The Financial Services Club's Blog

"I've just dropped a Santander"

That's the new refrain reverberating along the tweets of the twitterati, after Mark Webber's celebrations were marred by the unfortunate placement of the sponsor's logo:

 

Thanks to Tabloid Prodigy for the piccie, and Jack Schofield for pointing this one out.

The ginger whingers

ANZ in Australia has been subjected to an assault over their latest ads being anti-bank staff. 

The ads use Gingis Khan Barbara as a role model of bank service. 

Having watched the ads four or five times now, they're just very funny. 

Here's my favourite:

Having said that, they do remind me a lot of Nationwide's old ads ... 

Why Spanish banks are risky

Walking around the lovely city of Santander, I was pleased to find a Santander bank branch in Santander.

Isn't it just a lovely looking branch?

Now Santander (the bank) is a bank that heavily promotes taking risks in this branch, which surprised me.

Admittedly, it's taking calculated risks but, if you look at the front of the branch, it's all about Formula 1.

OK, they sponsor Ferrari and need to make the most of that sponsorship but, after Webber and Kovalainen's spectacular crash last week at the European Grand Prix in Valencia ...

Source: BBC

... this is risky stuff.

Mind you it is calculated risk, as Webber walked away from that spin uninjured.

So do we associate Santander with risk?

Well, when you find Santander's bank branch in Santander in prime location here:

Maybe you do.

Mind you, what a great idea for the high rollers to be able to leave the Casino and immediately get another million or so to gamble.

Maybe Santander isn't so risky after all.

The post-holiday reality blues

So, it’s just a couple of days since returning to work and I’m already fed up. My PC’s decided not to load licensed and paid for Adobe apps. It tells me to reload and then won’t accept the paid for licence number.

Then my iPhone fell on the floor and broke, the crown on my tooth fell out, my credit card has been defrauded and I’m no longer on holiday.

And then, to cap it all off, the new UK Chancellor George Osbourne tells us that UK, France and Germany are all introducing a bank levy.

Boy, am I fed up.

So ... to cheer me up ... I thought I’d post a couple of holiday photos on the blog.

This was the breaking holiday news in the place I’ve just been ...

If that one seems a bit of a shocker, you should have seen the front page headlines the following week:

Pay me nothing or I'll take you to court

A true story ...

A man received a bill for his as yet unused credit card stating that he owed £0.00. He ignored it and threw it away.

In April he received another and threw that one away too.

The following month the credit card company sent him a very nasty note stating they were going to cancel his card if he didn't send them £0.00 by return of post.

He called them, talked to them, they said it was a computer error and told him they'd take care of it.

The following month he decided that it was about time that he tried out the troublesome credit card figuring that if there were purchases on his account it would put an end to his ridiculous predicament.

However, in the first shop that he produced his credit card in payment for his purchases he found that his card had been cancelled.

He called the credit card company who apologised for the computer error once again and said that they would take care of it. The next day he got a bill for £0.00 stating that payment was now overdue.

Assuming that having spoken to the credit card company only the previous day the latest bill was yet another mistake he ignored it, trusting that the company would be as good as their word and sort the problem out.

The next month he got a bill for £0.00 stating that he had 10 days to pay his account or the company would have to take steps to recover the debt.

Finally giving in he thought he would play the company at their own game and mailed them a check for £0.00. The computer duly processed his account and returned a statement to the effect that he now owed the credit card company nothing at all.

A week later, the man's bank called him asking him what he was doing writing a check for £0.00. After a lengthy explanation the bank replied that the £0.00 check had caused their check processing software to fail. The bank could not now process ANY checks from ANY of their customers that day because the check for £0.00 was causing the computer to crash.

The following month the man received a letter from the credit card company claiming that his check had bounced and that he now owed them £0.00 and unless he sent a check by return of post they would be taking steps to recover the debt. The man, who had been considering buying his wife a computer for her birthday, bought her a typewriter instead.

Ozzies debate the root of all evil

Only in Melbourne could they come up with the idea of getting six comedians to debate whether money is the root of all evil.

The occasion was the 20th Annual Great Comedy Debate at the Melbourne International Comedy Festival 2009.  Although a year old, I only just caught it on my flight back from Singapore with Quantas and it's pretty funny.

My favourite skit is from Arj Barker (NSFW - plenty of swearing):

You can find the other debaters over on YouTube and the order of play was Paul McDermott (proposer), Rich Hall (opposer), Arj Barker (for), Janeanne Garofalo (against),  Stephen K Amos (for) and Jason Byrne (against).

If you'd rather just read a summary of the night, here's a review with the outcome and yes, it beats my rather paltry attempt at the same subject last year.

From Australia's The Age newspaper, by Gabriella Coslovich, April 12, 2009

AS TOPICS go, it couldn't have been more time-honoured or timely: that money is the root of all evil. Debate. And on a fine Easter Sunday, a holy day of resurrection and renewal, it proved a topic of vast appeal. For 20 years, the Melbourne International Comedy Festival's annual Great Debate has been a sell-out, and yesterday was no different. If the queues of people of all ages, sizes and sub-cultures snaking around the Swanston Street-Collins Street block were any indication, comedy is recession-proof.

A zealous congregation of 1400 packed the Melbourne Town Hall to worship at the altar of comedy, showing their faith in the human capacity to make light of adversity — to listen to some of the world's best comic minds poke fun at the fine financial mess we've got ourselves into.

In a world seemingly gone nuts, with ordinary mortals besieged by disasters natural and man-made, people flocked to the town hall seeking refuge from the gloom. They came to bask in the healing power of humour — within minutes, it became clear it was an investment worth making. They got pyrotechnics, biblical pantomime, flow-charts, a live camel, a G-string wearing Adam, and catharsis — a religious experience bordering on the evangelical. Not to mention some jokes of questionable taste.

"Economists are the failed priests of our generation, but why do we all have to be the altar boys?" the debate's moderator, Corinne Grant, quipped, but the crowd was on side.

In these economically stingy times, there was spiritual relief to be gained from venerating all things boisterous, exuberant and manically absurd. The crowd lapped up the sort of riches that a US hedge fund manager would turn up his nose at: the uplifting extravagance of laughter, the opulence of the imagination, the pricelessness of wit.

