See below re appetite for risk
Which, I might venture (ha!) a naive person could be forgiven for thinking might have been driven by greed.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 15 Jun 2010, 16:57, 2 replies)

And also driven by the need to provide a return to shareholders.
Who needed that return to fund their mortgage/loan payments... You cannot blame one group alone for what happened, and your abdication of any personal responsibility smacks of desperation.
( The Teviot Moose major 5th., Tue 15 Jun 2010, 17:04, closed)

They, er ... they would have provided a return to their shareholders anyway.
Wasn't it about the speed and grandure that was the issue, as opposed to the provision of a return?
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 15 Jun 2010, 17:05, closed)

I doubt anyone was in it for the speed and grandeur. These deals were usually quite private and very complex
They certainly weren't "get your coat, you've pulled" sort of material.

Provision of a return to shareholders is one of the key drivers of a public company, and the ability to provide the return "expected" by the market/investors led to increasing pressure to originate loans.
( The Teviot Moose major 5th., Tue 15 Jun 2010, 17:18, closed)

It's not "greed"
Greed is a simplistic concept applied to an individual. A PLC doesn't have emotions. It runs to generate money for it's shareholders. These returns support the investments and pensions of half the western world. i.e. all of us. We demand returns. The banks take risks within the operating conditions of the systems they work in. Shit, as they say, happens.

Incidentally, I particularly like the fact that the people who go "banks are responsible for lending to high risk customers who defaulted, they ruined the economy" are often exactly the same people that go, "fucking hell, I can't get a mortgage or a loan now for love nor money, they want 25% deposit and I missed one fucking credit card payment 2 years ago and it's not FAIR" ... and miss the 5 tonne irony truck crashing straight into them.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 15 Jun 2010, 17:35, closed)

It's not "greed"
It's avarice
( sandettie light vessel automatic New Twitter - @bollocksreally, Tue 15 Jun 2010, 17:51, closed)

It's not avarice either.
You can't apply singular human characteristics to a company.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 15 Jun 2010, 17:54, closed)

There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting a sensible middle ground
or being slightly exasperated when things bounce from one extreme to another. There's always a goldilocks zone.

The great philosopher and poet Mr F Bulsara knew well the value of a comfortable middle-ground. As he once wrote, 'too much love will kill you - just as sure as none at all'. Given the nature of his death, you have to admit that he had a point.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Tue 15 Jun 2010, 22:57, closed)

well, yes.
But the idea of a goldilocks zone, while it works in basic quantum physics, isn't likely to in economics, because we are affected by what the world does as well as what our country does, and we only have any degree of control of the latter. It's a nice idea, but since a goldilocks zone is something that a universe reaches naturally (or more rather, must be in, because if it wasn't, that universe wouldn't exist) then surely it's a self-fullfiliing proficy? If there was one, we would be in it.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 16 Jun 2010, 9:11, closed)