Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

First Brexit employment casualties

616 replies

Stopyourhavering · 25/06/2016 15:02

dd graduated this week, happy times.....phoned this morning to say that 2 of her friends, who had also graduated ( business/law degrees) and been offered jobs had been telephoned by their prospective employers to say that because of Brxit, they were now basing their headquarters in Berlin rather than UK and would no longer be employing them......I fear this is just the start....I am so angry and upset for our youth. My ds and dd2 are so angry and feel betrayed....I wish 16 &17 year olds had been given a vote as I feel they had a better handle on the repercussions of Brexit

OP posts:
ManonLescaut · 26/06/2016 14:26

Why sexist? Banking is sexist, especially investment banking (worked in it for many years), so there are more bankers wives than bankers' husbands, especially on a main female forum.

It's no more sexist than any other profession. Wild guess says you were back room (if it's even true, which from your comments here doubt). I'm an ex-banker who left to set up her own successful companies, whose husband and sister who still work in investment banking. Trying to patronise women here just make you look like a tit.

Fwiw I don't need Brian Appleyard to tell me that this EU result is partly a result of the financial crisis (snorts). It's bleedin' obvious.

ManonLescaut · 26/06/2016 14:28

Have you ever had any formal education in this topic, out of curiosity?

I think we know the answer to that one.

larrygrylls · 26/06/2016 14:36

Manon,

Not me who is doing the patronising here. Why do you keep telling me what your husband and relatives do for work?!

Cote,

I tried to explain that bring overpaid and paying tax on it is not wealth creation. In Spain, got a while, air traffic controllers were paid several hundred thousand pounds per annum.,,,bizarre but true. Does that mean that each Spanish air traffic controller created 10x more wealth than a uk air traffic controller? By your logic it does.

CoteDAzur · 26/06/2016 14:41

larry - I have no idea what you tried to say there.

You don't seem to know what the phrase "wealth creation" actually means. What can air controllers possibly have to do with the concept of wealth creation? Confused

Hint: It doesn't happen with salaries or with taxes.

larrygrylls · 26/06/2016 14:45

Cote,

You linked taxes paid to wealth creation. Just showing how silly you were being.

CoteDAzur · 26/06/2016 14:48

What I said was "finance people quite often do create wealth", not that taxes have anything to do with wealth creation. Is this an English comprehension problem?

ManonLescaut · 26/06/2016 14:52

Why do you keep telling me what your husband and relatives do for work?!

I'm not telling you anything. Their work was only mentioned in relation to the discussion of languages spoken in the workplace, and foreign workers moving away from London.

If are intimidated by the work people do here and you can't follow the discussion, perhaps this is not the thread for you.

ManonLescaut · 26/06/2016 14:53

Is this an English comprehension problem?

I think this is a larry problem.

larrygrylls · 26/06/2016 14:58

Man on,

Think you are right, clearly your and your relatives' brilliance has outshone my feeble degree in theoretical physics from Cambridge plus my finance career. Not the thread for me.

Shame the populace have tumbled you. Still, it is Wimbledon now. Enjoy your debenture tickets and Krug while you can.

CoteDAzur · 26/06/2016 14:59

I don't know what any of that means, larry. Do point out where I "linked taxes paid to wealth creation", as you claimed I did.

larrygrylls · 26/06/2016 15:05

Man on,
Just en passant, your post of 14:52 entirely contradicts your post of just 26 minutes previously, where you once again brought up your relatives' banking careers and it had nothing to do with languages.

larrygrylls · 26/06/2016 15:12

Cote,

Maybe you did not directly link them but you implied banks were not charities and so tax money earned was from profits, which implied it was wealth creating.

Leaving aside issues of var accounting (which is ignoring the elephant in the room), if a company charges another company an exorbitant fee for a service, makes a lot of money and pays taxes on the profit, this is not a net contribution to the exchequer.

And as for claiming you learned that most mergers are wealth creating, how about you cite some sources? When I am not on my phone I will link to many academic papers demonstrating large mergers are net wealth destructive.

ManonLescaut · 26/06/2016 15:17

Just en passant, your post of 14:52 entirely contradicts your post of just 26 minutes previously, where you once again brought up your relatives' banking careers and it had nothing to do with languages

No, you need to read it more carefully. You accused us of being bankers' wives. At 14.26 I agreed to being a banker's wife but pointed out that I was also originally a banker myself. You claimed there were few bankers' husbands, so I pointed out my sister is also a banker - ie her husband is technically one. Ok?

It was in a previous post that I mentioned relative's workplace languages as it was relevant to the discussion.

larrygrylls · 26/06/2016 15:26

Manon,

Read your post of 14:52 carefully. Then read your post of 14:26. You really going to tell me that they are entirely consistent?? Anyone?

But I am sure you can always did some justification for including your banking dynasty family in your posts.

ManonLescaut · 26/06/2016 15:34

They are entirely consistent, but I think you may have failed to grasp that I was referring to comments prior to your question - to which I gave you a direct answer.

ManonLescaut · 26/06/2016 15:36

Btw I have never met anyone so chippy about banking who ever actually worked in the sector.