On the affirmative side: American comic Arj Barker, English comic Stephen K. Amos, and Australia's own Paul McDermott, who acknowledged that his team was "pushing shit uphill".

"We have a much harder argument. I think we would agree that money is the root of 98 per cent of all evil. Let's just make an adjustment for inflation."

On the negative side were Americans Rich Hall and Janeane Garofalo, and Irishman Jason Byrne, a professed Catholic who set the record straight and explained that the biblical saying was in fact that "the love of money was the root of all evil". His team's task, in the words of Grant, was to show that "money is just a tool, what's evil is putting that tool into the hands of tools".

Launching the arguments of the affirmative side, McDermott evoked the evils of Telstra, Exxon, Babcock and Brown, Hitler, Michael Jackson, Robert Mugabe and Paris Hilton. Not even the church was spared: "Money is the root of all evil, of course it is, that's why the church has so much of it."

Rich Hall, who launched the arguments for the negative side, pointed out the irony of international comics, such as Amos and Barker, raking in the bucks while mouthing off about the evils of money.

"These people will go on to do their sold out shows to thousands of people and f--- off with the money back to their countries.

"It's just money, people, money cannot be imbued with anything. It's spiritually neutral. What's evil is human greed, corruption … and a few f---ers messing it up for everybody else."

In keeping with the zeitgeist, the affirmative side won. But the brilliance of the night suggested another truth — money can't be all evil if it can buy laughs, and in that respect, we were all winners.

This year's best cartoons ...

I'm an irregular reader of Prospect Magazine.

It's a great UK publication that focuses on political and economic essays on current affairs, with most of this month's writing about the elections and its implications.

One of the best things in the mag is its A-list cartoonists.  As a monthly they pick only the best and funniest, and this month's really had me chuckling.

First, there is one that appealed to my EU MiFID and PSD credentials:

Then there's the one that tickled my technology bones:

But the winner of the month, and probably the year, has to be a classic bank joke:

I cannot recommend Prospect Magazine strongly enough therefore, for the reasons given.
 
 
 

Accenture's marketing team strikes again

After Tiger Wood’s disastrous PR with golf clubs wrapped around teeth, Accenture had to rapidly come up with a new campaign to reignite their brand.

So I arrive at Heathrow this morning and here it is:

Brilliant.

Inspired.

Bodacious.

Not.

Quantum leaps are all well and good, but my immediate thought was Quantum Analytics.

The Quants are being blamed for the failure of the world’s woes when High Frequency Trading systems sent global markets into a see-saw that went up and down faster than Paris Hilton bungee jumping.

From the Wall Street Journal:

The ridiculous downdraft of shares of consulting firm Accenture PLC, which momentarily fell to one cent in Thursday’s trading, was one of the things that really got investors’ attention.

So we decided to do a bit of digging on what happened.

Shares of the firm had been slipping from $41 at 2:30 p.m. to below $39 just before 2:48 p.m. Thursday. Then things unraveled.

The shares went from $38.05 at 2:47:43 p.m. to $32.62 when a trade of 3,780 shares was routed through NYSE Arca Exchange.Then, things got sharply worse.

At 2:47:50 p.m. a 100-share trade went through Nasdaq at $5.34. Like many of the trades previously, this one was labeled as an “Intermarket Sweep Order,” according to Thomson Reuters data.

Hmmm ... methinks Accenture’s marketing team has excellence in foresight.

Not an ash cloud, but a cash cloud

Overheard this week, a conversation between a bank’s CIO (the Technogeek), CFO (Mr. Bean) and CEO (The Governor).

TECHNOGEEK: So times are tough and we need to manage costs. I suggest we do that by using cloud computing and software-as-a-service tools.

THE GOVERNOR:  Can you talk English, technogeek?

TECHNOGEEK: Sorry, Governor. What I’m talking about is that we place all of our computing needs into the world of on-demand services.

THE GOVERNOR:  And what does that mean, I’m still not getting you.

TECHNOGEEK:  Well, it means ...

MR. BEAN: Look, let me have a go nerdyman. Sir, it means that we will save lots of cash.

THE GOVERNOR:  Sounds better. How does that work?

MR. BEAN: Well we bung all the stuff that costs lots of money in his compute operations and give it to Google or IBM or someone.

THE GOVERNOR:  That’s not so good. Isn’t that dangerous?

TECHNOGEEK:  No sir, because they will run that as we need it. Let me try to explain in a simple analogy. If you were opening a bank account, you wouldn’t open a high net worth premier account on day one would you?

THE GOVERNOR:  Well, I would, because I’m a high net worth premier ...

TECHNOGEEK: Sure, I know you would, but what I mean is that you wouldn’t open the bank account with all the bells and whistles on day one, because you don’t know what bells and whistles you need.

THE GOVERNOR:  No geekyboy, we would sell them that account with all the bells and whistles as we can then charge fees for that stuff.

TECHNOGEEK:  Of course sir, but in a computing sense – where we want to avoid investment and capital expenditure this year – what this cloud stuff means is that we can open a basic account on day one and then just pay-as-we-go.

THE GOVERNOR:  Oh, like a mobile service.

TECHNOGEEK:  Yes, that’s what I meant.

THE GOVERNOR:  So why didn’t you say so. Mr. Beancounter, is this a good idea?

MR. BEAN: Yes.

THE GOVERNOR:  A man of few words. What I’m asking is that I don’t like pay-as-you-go – my mobile is on a corporate monthly direct debit account – so why would we put our computing into that sort of arrangement?

MR. BEAN: Well, it means we can have unlimited compute capacity and just pay for what we need and use, rather than buying a massive great system in-house and paying for it all up front.

THE GOVERNOR: But don’t you pay more long-term?

MR. BEAN: Why do you say that?

THE GOVERNOR:  Well, this sounds like some sort of rental system and my mum used to rent her telly. It was good in the 1960s, but she’s now using a 1960s TV and paying 2010s rental prices. That doesn’t make sense.

