to think that bankers who sue take legal action to protect their bonuses should ...

[MmeReindor]

be made to live in a grotty mouldy B&B for a month, so they can see the consequences of their actions. There are people who have lost their jobs because of the recession, who have lost their home, lost everything.

And the bankers still insist on a bonus. On top of their already well paid job?

I am speechless.

The Guardian reports today that this may happen.

Already in Germany, the Commerzbank is facing a legal challenge from its subsiduary, DresdenKleinwort

The bankers claim that Commerzbank, which bought Dresdner Kleinwort, should have honoured an agreement to provide a ?400m bonus pool for 2008. Dresdner Kleinwort reported a ?6.3bn loss for 2008, which Commerzbank believes changed its commitment to the bankers

What really gets my goat is the comment about taxes, from a think tank.

City bonuses are expected to total £4.2bn in 2011, down 38% on the £6.7bn paid out last year, ... will generate about £2.5bn for the Treasury, ... this is still some distance ...from the £6.8bn collected in the peak of 2007-08, clearly illustrating how the taxpayer also misses out when the City pays lower bonuses,"

How in the name of all that is holy, does that even make a bit of sense?

We bail the banks out with taxpayers' money, but should be grateful that we are getting £2.5bn back - if we even get it back, as no doubt some of it will vanish in an off-shore bank account, or via shady tax avoidance.

I can't believe that people are trying to blame banks when they are taking out 125% mortgages! It doesn't matter whether other people were doing this or not.

Taking out a 125% mortgage is totally irresponsible unless you have a very solid cashflow position. You are clearly taking a highly levered, speculative position on property prices. You need to make sure that if interest rates go up 1000bp you are still going to be able to make the payments, the alternative it to become a forced seller or reposession.

Why is it people feel sympathy for those that buy houses and take a punt on the property market and then lose their homes? If i borrowed money to buy shares and I couldn't pay the interest on the loan and lost my home, I doubt people wouldn't be anything like as sympathetic but both are equally valid forms of specualtion on assets.

Oops MmeLindor, did not see your question to me before replying earlier. Too quick to type

Interest on the government loans / bail out preference shares with the banks and dividends (which will be paid in the next few years) are paid in annual cycles. Only the capital invested is being returned on a longer basis. The return on the loan (in the case I am aware about) is significantly higher than typical inter-bank lending rates.

Suppose continuing down this route is pointless as no one's opinion will be changed. Last post from me, but I still stand by my view on the current financial crisis.

Banks are greedy, profit making enterprises who develop complex and high risk financial products in response to pressure for higher profits from shareholders and lower rates on debt / higher rates on savings from customers.

The risk on these products is spelt out in clear terms in contracts before you sign up. If you sign up to mortgages that you cannot afford, knowing the risk, then you are to blame. You understood the risk and wanted to participate in the spoils in a good market, but were not able to willing to face a bad market, even though you were warned it could happen (the value of your product can go up as well as down, standard wording for banks).

If you gamble, don't blame others when you lose. If you don't want to lose, stick to affordable debt and don't spend more than you earn.

Also, just to re-emphasise, when you lost the bank also lost. They did not recover the value of the loans they gave on defaulted property.

Have a good New Year.

I'm sorry but it's true Garlic. I know you've had a rough time, more so than most, but all that has been said above is true. It didn't go your way, for reasons of extreme bad luck that you could not have foreseen, but completely exacerbated by poor judgement about things you could and should have built into the equation when dealing with such large sums of money. It was not your mortgage advisor's job to make you had done your due diligence I'm afraid. You are understandably bitter and bruised, but it is wrong to try and shift blame, or not to admit any responsibility for your own part in your downfall.

Saying you made the 'right' (bullish) decisions at the time based on the apparently favourable conditions at the time is not really a defence I'm afraid.

I don't want to be harsh - just pragmatic. I don't want to kick someone when they are down, but I can't let you labour under the illusion that you were robbed blind!

completely agree with niceguy's last post.

