Rachel Reeves lied on her CV was not an “Economist”

[Disappointedagain22]

AIBU - it’s OK to lie to get ahead

AINBU - it’s bad RReeves very Publicly lied about her prior work. We are right to feel annoyed by this lie.

saw this headline and am feeling really disappointed. Think Rachel Reeves needs to tell public exactly her job title.
She changed job title from Economist, to “Retail Banking”
An Economist at a Bank, is a clear and specific job, it’s a economic research position. A good experience for her current position.

”Retail Banking” - is not a job title … she could have been doing anything in a branch from Bank Teller, to Branch manager, or working in back office operations putting bank notes in the plastic bags or in HR.

The thread title should absolutely be amended to add ‘at HBOS’ at the end of it, as that seems to be the thrust of the original post. As we know, originally her LinkedIn profile said she was an economist at HBOS. That has been subsequently corrected by the chancellor, because it appears she actually held a customer support manager role in the retail arm of HBOS a role which did not require any qualification as an economist. But many people embellish their CVs, though whether doing so is wise when you already have aspirations in politics does cause me to raise an eyebrow.

However there is no doubt that she studied economics, or that she was a junior economist at the BofE. Conflating two things (HBOS and Bank of England in this case) seems to be a common theme nowadays here, and it’s unhelpful IMO.

What would be more useful would be to discuss the economic impact of her budget and, when they get round to publishing them, the policies that they intend to implement to drive economic growth and take us to the number one position in the G7.

@Tryingtokeepgoing I know it isn’t the point you are making but I find it disgusting that it’s acceptable that staff costs at Tesco are lower than dividends paid especially when it’s a relatively labour intensive company.

Yet why do I have a relative who works in a similar retail bank doing this work? I don’t have all the information but please don’t treat me like I’m stupid.

But they’re not 🤔. In 2023 staff costs were 8 times higher than dividend paid.

Tesco made £2.9 billion in 2023/24 and £1.6 billion in 2022/23

Factcheck... indeed.

Taking just one years profit/dividend figures is utterly ridiculous, esp when comparing dividends to staff salaries

Couldn't find any share price info from 1994 but its more than doubled since 2000.

You could argue that it’s the rich who are ‘parasitical off the hard work of others’

Sorry I was skimming and saw the 10% and 18% and assumed they were off the same base.

You could and you’d be absolutely right. Especially those with passive incomes.

Having a relative doing a job , doesn't make you the authority to comment of such things. Its like saying my brother is a neurologist yet I can bang on about what I want.

There is so much confusion in this thread where people are throwing about terms in their arguments which they don't understand from point dot.

Credit risk, liquidity blah blah...BoE.

I'm not treating you as stupid. But there are people on this thread that know what they're talking about and you're against them. So you're making yourself look however you are coming across.

A Retail bank doing credit risk and capital modelling , I do not believe it. Sorry . The Retail bank is always ajoined to other arms of the group to measure it's credit and liquidity risk as the balances alone are too small to make meaningful inferences. And it's unsecured exposure so that's a whole different kettle of fish altogether.

I can’t recall any other chancellor having their CV picked apart to try to establish they weren’t qualified for the job although they may have been subject to personal attacks.

Why is that?

Because Reeves has pissed off a lot of wealthy people. But the added misogynistic tinge to proceedings is fairly depressing. If you listed Chancellors of the past you would see that nearly all of them are less qualified than her.

What would be more useful would be to discuss the economic impact of her budget and, when they get round to publishing them, the policies that they intend to implement to drive economic growth and take us to the number one position in the G7.

Yes this is the issue that faces Reeves, and Starmer

Given the their first quarter in power we'll see where it goes. Perhaps they created the confidence drop through poor decisions on messaging, or maybe it's policies.

Why do you keep attacking posters like this when you information isn’t rock solid (see previous comments on compliance departments in retail banks).

Basel I was implemented in 1992 so banks were calculating credit risk, tier 1 capital etc. I started in investment banking a couple of years after this and every large credit transaction had to calculate its capital usage. These were feeding into a central team monitor and managing capital.

Basel II was in agreed text form in 2004 with a market risk framework also being developed. So banks were already working on the implementation of Basel II ahead of the financial crisis.

It was clear from the financial crisis that the Basel regime had flaws, for example, it was too focused on credit risk and Tier 1 capital was inadequately loss absorbing. Hence the focus on things like counter cyclical capital buffers, bail in provisions and Contingent Convertibles.

So in summary, it is absolutely factually inaccurate to state that banks were not engaging in significant levels of capital modelling prior to the financial crisis. That modelling was overly focused on credit risk but it was happening. I know because I was working on relevant transactions at the time. (I’m a banking lawyer).

🦠

Retail banking did not do capital modelling and liquidity risk in that period ,simple as that.

Yes capital controls were in adequate but Retail banking was not in scope

16 yrs from the crises,Retail banking is relying on simple score card models for its risk and credit card, a menial loans don't feature in the calculations,even today!

I'm not fazed by your use of Credit risk jargon at all, considering I have worked on such models all my life.

But I stand by my point. Retail bank did not do capital modelling and liquidity risk back then.

You can be who you like,as I said you can be Mickey Mouse here its an anonymous forum and yet gives plenty the licence to talk nonsense.

Simple pimples

The issue continues to be misrepresenting prior work experience.

So NatWest and Lloyds didn’t need Tier 1 capital prior to the financial crisis nor to calculate RWA.

Did anyone tell the regulators?

I really don’t understand why you think retail banks using a scorecard for individual loans is relevant when they would be modelling the whole mortgage book (residential mortgages were weighted at 50%) from memory.

We will have to agree to disagree on this point

As I said before, this has been explained to you by people who work in this area. You seem to be cherry picking what you read. Quite disingenuous to keep this thread title but of course we know how that works. Johnson was a master of the craft.

Jargon or not, it’s laughable. Did anyone micro analyse the work/experience of Hunt, Kwarteng or any of their predecessors?

Don't worry about it op, if people want to read the background they can read the thread, don't change it because pp are ordering it

You just need to grab a headline, whether or not there’s any truth and your work’s done.

Of course they didn’t. This is the first time I’ve ever seen anyone take issue with the employment background of any government minister.

Again you're confusing Group with Retail.

Natwest was the retail bank, it belonged to the RBS .

I stand by my point.

Modelling the whole mortgage book?

Theyre not nettable , again please 😔

When I can’t get a job as a delivery driver without my degree and postgrad, then it’s a fair analogy.
But you’ve said you don’t intend to change your lying title - is that because you are so blind you can’t see the lie, or are so entrenched in your bias that you like to spread misinformation? Either way, not worth discussing with. I won’t be replying to you again.

Exactly so. @cardibach I think this is the answer to your question.