MR. BEAN: Of course not sir, but this is not the same. We pay for what we use and the partner we choose – Microsoft, Cisco or whoever – has to maintain the infrastructure to today’s standards. Equally, we’re not really renting anything, we’re just paying-as-we-go. It’s different.

THE GOVERNOR:  It may be different, but if it’s not renting then it’s pay-as-you-go and that means, in my mobile service, that I don’t get a free phone every 18 months so it’s not as good a deal after all.

TECHNOGEEK:  I think rentals and mobiles might be confusing things here. Let me have another go at clarifying.

MR. BEAN: Good luck.

TECHNOGEEK:  Sir, today we have millions of dollars wrapped up in creaking systems that are not cut out to handle the 21st century demands of our corporate and retail customers.

THE GOVERNOR:  So? That’s normal for a bank, isn’t it?

TECHNOGEEK:  Yes, but it shouldn’t be, and we believe we can make a difference by doing things differently.

THE GOVERNOR:  Ah, so this might grow our business.

TECHNOGEEK: Absolutely right sir. In fact, it will not only grow our business but allow us to deal with any eventuality.

THE GOVERNOR:  How so?

TECHNOGEEK:  Well, the idea is that – and let’s take a practical example – we could take our payments processing, for example, and place that application on a kind of bureaux service with Amazon, and they would run the computing for us.

THE GOVERNOR: Amazon? The bookseller?

TECHNOGEEK:  Yes, but they do a lot more than that these days and are one of the largest providers of computer services in the world.

THE GOVERNOR: A bookseller?

TECHNOGEEK:  Yes sir. Anyways, we put everything out to Amazon and they run our computing power for us. We then pay them per transaction and, depending upon our daily volumes, we then pay for what we use.

THE GOVERNOR:  Like an electricity bill or something like that?

TECHNOGEEK:  Spot on sir. Just like electricity, we pay for our computing power and services on a ‘as used’ basis. That way, we never have to buy a great big server farm or whatever, but can be completely adaptable to volume, scale and business demands as they ebb and flow.

THE GOVERNOR:  OK, I think I’m getting it now. We have a mobile pay-as-you-go service that works like an electricity bill that we rent from a book seller.

TECHNOGEEK:  Hmmm ... not quite.

MR. BEAN: Look sir, I think you’re almost there. The bottom-line for me, and what convinced me, is that we never have to buy any hardware in the future. We just get that power on an as needed basis and it will save us about twenty squillions dollars a year.

THE GOVERNOR:  Oohhh, that sounds good ... but what happens if there’s a problem?

TECHNOGEEK:  A problem with what?

THE GOVERNOR:  Well, let’s say that Google or Amazon give our information away or accidentally delete it or lose a transaction.

TECHNOGEEK:  Why would they do that, sir?

THE GOVERNOR:  Because they’ve done it before – look what happened to my emails with Bunty in Googlemail – and I’m just not sure that a third party can be trusted with our data.

TECHNOGEEK:  Oh, you’re worried about privacy and security?

THE GOVERNOR: Absolutely. Aren’t you?

TECHNOGEEK:  Of course I am sir, but we’ve got that covered.

THE GOVERNOR:  How?

TECHNOGEEK:  Well, in our contract, it makes it clear that the data we provide to the service provider must be protected.

THE GOVERNOR:  And what happens if it’s not?

MR. BEAN: We get paid squillions.

THE GOVERNOR:  Can you trust them though?

TECHNOGEEK and MR. BEAN together: Yes.

THE GOVERNOR:  Alright, alright. Well let’s test it out with a toe in the water in some area that isn’t too sensitive, like employee payroll.

TECHNOGEEK:  Can’t do that sir.

THE GOVERNOR:  Why not?

TECHNOGEEK:  Because, you know ...

THE GOVERNOR:  What?

MR. BEAN: Bonuses sir.

THE GOVERNOR: Oh shoot, yes. So what do you suggest we use this for?

TECHNOGEEK and MR. BEAN together: We have no idea, and hoped that you would come up with something sir.

Happy Fridays!

 

PayPal, Microsoft and Google's visions of the future

Today seems to be a day about future trends.

For example, I stumbled across a great discussion about the future of the internet with Google CEO Eric Schmidt:

This is a 45 minute interview with Mr. Schmidt at a Gartner Symposium in the USA last year.

Key comments from the interview, identified by Read-Write Web, include:

• Five years from now the internet will be dominated by Chinese-language content.

• Today's teenagers are the model of how the web will work in five years - they jump from app to app to app seamlessly.

• Five years is a factor of ten in Moore's Law, meaning that computers will be capable of far more by that time than they are today.

• Within five years there will be broadband well above 100MB in performance - and distribution distinctions between TV, radio and the web will go away.

• "We're starting to make significant money off of Youtube", content will move towards more video.

• "Real time information is just as valuable as all the other information, we want it included in our search results."

• There are many companies beyond Twitter and Facebook doing real time.

• "We can index real-time info now - but how do we rank it?"

• It's because of this fundamental shift towards user-generated information that people will listen more to other people than to traditional sources. Learning how to rank that "is the great challenge of the age." Schmidt believes Google can solve that problem.

This stumble was followed by an email from FSClub friend Milos Hoschek who sent me a link to this video of PayPal's vision for the future:

Fantastic.  Everywhere you go, you pay with PayPal.

What happened to Visa and MasterCard I wonder?

It reminds me much of a video made by AT&T in the 1990's:

Recognise the voice?  Here's a clue:

Anyways, strong American male cheesy voice-overs are the de facto standard for technology future focused videos, as evidenced by this one from Microsoft:

Something slightly wrong about that?

Your soul is mine

I know that many of you will have read the story already but, just in case, it is worth posting here for posterity and for the record. 

LONDON, ENGLAND, April 03, 2010 /24-7PressRelease/ --

Gamestation has discovered that more than 88% of the British public do not read the terms and conditions of a website before they make a purchase online.

As a result of the research, Gamestation has announced that on April 1st, in a test of its customers, it will include a clause in the terms and conditions stating that the customer grants the retailer the right to 'claim their immortal soul'. The online customer will be offered the opportunity to opt out of forgoing their soul by ticking a box in the small print. As a reward for their vigilance, they will receive a GBP5 discount voucher.