But anyone can be the Pope on the internet eh?

witsender · 26/06/2016 15:40

Grin Manon.

CoteDAzur · 26/06/2016 15:49

larry - re "Maybe you did not directly link them but you implied banks were not charities and so tax money earned was from profits, which implied it was wealth creating."

What on Earth are you on about? Hmm I said:

CoteDAzur Sun 26-Jun-16 11:08:02
People don't get paid a lot if they don't contribute to a company's revenues because businesses are not charities.

^ That has absolutely nothing to do with taxes. At all. Nada.

"Leaving aside issues of var accounting"

What exactly is "var accounting"? Confused

"if a company charges another company an exorbitant fee for a service, makes a lot of money and pays taxes on the profit, this is not a net contribution to the exchequer."

I suppose you are trying to say that one company's +profit is another's -profit but that is not true. If it were, macroeconomy would be a zero-sum game.

"claiming you learned that most mergers are wealth creating, how about you cite some sources?"

Read a book, larry. I promise that you will find that it is a very rewarding experience Smile

It is impossible to generalise that all M&As lead to value (not wealth, by the way) creation or vice versa. It varies according to the period, industry, and deal-making capabilities of the acquired & acquirer. There may also be considerations other than short-term shareholder value - eliminating a major competitor, investing for the future, etc.

If you were correct and M&As indeed led to lower value, companies just wouldn't do them. Because, contrary to what you seem to believe, there is an actual mathematical approach to corporate finance and most people in that industry are not idiots.

akkakk · 26/06/2016 15:50

Boeing:

Posted By: Aviation Wales Jun 25, 2016

The worlds largest aerospace company Boeing recently selected London as its new European headquarters despite fears of Brexit.

The seattle based airframer, which already employs 2000 staff and has invested nearly £2bn in the UK, has said that the Brexit vote would not effect its decision to base its entire UK and European operation in London.

Aston Martin

Aston Martin will go ahead with plans for a new £200m on a new plant in Wales despite the UK voting to leave the European Union.

The company boss Andy Palmer said in a statement that Brexit will have no impact on the company’s plans, though warned the sports car maker would require additional "productivity and efficiency" gains.

Boeing is one of the largest companies in the world
Aston Martin had a recent 35% stake taken in it by Invest Industrial - an Italian investment fund... and a 5% stake by Daimler (Mercedes Benz) - the rest of its ownership is a consortium with money primarily from the middle east)

larrygrylls · 26/06/2016 15:53

Manon,

I was becoming disillusioned before 2008 but I believed, even as a managing director level desk head, that someone above me was actually talented and knew what was going on on a larger scale. The sheer incompetence, the bailout, the criminal Merrill bonuses of Dec 2008/Jan 2009 etc convinced me otherwise. I did a lot of reading after that....

I link to a paper here:

www.russellsage.org/sites/all/files/Rethinking-Finance/Murphy.PayPoliticsCrisis%202-16-12.pdf

And a small excerpt below:

'Public anger over banking bonuses surfaced in January 2009 amid reports that Wall street bankers were set to receive nearly $20 billion in bonuses for 2008 performance, and heightened with revelations that bailout -recipient Merrill Lynch paid nearly $4 billion in

year-end bonuses just prior to completion of its acquisition by Bank of America. Outrage further intensified following the March 2009 revelation that American International Group (AIG) was in the process of paying $168 million in “retention bonuses” to its executives.'

In 2008 the World changed, but only one (obviously relatively low level) banker went to jail for it. Most just went on as normal.

Michael Lewis's 'The Big Short' explained a lot of it. And, recently, so called high frequency or 'algo' trading is just old fashioned front running by another name. Apparently they are now using the old World War Two towers so that they can beam line-of-sight microwaves, in order to beat optic fibres, which travel slower due to the path length and refractive index.

Of course, we need banks and bankers, but not so well paid and not so many of them. Up to a point it is wealth creating but, beyond that, merely parasitic.

What is especially irritating, and one of the reasons that people are getting fed up, is that capitalism is meant to efficiently allocate capital (I am sure even Cote, complete with her MBA, will struggle to disagree with that). How is laying a fibre optic cable from New York in a completely straight line to Chicago to beat the existing time of travel by a few milliseconds efficient capital allocation? How is allocating some of the most brilliant minds in stochastic calculus to pricing complex options efficient allocation of brain power?

I am tired of your troll hunting by the way. You e mail me your true name and employment history and I am happy to do the same. Who is the troll here?

CoteDAzur · 26/06/2016 16:10

"In 2008 the World changed, but only one (obviously relatively low level) banker went to jail for it. "

What is your understanding of the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis?

Do you understand that it was triggered by securitisation of subprime debt in the US?

In which way do you want "bankers" in the UK to pay for the legal and financial mess that started in the US?

larrygrylls · 26/06/2016 16:18

Cote,

Ok, I will bite.

'Read a book, larry. I promise that you will find that it is a very rewarding experience smile

It is impossible to generalise that all M&As lead to value (not wealth, by the way) creation or vice versa. It varies according to the period, industry, and deal-making capabilities of the acquired & acquirer. There may also be considerations other than short-term shareholder value - eliminating a major competitor, investing for the future, etc.