One thing that some people don't appreciate is that shareholders in B&B and Northern Rock were entirely wiped out. I held my B&B shares in an ISA and lost the lot as although an ISA is govt-incentivised saving, it's not covered by the protection offered to cash deposits.

Look, obviously I'm aware that my decisions turned out to be wrong ones. I'm living the consequences. What I've taken issue with is the "serves you right" attitude of some on this thread, which clearly extends to the horrific outcomes to be suffered by vulnerable people this coming year.

I'm sticking by my poker metaphor. I'm a fairly intelligent person and was used to business. I had made what seemed adequate provisions for bad luck; I had all the insurances and so forth. But I was still misguided, if we don't say 'conned', by some of my financial providers including the second mortgage lender.

The majority of the people who lose out to banks' selective representation of their products are in worse positions than I was then, having less financial cushioning and less business experience. I cannot accept that providers have no moral responsibility for the misery resulting from their methods.

It's always easy to say "You should have known". But you don't, do you? If you tried to take every single variable into account before making a decision, you'd never get out of bed. When we make decisions, we're responsible for taking all available information into account, no more. I maintain I was given incomplete information by some of my providers. And I see that as a moral failing on their part. If you bought your child a toy that exploded in their face, would you say the manufacturer was innocent because his packaging didn't explicitly say "Will not explode?" No, you'd expect a clear warning that it might!

The other peculiar thing about this attitude is that, if I'd got well again as expected, my project would have turned out successfully. I'd have got shot of the overpriced finance as soon as they revealed the rate hike, remained in blissful ignorance about the limits on my insurance and living in a fabulous flat with a (by now) small mortgage. And you'd all be saying I was a shining example of how well Tory values work.

Luck of the draw. You shouldn't penalise people for bad luck, nor should you blame them for not knowing things they didn't know. Those two factors apply even more harshly to many other people, with worse luck and/or less advantage than me. It may be comforting to tell yourself you're entirely responsible for your own good fortune, and so should others be ... but it doesn't really work like that.

I knew a woman who worked for the Mirror Group for 40 years, since leaving school. Her pension disappeared to wherever Maxwell did. The replacement scheme was also sucked out (legally this time) to pay shareholders - all she ever got out of it was share dividends. She was made redundant at 55 with no pension. None at all. Was she stupid, too?

Fluffy I'm sorry but I think your post is misguided. Plenty of people took out 125% mortgages with no problems, they are simply- living there. Not everyone took out a huge % mortgage to make money, some just did it to buy a house 5 years earlier than they otherwise would've done. Many people just paid it back without fuss. I have a few friends who've bought 120% mortgages (btw they were only available on small mortgages, up to about 200k normally) they're all still living there, have paid back the 25% loan portion and often 10-30% of the rest of the mortgage. It allowed them go buy flats at 23 rather than 30. It's not actually that bigga deal.

Well no, because she was robbed, almost literally! But yes, I have a lot of empathy with your fifth paragraph, and ultimately it's all a big game of Who Dares Wins, and unfortunately some people who dare, do not win. I know many people who are very entrepreneurial, who appear to be successful and affluent, but actually, in relaity, they lurch from one business crisis to another, but always optimistic that it will come right in the end. I admire you for trying, and I don't even blame you for failing - but I think you need to say 'hands up, I gambled and I lost' instead of trying to shift the blame and play the victim. That's all. (although I appreciate you have been very ill and it was a more than unusual circumstance.)

Yep, MrsJAP, that kind of thing has happened to a lot of people, too :(

There were also those 1980s opt-out pension schemes (can't remember what they were called) which were part of Mrs T's drive to get everyone going private. All vanished funds.

garlicnutcracker - yes but I'm not complaining. Unlike the OP who doesn't even live in this country.

LOL at being an anti government frother who lives with her banker husband in Switzerland.

Better than sitting still & going "I'm all right Jack" surely, MrsJAP?

niceguy - Isn't it the case that none of the banks could have survived without the bailout as they all owe so much to each other?