Result?

90% of customers agreed to the terms and conditions without reading them (either that or they were happy to surrender their souls).  They then received an email  stating: “Little did you realise that upon your last purchase from Gamestation.co.uk you also granted us a right to claim your humanity [...] To avoid future fatalities, always check the terms and conditions.”

 

The real banking crisis ...

Another item spotted whilst on the Underground this week, and this one did make me laugh (although it shouldn't have) ...

... 'nuff said.

Not the most diplomatic poster

Just spotted this poster on the London Underground ...

... don't think that tour will be too popular right now.

 

Come and join the Ryanbank

Going back to the idea that a bank could offer a widget-based business model of functionality and that everything these days is free, makes me realise exactly what tomorrow’s bank will look like.

The thought struck me yesterday when I took my brother-in-law’s lad to see Clash of the Titans – more my thing than his – and we purchased tickets via the internet. This meant that we self-served, but the cinema charged us an extra £1.80 handling fee for doing so.

Duh?

We have avoided their peanut paid staff having to say: “Which screen? What time? How many?” by doing it ourselves, and yet they’re charging us for it.

When we saw the movie, they charged us £6.90 for reduced size popcorn and coke, and then an extra 80 pence for 3D glasses, even though we’d already paid an extra £3.50 to get into the 3D theatre. 

Duh?

Why the extra charge for the 3D experience plus a charge for the glasses, and who is going to go into a 3D theatre without glasses?

All in all, the experience cost about £40 for drinks, petrol, treats and extras, for something that will be on Sky+ HD within a week or two.

Warraripoff.

And that’s when it hit me as the whole thing reminded me of Ryanair, who charge a levy of £5 ($7) per leg of a trip per passenger.

Why not open the Ryanbank, based upon building a bank services around the Ryanair (South West Airlines for Americans) business model.

Why Ryanair?

Well, love ‘em or hate ‘em – and most of my snobby business class flying mates hate ‘em – they offer a stripped down service with no bells and whistles but, if you want the bells and whistles, you pay for them.

The love em or hate em debate is raging right now over at the Telegraph, after columnist Bryony Gordon bet her flat on no-one using the words ‘marvellous’ and ‘service’ in the same line as ‘Ryanair’.

This debate intrigued me thanks to the over 90 respondents to her comments – most of whom love Ryanair's service.  I particularly liked Alan James’ response: “I think it bloody marvellous that Ryanair provides any service”, although he doesn't win her flat for that response (unlike Ryanair who just might, according to this press release: Ryanair to Seek Journalist’s ‘Flat and Contents’).

No, what really intrigued me is the number of people who get Ryanair, and this is evidenced by the comments.

What I mean by this is that you just need to understand their business model and, if it suits you – and it doesn’t suit everyone – then it’s brilliant.

Their business model is this: if you want to travel as cheaply as possible, then you’ll love us. If you want some snobby service, then get lost and fly with BA.

For example, I fly with Ryanair regularly to Dublin. Ryanair are cheap, punctual, regular, very convenient and it all flows incredibly well. For these meetings, I have no hold baggage, just a carry-on; I don’t want any special service; it’s a short haul flight; and I don’t mind the things that are irritating - their charging policies, especially their policy of adding £5 per leg per passenger for a credit card booking - as it’s appropriate for these needs.

On the other hand, they do have some things that let them down. For example, I flew with Ryanair to Rome last year for a holiday, and that was a disaster. Their limit of one 15kg bag per person in the hold was almost impossible to adhere to and meant that the whole experience left us feeling exhausted and disgruntled.

But hey, they’re not British Airways, which is what my family are used to, so take it or leave it. It’s cheap, cheerful and it works.

So get with the business model and work it.

That’s what many of the responses to Brynoy’s blog articulate very well. Here’s a small selection:

Jamie: All they have done is break the fare down into bits allowing you to pick what you do want and leave out what you don't.

Old Codger: I fly Ryanair whenever I can. Plan ahead, use your pre paid card, take on hand luggage - Yes that simple. Pisa for a £1 - yup, Rome for... you get the picture. Retire & travel the world (maybe?) with Ryanair. I Love Ryanair.

Alan: Ryanair only suits people that are able to read and understand the terms and conditions - like check in on line, don't bring check in size bags if you have not already paid for them, don't be late and read the destination information for where you arrive ... no Ryanair and we would still be paying the crazy prices of the 80s to travel and air travel would be for the rich only.

Geoffrey Walker: I have no complaints. Never late. Never on strike. Never loses baggage (if you have any). Dirt cheap if you know your dates and book in advance. What else do you want?

And so on and so forth.

So here’s the rub: Ryanair broke down the business model and made it clear that you could fly for nothing. Then they add on charges for all the other bits.

You want to take a lot of luggage. You pay.
You want to eat and drink on board. You pay.
You can’t be bothered using the internet to check-in. You pay.

In other words, for those who want cheap flights with no frills, you got it. For those who want BA or similar style services, go and pay more to fly with them instead.

I could labour the point further, as it’s a critical point, for this is the concept for one of tomorrow’s banks.

A bank that offers free banking, free cards and even free credit.

All core bank services are free.

But there are rules.

First, your services are all paid for through sponsorship.

Hence, before you can make any transaction, you have to wait for a 15 second video ad to play for Pringles, McDonalds, the next Harry Potter movie or whatever (all of which are personalised to your tastes of course).  For the more frequent transactions, such as balance checks, then they can just be supported by banner ads and google ads.

Second, you can only deal with the bank for free via an internet or mobile internet service. You cannot talk to someone or visit a branch.

Yes, we have branches and call centre operations, but the fee is £1 per minute to call us or £5 to visit inside the branch.

Third, any charges from correspondent banks for services you use – e.g. if you make a payment to someone and it is rejected – are added to your monthly billing.

You get the picture.

Gradually, you create a smorgasbord of services, some of which are free and some are fee-based. The customer can effectively have a whole bank service for nothing if they work the rules. However, break the rules and they pay.