If you were correct and M&As indeed led to lower value, companies just wouldn't do them. Because, contrary to what you seem to believe, there is an actual mathematical approach to corporate finance and most people in that industry are not idiots.'

www.nber.org/digest/aug03/w9523.html

faculty.darden.virginia.edu/brunerb/Bruner_PDF/Does%20M&A%20Pay.pdf

A couple of high quality studies to maybe update and ameliorate your understanding. Some bedtime reading for you, perhaps.

And, a 'mathematical' model is only as good as its inputs. Typically some young spreadsheet jockey will run a model over hundreds of potential acquisitions. If the spreadsheet comes out with a black number, a salesperson will go to the CEO and CFO of the potential acquirer and persuade them to bid. Of course, if the bid is successful, up to hundreds of millions of dollars of fees will be paid and the CEO will have a much bigger (and better paid job). Now, of course the model will be based on optimistic assumptions anyway. But that is not the end of it. Typically the acquiree won't want to be acquired so that they will appoint their own bankers who, lo and behold, using very similar models, will say that their company is worth an awful lot more (those damned subjective input variables). Egos now become involved and, if the deal is done, it is typically done at a much higher price. The shareholders in the acquirer almost inevitably lose money and those in the acquiree tend to cash out.

Simples......

larrygrylls · 26/06/2016 16:21

Cote,

'What is your understanding of the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis?

Do you understand that it was triggered by securitisation of subprime debt in the US?

In which way do you want "bankers" in the UK to pay for the legal and financial mess that started in the US?'

I am really sorry but now I am really doubting your involvement in the business. Northern Rock? Do you think we did not have our own subprime? Did RBS not own Greenwich Securities? Did Barclays not have a U.S mortgage unit? Why do you think we had a crisis in the UK?

It was not just U.S subprime. There were 100% mortgages in UK too, and also liar loans (where you vouched for your own income). I know someone in the 'bad' bank at RBS who is still selling off the shit that is on their books from pre 2008.

larrygrylls · 26/06/2016 16:30

Cote,

And finally, before I finish cooking dinner, just one more link to help in your continued education of 2008 and all that. Tis all about the CDOs (that is 'collateralised debt obligations'). Note the highlight about how the epicentre was in London.

www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/american-investment-group-aig-bailout.asp

What was once the unthinkable occurred on September 16, 2008. On that date, the federal government gave the American International Group - better known as AIG (NYSE:AIG) - a bailout of $85 billion. In exchange, the U.S. government received nearly 80% of the firm's equity. For decades, AIG was the world's biggest insurer, a company known around the world for providing protection for individuals, companies and others. But in September, the company would have gone under if it were not for government assistance.

Read on to learn what caused AIG to begin a downward spiral and how and why the federal government pulled it back from the brink of bankruptcy.

High Flying
The epicenter of the near-collapse of AIG was an office in London. A division of the company, entitled AIG Financial Products (AIGFP), nearly led to the downfall of a pillar of American capitalism. For years, the AIGFP division sold insurance against investments gone awry, such as protection against interest rate changes or other unforeseen economic problems. But in the late 1990s, the AIGFP discovered a new way to make money.

A new financial tool known as a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) became prevalent among large investment banks and other large institutions. CDOs lump various types of debt - from the very safe to the very risky - into one bundle. The various types of debt are known as tranches. Many large investors holding mortgage-backed securities created CDOs, which included tranches filled with subprime loans. (For more on this concept, check out our Subprime Mortgage Meltdown special feature.)

The AIGFP was presented with an option. Why not insure CDOs against default through a financial product known as a credit default swap? The chances of having to pay out on this insurance were highly unlikely, and for a while, the CDO insurance plan was highly successful. In about five years, the division's revenues rose from $737 million to over $3 billion, about 17.5% of the entire company's total. (Read Credit Default Swaps: An Introduction to learn more about the derivative that took AIG down.)

One large chunk of the insured CDOs came in the form of bundled mortgages, with the lowest-rated tranches comprised of subprime loans. AIG believed that what it insured would never have to be covered. Or, if it did, it would be in insignificant amounts. But when foreclosures rose to incredibly high levels, AIG had to pay out on what it promised to cover. This, naturally, caused a huge hit to AIG's revenue streams. The AIGFP division ended up incurring about $25 billion in losses, causing a drastic hit to the parent company's stock price. (Read more about the lead-up to the credit crunch in The Fuel That Fed The Subprime Meltdown.)

Accounting problems within the division also caused losses. This, in turn, lowered AIG's credit rating, which caused the firm to post collateral for its bondholders, causing even more worries about the company's financial situation.

It was clear that AIG was in danger of insolvency. In order to prevent that, the federal government stepped in. But why was AIG saved by the government while other companies affected by the credit crunch weren't? (Read about one company that didn't survive financial crisis in The Rise And Demise Of New Century Financial.)

CoteDAzur · 26/06/2016 16:31

You need to read about what happened in the US and why. That is why 2008 subprime crisis happened. Not because of Northern Rock or some other bank in the UK.

Swipe left for the next trending thread