, more importantly, grounds for accepting a claim. All of these have laid out a red carpet to fraudulent claims, as well as those (IMO fewer in number) which were miss-sold. So, by virtue of the numbers covered by such people, the sample size is huge. And the evidence only points one way: that too many claims are being accepted. There is no evidence that I can see that my primary and secondary experience of the claims and the claims process is skewed in any way. That is why I believe I am justified in the extrapolation.

They argued their corner, but stopped once the decision as to how to assess the claims had been made by the regulator. They did not have the legal capacity to challenge them further, nor would it have been in their interests to try to do so after that point.

What? The banks don't have the legal capacity to challenge them further???

Yes, exactly. It’s laid down in statute.

But why would it not be in their best interests to continue?
Because they would lose. Lloyds have just been fimed £28 million, because of their “sales process”, even though many of the clients allegedly abused have actually benefitted financially from the transactions. The efforts of politicians and regulators to “stamp out such practices” has instead crippled the provision of any financial advice at all for any but the wealthiest.

They might have won and saved themselves vast sums of that stuff they like to collect.
As I’ve sought to explain: not possible. That is the distinction between a court and a regulator.

Because of the above, I believe I am justified in saying successful claims which are, in fact false. I am not able to make claims about numbers and percentages, but my view is that the process in general is flawed, and as such has given rise to substantial error.

I'm rather bored with all this now….

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Yet more banking scandals

#35 Post by Alan H » February 9th, 2014, 5:21 pm

Nick wrote:Oh dear. This is becoming tiresome. I’ll try again.

My experience covers all sorts of areas. For clarity, I have never sold a PPI contract to any of my clients, ever. More appropriate would be AS, ASU or PHI, which over 30 years I have recommended never, very occasionally, and frequently (when not otherwise covered) respectively. So I have no affection for PPI.

Not only direct experience of clients, but separate direct experience of claimants. I have heard many and frequent stories of “how to make a successful claim”, virtually whatever the history of the case.

More widely, I have been briefed, and heard lectures from, compliance firms and officers, as well as representatives of the regulators themselves, concerning grounds for claim, and, more importantly, grounds for accepting a claim. All of these have laid out a red carpet to fraudulent claims, as well as those (IMO fewer in number) which were miss-sold. So, by virtue of the numbers covered by such people, the sample size is huge. And the evidence only points one way: that too many claims are being accepted. There is no evidence that I can see that my primary and secondary experience of the claims and the claims process is skewed in any way. That is why I believe I am justified in the extrapolation.
At least now you are coming up with new sources for your evidence, but ones, I presume, you cannot cite. But that strikes me as odd: if all these people were telling you all this, has it been published anywhere? If it has, then that might be something worth looking at and something that might have saved a lot of time and aggravation. If not, why not?

Because of the above, I believe I am justified in saying successful claims which are, in fact false. I am not able to make claims about numbers and percentages, but my view is that the process in general is flawed, and as such has given rise to substantial error.
If and when evidence becomes available that you can present here, then we can look at it again. Until then, I will - rightly - continue with my skepticism.

I'm rather bored with all this now….
Me too.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Yet more banking scandals

#36 Post by Nick » February 11th, 2014, 4:46 pm

Alan H wrote:At least now you are coming up with new sources for your evidence, but ones, I presume, you cannot cite.
This is a discussion forum, Alan. I am not on trial!

But that strikes me as odd: if all these people were telling you all this, has it been published anywhere?
Frequently in the trade press...

If it has, then that might be something worth looking at and something that might have saved a lot of time and aggravation.
...but I haven't been involved recently, nor do I feel the need to spend my time just to try to convince someone who ISTM doesn't want to be convinced anyway.

If not, why not?
One reason for its low profile is that the regulator is judge, jury and enforcer. This tends to stifle criticism.

If and when evidence becomes available that you can present here, then we can look at it again. Until then, I will - rightly - continue with my skepticism.
As no evidence has been provided here in support of the fairness of the PPI rebates and penalties, I take it therefore that you are equally skeptical of that to? I wouldn't think you would want to appeal to authority.... :wink:

I'm rather bored with all this now….
Me too.

Time to move on.

Graham R
Posts: 14194
Joined: April 6th, 2011, 10:33 pm

Re: Yet more banking scandals

#37 Post by Graham R » February 11th, 2014, 8:53 pm

I see that Barclay's profits are down but bonus payments are up.
Relish the privilege of existence

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Yet more banking scandals

#38 Post by Dave B » February 11th, 2014, 9:34 pm

Graham R wrote:I see that Barclay's profits are down but bonus payments are up.
One commentator said there was more in their bonus pot than they will be giving their shareholders in dividends.

Haven't seen their justifications yet (OK, haven't looked for them either!)
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Yet more banking scandals

#39 Post by Alan H » February 11th, 2014, 10:17 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:At least now you are coming up with new sources for your evidence, but ones, I presume, you cannot cite.
This is a discussion forum, Alan. I am not on trial!
Indeed. And it seems we cannot have a discussion if you are unable to substantiate what you say when challenged.

But that strikes me as odd: if all these people were telling you all this, has it been published anywhere?
Frequently in the trade press...
As my Dad would have said...it's like drawing teeth...

If it has, then that might be something worth looking at and something that might have saved a lot of time and aggravation.
...but I haven't been involved recently, nor do I feel the need to spend my time just to try to convince someone who ISTM doesn't want to be convinced anyway.
Certainly one way of not convincing someone that your opinion is correct is to not provide any evidence.

If and when evidence becomes available that you can present here, then we can look at it again. Until then, I will - rightly - continue with my skepticism.
As no evidence has been provided here in support of the fairness of the PPI rebates and penalties, I take it therefore that you are equally skeptical of that to? I wouldn't think you would want to appeal to authority.... :wink:
I made no claim about the fairness of PPI, so I'm not sure who you are expecting to provide this evidence.

I'm rather bored with all this now….
Me too.

Time to move on.
Indeed.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Yet more banking scandals

#40 Post by Alan H » February 11th, 2014, 10:29 pm

Dave B wrote:
Graham R wrote:I see that Barclay's profits are down but bonus payments are up.
One commentator said there was more in their bonus pot than they will be giving their shareholders in dividends.

Haven't seen their justifications yet (OK, haven't looked for them either!)
Why would you expect Barclay's to offer a justification?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Graham R
Posts: 14194
Joined: April 6th, 2011, 10:33 pm

Re: Yet more banking scandals

#41 Post by Graham R » February 11th, 2014, 11:50 pm

Dave B wrote:
Graham R wrote:I see that Barclay's profits are down but bonus payments are up.
One commentator said there was more in their bonus pot than they will be giving their shareholders in dividends.

Haven't seen their justifications yet (OK, haven't looked for them either!)



Barclay's justification is that they have to pay competitive salaries or they would lose their best people.
However as profits are down their best people seem not to be doing their best.
So perhaps it's time for a change of personnel.
Relish the privilege of existence

Post Reply