Students and the thrifty Ryanair demographic audience would suit this bank.  Equally, for the unbanked and underbanked, a plain and simple sponsor-based system for bank services would work.

You want personalised service. Go away and deal with the big banks.

You want basic, cheap and cheerful banking. Come and join the Ryanbank.

Mortgage Lending Mantra: "I Like Big Bucks"

Story breaking in the USA this week is all about Washington Mutual (WaMu), the Seattle-based mortgage bank closed down by the FDIC in September 2008 to be taken over by Bank of America.

What a difference a year or two makes.

In 2006, just two years before their collapse, an employee annual jamboree for the best staffers took place in Hawaii - the "President's Retreat" - and resulted in a range of amusements which WaMu has been desperately trying to keep secret, but are now revealed in the Senate Committee's investigations.

Not surprising they wanted to keep these things quiet as they had a few fun moments that are great for internal morale and motivation ... but can look a bit dubious externally.

For example, they staged a mock funeral for their biggest rival, Countrywide Financial, a mortgage lender that collapsed just eight months before WaMu and, like them, was 'saved' by Bank of America in January 2008.

WaMu's take on Countrywide in 2006?

Well, as four pallbearers entered stage left with a coffin emblazoned with the Countrywide logo, the WaMu host said: “So many of us warned the dearly departed about the risky – some say reckless – behaviour they engaged in,” and then the sound system broke into the great songtune: Na na na na, na na na na, hey, hey hey, goodbye.

This was followed by the rather amusing rendition of Sir Mix-a-Lot’s hip-hop hit “Baby Got Back.”  Now, you may not be familiar with that song so, just in case, here's the original:

Sir mix a lot-baby got back
Uploaded by ZICARLOS. - Watch more music videos, in HD!

And the WaMu words go like this:

I like big bucks and I cannot lie
You mortgage brothers can't deny
That when the dough roles in like you're printin’ your own cash
And you gotta make a splash

You just spends 
Like it never ends
Cuz you gotta have that big new Benz

All of that bling you're wearin'
Shining so bright peoples starin'
It's crazy, I gotta ski Aspen
That's all I'm askin'

The presentation included cheerleaders moving in time to the music and choreographed moves by the singers.  A kind of Glee, 2006 stylee.

Here's the whole of the original papers aired in court:

What are banks for?

I hope you all had a lovely Easter break. I know I did. Lots of chocolate, reading, walking and sleep. Eating, drinking, chocolate and chat. TV, driving, thinking and chocolate.

Wonderful.

During my reading I came across this, first published in the magazine Punch back in April 1957. It’s a classic and worth everyone taking note:

Q: What are banks for?

A: To make money.

Q: For the customers?

A: For the banks.

Q: Why doesn't bank advertising mention this?

A: It would not be in good taste. But it is mentioned by implication in references to reserves of $249,000,000,000 or thereabouts. That is the money they have made.

Q: Out of the customers?

A: I suppose so.

Q: They also mention Assets of $500,000,000,000 or thereabouts. Have they made that too?

A: Not exactly. That is the money they use to make money.

Q: I see. And they keep it in a safe somewhere?

A: Not at all. They lend it to customers.

Q: Then they haven't got it?

A: No.

Q: Then how is it Assets?

A: They maintain that it would be if they got it back.

Q: But they must have some money in a safe somewhere?

A: Yes, usually $500,000,000,000 or thereabouts. This is called Liabilities.

Q: But if they've got it, how can they be liable for it?

A: Because it isn't theirs.

Q: Then why do they have it?

A: It has been lent to them by customers.

Q: You mean customers lend banks money?

A: In effect. They put money into their accounts, so it is really lent to the banks.

Q: And what do the banks do with it?

A: Lend it to other customers.

Q: But you said that money they lent to other people was Assets?

A: Yes.

Q: Then Assets and Liabilities must be the same thing?

A: You can't really say that.

Q: But you've just said it! If I put $100 into my account the bank is liable to have to pay it back, so it's Liabilities. But they go and lend it to someone else, and he is liable to have to pay it back, so it's Assets. It's the same $100 isn't it?

A: Yes, but....

Q: Then it cancels out. It means, doesn't it, that banks haven't really any money at all?

A: Theoretically......

Q: Never mind theoretically! And if they haven't any money, where do they get their Reserves of $249,000,000,000 or thereabouts??

A: I told you. That is the money they have made.

Q: How?

A: Well, when they lend your $100 to someone they charge him interest.

Q: How much?

A: It depends on the Bank Rate. Say five and a-half percent. That's their profit.

Q: Why isn't it my profit? Isn't it my money?

A: It's the theory of banking practice that.........

Q: When I lend them my $100 why don't I charge them interest?

A: You do.

Q: You don't say. How much?

A: It depends on the Bank Rate. Say a half percent.

Q: Grasping of me, rather?

A: But that's only if you're not going to draw the money out again.

Q: But of course I'm going to draw the money out again! If I hadn't wanted to draw it out again I could have buried it in the garden!

A: They wouldn't like you to draw it out again.

Q: Why not? If I keep it there you say it's a Liability. Wouldn't they be glad if I reduced their Liabilities by removing it?

A: No. Because if you remove it they can't lend it to anyone else.

Q: But if I wanted to remove it they'd have to let me?

A: Certainly.

Q: But suppose they've already lent it to another customer?

A: Then they'll let you have some other customers money.

Q: But suppose he wants his too....and they've already let me have it?

A: You're being purposely obtuse.

Q: I think I'm being acute. What if everyone wanted their money all at once?

A: It's the theory of banking practice that they never would.

Q: So what banks bank on, is not having to meet their commitments?

A: I wouldn't say that.

Q: Naturally. Well, if there's nothing else you think you can tell me....?

A: Quite so. Now you can go off and open a banking account!

Q: Just one last question.

A: Of course.

Q: Wouldn't I do better to go off and open up a bank?

G20 regulations collapse in disharmony

I'm sure you realised this was an April Fool ... or was it?

The Wall Street Journal reports this week that "U.S. and European governments are moving toward a consensus on taxing large banks to cover the cost of any future bailouts rather than asking taxpayers to foot the bill, as happened regularly in past banking crises".

However, in an exclusive report, the Finanser has learnt that the G20 Finance Ministers' negotiations for a global agreement on banking regulations disintegrated dramatically last night. 

This was after lengthy talks about a transaction tax caused fundamental disagreements and a major rift between the key economic nations of the world.

The Tobin Tax, or Robin Hood Tax as some call it, is meant to create a fund for future issues in the financial system. In principle, the G20 has agreed that this is the right thing to do and were discussing the level of the tax being 0.01 cents per transaction, no matter the size of the bank transaction.

That’s all fine in principle but, in practice, governments are unable to agree as to its usage.

The German and French authorities have been arguing that the fund is meant to be there to protect citizens and, should another bank collapse occur, to fund future bank bailouts.

Most of the other G20 nations agreed with this – particularly the Canadians who often sided with the French – but several disagreed fundamentally, particularly the British.

Alistair Dawling, on behalf of Gordon Brawn, argued that the tax should be used to create a home fund for the procurement of homes for those challenged by opportunities to get on the housing ladder.

His argument being that individual’s and pension funds’ investments in property had seen major losses during the crisis, and that this area specifically needed help to ensure a strong economy. Equally, in current climate, using the Fund for such purposes is seen to be a strong justification for supporting the housing markets, and therefore the economy, in this time of crisis.

His argument unravelled somewhat however when Christian Lagarde – the French Finance Minister – said that this was a unique situation to markets, such as Britain’s, where home ownership was a major factor, and she asked him to be explicit in how such funds would actually be allocated.

In response, Mr. Dawling said that for Britain the access to such funds would be reserved for those with a legitimate vote in the UK Houses of Parliament, and would be limited to just those members with second homes.

By introducing such a bank fund, Mr Dawling argued that it would overcome the issues created by the banking disaster. Not only has the crisis caused the housing market to collapse but this, combined with the scandal of MPs expenses, has meant that many of the right honourable members have lost a fortune.

The Americans didn’t like this idea.

Tom Geithner believes that any bailout should not be a bailout for the long-term or for a politician. It should be for a banker and a banker only. Therefore, the Americans argued that the Fund should be evaluated at the end of each year, and distributed equally back to the banks based proportionally upon their profitability.

In other words, JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs should be legally entitled to 90% of the Fund each year.

The Chinese objected to this approach and the wicked Western ways of undermining the global financial system. Finance Minister Xie Xoren countered with their approach to the Fund’s usage, which would be based upon a ‘Committee of Worthiness’. The Fund would be reviewed each year by a G20 Committee of Finance Ministers, who would have a discussion of projects and their worthiness. The most worthy global projects would then get their funding from the Fund.

The Americans and British almost bought into this idea, which could have led to an agreement with the Chinese until Xie Xoren black-balled their suggestion that the ‘worthiness’ panel should be chaired by Simon Cowell, with a public vote to determine the winner each year.

Tom Geithner thought this a particularly good idea because it would double the Fund’s value, based upon members of the public being charged a minimum dollar per call, but the Chinese didn’t like the idea of parading their government works in public and so it soon got canned.

President Lala of Brazil then came up with a good idea for an alternative spin on this venture, with the view that, as the financial disaster had been created by ‘white men with blue eyes’, the Fund should be run by ‘brown men with brown eyes’.

This almost succeeded, as Mexico and India came on board having been abstentious to that point, until the whole thing got shot down by Wayne Swan, the Australian Finance Minister, who called it a “shitty idea from a man who was more Gu-Ga than Lu-la”.

This caused a fight to start between Brazilian Finance Minister Guido Mantoga and Mr. Swann, which was only resolved when Russian Finance Minister Alexei Leonidovich Kodrin stepped in. Mr. Kordin managed to break the stranglehold Mr. Mantoga had on Mr. Swann, by kicking Mr. Montega hard in a very sensitive part of the body.

Although this worked, it did not endear Mr. Kodrin to the rest of the Ministers in their search for cooperative global relations.

Luckily the Japanese sorted out the frictions, just in time, by saying that the competition for the Fund should be managed on a secret ballot basis, with each country having a vote as to how the funds would be used.

The ministers all agreed with this idea until Turkish Minister Mehmett Şimmşek reported that the Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Burlusconi, had offered him a million euros to vote for using the Fund to encourage improved sexual relations ... and he didn’t think Mr. Burlusconi meant relations in the workplace.

At this point, Tom Geithner was overheard to whisper ‘f***ing Italians’ which led to another fight starting between Mr. Geithner and Italian Finance Minister Julio Tremonti. Seeing another fight starting gave Guido Mantoga, the Brazilian Finance Minister, a chance to get his own back on the Russian Minister, and so he immediately launched himself at Mr. Kodrin, managing to gorge his fingers into Mr. Kodrin’s eyes.

With this murderous moment, Alistair Dawling immediately hid under the table, the Chinese left and the meeting ended in bedlam.

So much for global harmony.

Of course, the good news is that the banks can continue to practice their methods of investing, remunerating, operating and managing our monies as before.

Plus ca change.

What is it with the French?

Don’t get me wrong, I love France and most things French, particularly the South of France and the Cote d’Azur, Tourettes-sur-Loop, Bordeaux and Provence. Beautiful. But get me to Paris and my love affair with France always seems to fly out of the window.

Take my latest trip, by way of example.

First thing that goes wrong is the connection to the airport.

I’m at a conference at a Disneyland hotel, where everything is ‘cast members’ and all should be happy, happy. So I’m happy. It was a nice conference and a good crowd, and learned a few things.

Knowing that I had to fly out of Paris early the following morning, I decided to catch the last shuttle bus to Orly from the hotel and checked the time with several cast members, who all assured me it was 8:00 that evening.

Good, as that meant I could enjoy a few cocktails.

I set my alarm for 7:45 and mingle away nicely with the crowd.

Sure enough, a wee while later, I shuffle over to the shuttle stop and see it’s dark and no one’s there. I can’t see any porters or bellboys to ask, but then spot a baggage room and ask for the dernier bus temps, and am told it is a huit hueres et cinq. 8:05.

I’m early.

But that’s ok. I’ll wait.

And wait.

And wait.

8:06.

No bus.

8:10.

No bus.

8:12.

No bus.

I now start to fret and begin to walk over to the baggage hold area of the hotel when lo and behold, le bus arrivez!

Fantastique.

Only it’s the bus pour Charles de Galle (CDG) and my destination is Orly.

Merde.

Now I’m really starting to get a little concerned and do wander over to the baggage room.

“Ou est le bus pour Orly airport?” je dit.

“Ah, c’est partir a sept heures.”

What?

The last bus was at seven o’clock.

I remonstrate with the porter as, sacre blue et mon dieu, this is not good enough.

He says that they get confused and thought the last Orly bus was at eight, but that is the CDG bus. The Orly bus is at seven.

I can’t believe that the concierge, welcome desk, and bellboys and porters can all tell me the last bus to Orly is at 8:00 when it’s at 7:00.

They shrug their shoulders.

“C'est la vie.”

Un-flipping-believable.

So I tell the guy my flight’s at 9:30 and it’s now 8:20 with Orly a good 45 minutes away.

“Excusez-moi”, says the porter, “I’ll get you a taxi.”

And the taxi arrives at 8:30.

Now, I’m actually staying overnight at an Orly hotel, so this is no big deal, but the principle of the thing just riled me completely. Not only would a good half an hour be missed from arriving at the airport – which could have been fatal if I had been flying – but now the taxi was costing €100 more than the bus. Darnit.

But it’s ok.

Calm down.

Think Zen thoughts and have an out-of-body moment or two to reflect.

I’m cool.

So I arrive at the hotel and it’s ok.

“Bon soir, monsieur, et bien venue”, how nice.

“Nous avons une shuttle bus pour l’aerport. C’est toutes vingt minutes.”

Great. A shuttle bus every twenty minutes. That’ll do me.

The land of nod arrives nicely, and I awake bright and early to get my morning flight.

Today starts well too, as the shuttle bus pulls in just as I checkout.

Fantastique.

Hopping on board, it’s pretty full – not a spare seat on the bus – but everyone is quiet and appears relaxed, so I relax.

For about five minutes.

Next thing I know, the bus veers away from Orly airport and onto a dual carriageway going away from the airport.

I’m now thinking he’s going to Charles de Gaulle, which would seem strange for an Orly airport hotel’s shuttle bus, but no ... he instead drives to a building site and stops.

All the passengers jump out and leave ... except me.

It appears that I'm on the work bus to the local factory or something.

The driver turns to me and says: “qu'est ce que vous waiting for?”

“Urrmmmm ... je va de Orly airport?” I respond tentatively.

“Mais oui”, he gruffly says back and sure enough, drives me to Orly West.

Now I suddenly have this realisation.

You see, I’ve had many run-ins with Parisians in the past.

An argument over check-in at CDG, where I mistakenly went to the security scan area thinking the check-in desks were on the other side when they were behind me.

An argument with a hotel who charged me an arm and a leg for a driver for the day to go to the Palace of Versailles, when a taxi would have done nicely and been about a tenth of the price.

An argument over what I ordered in a restaurant, as the steak arrived burnt to a crisp when I ordered it “medium well”.

And so on and so forth.

And my realisation was this: it’s not the French. It’s the English.

That’s what’s wrong with the French – the English.

You see, here’s me waltzing around Paris thinking that they’re out to get me, when it’s actually my very basic parlez de francais that causes my problems.

On the one hand, I think I can communicate in French.

On the other, my communication is so limited that I only get half the message or just can’t find out what the real answer should be.

And throughout all of this is the fear that you’ve got it wrong. That fear makes you doubly defensive or aggressive, and therefore puts all English on their guard when dealing with the French.

C’est la vie, I’m afraid.

No, actually, scrub that: the French are completely merde at le business.

You see I get to Orly airport, checked in and happily wait for my flight.

All the boards say it is on time, so I wander over half an hour before take-off and sit at the gate.

It’s all on time.

But it’s not.

Ten minutes before takeoff, a sign comes up saying: “flight delayed”.

Uh? Pourquoi?

No announcements, nothing.

Finally some frumpy looking French gatekeeper wanders up to their counter, looking very busy on a walkie talkie, squawking down the line: “c’est vol retarde, vol retarde a quarante-cinq ...”

Above the gate is a sign that has suddenly changed from ‘on-time’ to: “Londres 10:55, flight delayed, expected departure at ____”.

Soon a line of passengers gather around frumpy, wondering what’s going on. After all, at 10:45 the 10:55 flight was ‘on time’ and now, at 10:46, it is suddenly delayed.

Qu’est ce que le deal?

She says the flight is now landing at Orly at 11:45 and will depart at 12:15 ... or thereabouts.

Qu’est que vous direz?

Yes, you heard me, the flights suddenly delayed 1hour 20 minutes for no reason, explanation or announcement.

So I ask: how can it be delayed so long?

“It’s a strike”, the gatekeeper frump dites-moi, “it is the French strike”.

It’s more like the French way.

p.s. apologies to all my French readers and customers, whom I’ve just lost forever

 

The following advisory for American travelers heading for France was compiled from information provided by the US State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency, the US Chamber of Commerce, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control, and some very expensive spy satellites that the French don't know about. It is intended as a guide for American travelers only.

General Overview

France is a medium-sized foreign country situated in the continent of Europe. It is an important member of the world community, though not nearly as important as it thinks. It is bounded by Germany, Spain, Switzerland and some smaller nations of no particular consequence and with not very good shopping. France is a very old country with many treasures, such as the Louvre and Disneyland Paris. Among its contributions to western civilization are champagne, Camembert cheese and the guillotine.

Although France likes to think of itself as a modern nation, air conditioning is little used and it is next to impossible to get decent Mexican food. One continuing exasperation for American visitors is that the people willfully persist in speaking French, though many will speak English if shouted at. As in any foreign country, watch your change at all times.

Government

The French form of government is democratic but noisy. Elections are held more or less continuously, and always result in a run-off. For administrative purposes, the country is divided into regions, departments, districts' municipalities, cantons, communes, villages, cafes, booths, and floor tiles.

Parliament consists of two chambers, the Upper and Lower (though, confusingly, they are both on the ground floor), whose members are either Gaullists or communists, neither of whom is to be trusted, frankly. Parliament's principal preoccupations are setting off atomic bombs in the South Pacific and acting indignant when anyone complains

According to the most current State Department intelligence, the President now is someone named Sarcastic. Further information is not available at this time.

Economy

France has a large and diversified economy, second only to Germany's in Europe, which is surprising because people hardly work at all. If they are not spending four hours dawdling over lunch, they are on strike and blocking the roads with their trucks and tractors. France's principal exports, in order of importance to the economy, are wine, nuclear weapons, perfume, guided missiles, champagne, high-caliber weaponry, grenade launchers, land mines, tanks, attack aircraft, miscellaneous armaments and cheese.

The People

France has a population of 54 million people, most of whom drink and smoke a great deal, drive like lunatics, are dangerously oversexed, and have no concept of standing patiently in line. The French people are in general gloomy, temperamental, proud, arrogant, aloof, and undisciplined; and those are their good points. Most French citizens are Roman Catholic, though you would hardly guess it from their behavior. Many people are communists, and topless sunbathing is common. Men sometimes have girls' names like Marie, and they kiss each other when they hand out medals. American travelers are advised to travel in groups and to wear baseball caps and colorful trousers for easier mutual recognition.

Conclusion

France enjoys a rich history, a picturesque and varied landscape, and a temperate climate. In short, it would be a very nice country if it weren't inhabited by French people. The best thing that can be said for it is that it is not Germany.

Credit crunch bank robberies

I guess these desperate times cause desperate actions, as the last few weeks must have created the funniest spate of bank robberies ever seen.

First, there was the Russian Sumo wrestler who wrestled an ATM out of the wall ...

March 9th - Total Pro Sports

You always wondered why these sumo wrestlers gained all that weight and became the size of an elephant. Why would they need to be that big?  Why would they need to be so strong? Why not create a lightweight division?  Well now we know.

In Moscow, an enormous man that is thought to be a sumo wrestler yanked out an ATM cash machine that weighed 200 pounds, put it up on his shoulders and took off with it on his shoulders. The cash machine was said to have over 25,000 roubles in it.

But here's the kicker: the sumo wrestler and the machine were found by police after they stopped a 'BMW with tinted windows' that didn't even have license plates. What kind of BMW fits a sumo wrestler and a cash machine? What kind of moron tries to pull off such a heist in a car without license plates?

Then you have Kung Fool Sohn Kang-min of South Korea ...

March 18th - Romanian Times

A hapless bank robber was floored when he took a pensioner hostage during a raid - an expert at deadly Taekwondo.

Black belt Park Hyung-tae, 69, decked knife wielding Sohn Kang-min, 28, instantly at the bank in Miryang, South Korea, and was then blasted with tear gas spray by the teller.

As he staggered out the door, the branch manager hit his head with a baseball bat sending him reeling into the arms of delivery man who wrestled him to the ground until police arrived.

But surely, the St Patrick's Day gang win the Darwin Award ...

March 18th - the Times

A leprechaun bank robber and his getaway driver were killed in a shootout with police after a St Patrick’s Day raid in Tennessee. Police said that the same man had held up a bank in Nashville three days before Christmas — dressed as Santa Claus.

Bradley Webb, a witness to the leprechaun raid, said: “He had a long black cape or dress on, a fake black beard; probably a 2½ foot leprechaun hat.”  The robber then held up the First State Bank with a gun and ran out to his getaway car, a silver Toyota Corolla.

The police chased the suspects to a field outside town where the duo ditched their car and fled on foot, leaving the leprechaun hat on the back seat.  As they ran, they turned and shot at pursuing officers, who returned fire.

Last night police identified the leprechaun as David Cotton, 20, and his getaway driver as Jonathan Skinner, a student at Western Kentucky University.

The preliminary investigation suggested that Mr Skinner was shot by police but that the leprechaun killed himself.

Oh yea, Skinner ... no relation ... but the leprechaun?  That's another matter :-)

The new marketing segments of 2010

Thinking about millenials, or Gen Y as some call them, reminded me of marketers wonderful ways of coming up with new terms for consumer segments.

When I was growing up, it was yuppies – young, upwardly mobile, professionals. These were the new pin-striped generation of City styled workers, who went skiing every year and had plenty of disposable cash.

Then there were the dinkies – double income, no kids – couples. These working couples co-habited and enjoyed the spoils of their materialism in their kid-free, narcissistic world.

Add on the nimbys – not in my back yards – who resist any change, and you have an old world of folks who were delusionally rich, highly leveraged, selfish and self-interested.

Now we have a range of new categories of consumers for the new decade.

Boohoomers are the baby boomers who hoped to have retired at 50 and then found their net worth was about a tenth of what it would have been, as their pension pots got boomed.

Minjers are Middle-Income, No Job, Earning a Rest on the State. These formerly wealthy folks were the yuppies and dinkies who, having been made redundant, are now finding themselves living on savings and benefits.

Yolops are the Young, Living on Parents gang, who the boohoomers and minjers hoped to have got rid off by now but, at thirty something, they’re still living at home and practicing with their band in the garage.

Yotops are the other set of Young, Travelling on Parents group, who have been sent on a year or two of ‘global experience gathering’ by ma and pa, in order to get them out of the garage and off of their hands.

Mad Cows is a unique consumer clique of ex-Hedge Fund Manager’s wives who, as they realised that a subway pass was now their new modus operandi rather than the private limo, have given up on reality. Hence, we have another wave of mad cow disease.

Wotofs are their partners. This group just sit and ask: WTF? all day long. Most of them invested in Bernie Madoff or, if not, worked for an investment bank.

Finally, there are the Gotouts, a happy group as they got out of the investment markets and all other risky property markets before the collapse.

Mad cows, wotofs, minjers and boohoomers are all wishing they were in this group but hey, WTF?