What does Tullett Prebon do?

[photodog]

A Vanilla (derivative) is anything that isn't exotic

I like Vanilla Ice cream... the nice stuff with the little black vanilla bits in it.

Does that make me boring?

 

[davidfox]

The problem with google is that it gives you their information on what they do, which doesn't actually explain what they do, unless you already know.

It sounds like the shady side of the financial world. In my words, "We play with the filthy rich's money, to make them richer", in their words "enabling them to hedge interest rate exposure and volatility risk generated from structured and vanilla (WTF?) trades", "Credit Derivatives" etc.

Nothing quite so sinister im afraid, they employ my completely unsinister brother, They are brokers essentially, arranging loans between banks, etc etc

 

[gjgm]

Nothing quite so sinister im afraid, they employ my completely unsinister brother, They are brokers essentially, arranging loans between banks, etc etc

Hmm, not really.

 

[cgull]

And, I believe, in the Ice Cream industry!

 

[Seajet]

So on one line you confess you dont understand it at all, but feel confident in
concluding their jobs are created from thin/hot air ?

Some people wouldn't know a sense of humour if it strolled up and kicked them in the shins !

Which is something I reckon I could probably get sponsorship for, but kicking a little higher up..

 

[pyrojames]

What can I say. I am amused. How tightly wound up can the financial lot be?!

Obviously 'Vanilla' has always been a financial term that clearly explains itself. Only, it derives from a bean used to flavour various things including but not limited to ice cream. The 'white' ice cream, whiter than white, plain, unstructured, clear etc.

But then of course the vanilla bean is not white, clean, or unstructured. Funny that the 'vanilla' adjective in the financial world then means something that derives from a derivative product, and the essence of the term bearing no relationship to the original product!

Has me in stitches! I was originally pointing out (obtusely) that most of the money that drives high end consumerism is the service industry, that take a cut of wealth generating industries. I don't actually have a problem with that. It is where I work, and the wealth generating sector see it as good value generally.

FFS, lighten up people, I know it is mid winter and all that but....

 

[grumpy_o_g]

What can I say. I am amused. How tightly wound up can the financial lot be?! .....

FFS, lighten up people, I know it is mid winter and all that but....

A couple of times it's amusing but, if you work in the industry, it's actually a campaign to destroy your livelihood. It seems it's fair game to hurl insults and derogatory comments at Bankers, to wish them ill, etc. as a group without any problem at all - you don't even need to provide pretend evidence - just make any comment you want. Try doing that with an ethnic group or religious group sometime and see what happens. That's different for some reason it seems. Not OK to tar them all with the same brush - that's called inciting hatred then.

Nobody here seems to see the environmentalist campaign in Studland as amusing. Now imagine that the campaign was to get rid of your job and your career and remove ability to support your family (and do a hell of a lot of damage to their own economic situation as well, if they weren't so blinkered).

 

[BobPrell]

A couple of times it's amusing but, if you work in the industry, it's actually a campaign to destroy your livelihood.

I agree with you GOG. I have never worked for a bank, but they get a lot of stick for doing what people want, which is providing finance so peeps can spend foolishly or invest wisely without the strain of building up savings first.

A journalist was interviewing a bank spokesman here and harassed him on all the usual charges, usurious rates, huge profits etc. Spokesman finally said "Well OK, if you won't change your mind, why don't you call your superannuation fund or insurance fund and tell them "I want less money." - because they own a lot of shares in the banks".

Pyrojames especially, made comments which were just about libellous, after stating that he did not know what Tullet Prebon did.

 

[Salty]

Probably more to the point of why they're sponsoring the boat show, the CEO is in the process of launching a fund management business (low cost ISAs and unit trusts), for which they're trying to drum up at interest at the show (I've already had a couple of emails about it, I guess as I booked show tickets online and they now have my details). I should think they consider the boat show fertile ground for finding people prepared to throw money at lost causes!

 

[bedouin]

A couple of times it's amusing but, if you work in the industry, it's actually a campaign to destroy your livelihood. It seems it's fair game to hurl insults and derogatory comments at Bankers, to wish them ill, etc. as a group without any problem at all - you don't even need to provide pretend evidence - just make any comment you want. Try doing that with an ethnic group or religious group sometime and see what happens. That's different for some reason it seems. Not OK to tar them all with the same brush - that's called inciting hatred then.

Nobody here seems to see the environmentalist campaign in Studland as amusing. Now imagine that the campaign was to get rid of your job and your career and remove ability to support your family (and do a hell of a lot of damage to their own economic situation as well, if they weren't so blinkered).

+1

This constant mis-informed propaganda from people who ought to know better is disgusting. If it were directed against almost any other group (muslims, blacks, women, homosexuals or even benefits scroungers) it would have the lefties on the forum up in arms and the perpetrators banned. Yet for some reason it is seen as clever, or trendily left wing (read communist) to slander the single most important sector of the UK economy.

 

[Phoenix of Hamble]

so... that's where we've reached is it?

Anyone prepared to stand up, and say that the behaviour of (an admittedly small number of people within) the financial services sector is unacceptable is a communist?

Have you stopped for one single minute and realised that people are angry at the lack of contrition?

Maybe you should focus your energies as an industry on dealing with these damaging people within your own industry, rather than feeling sorry for yourselves.

Real people are losing their jobs, their houses and their pensions in 21st century Britain, while they read about collosal bonuses. What kind of reaction do you really expect?

 

[Salty]

so... that's where we've reached is it?

Anyone prepared to stand up, and say that the behaviour of (an admittedly small number of people within) the financial services sector is unacceptable is a communist?

Have you stopped for one single minute and realised that people are angry at the lack of contrition?

Maybe you should focus your energies as an industry on dealing with these damaging people within your own industry, rather than feeling sorry for yourselves.

Real people are losing their jobs, their houses and their pensions in 21st century Britain, while they read about collosal bonuses. What kind of reaction do you really expect?

I have a vested interest admittedly, but I do think the abuse has gone too far. I work in financial services and am a long way from receiving seven-figure bonuses (any bonus for that matter), or working in any of the areas that were associated with the recent problems, and I have been astonished by the absolute vehemence expressed against what I do by strangers and friends that I've met at parties, etc over Christmas and the New Year. It really does seem to have reached torch-and-pitchfork level and I've heard some incredible views about what should be done to bankers and banking said with all seriousness by people who should know better.

There seems to be spectacular ignorance (given the confidence with which people express their anti-banker views) as to what the causes of the crisis actually were - that's not to exonerate bankers some of whom acted immorally if not illegally, but perhaps we might acknowledge that there were a whole host of contributory factors not least of which is the West's desire for ever improving standards of living without commensurate increases in productivity, or a political class who have met this problem by taking the easy option of pumping out cheap debt rather than tackle the very serious long-term issues of our relative decline. The West's banking system and its faults are a symptom of this disease, not the root cause.

While maybe I should deal with the abuse and just grow a thicker skin, one consequence is that several acquantainces who are in the seven-figure bonus category have recently decamped to other, more friendly, shores, and they've specifically said that its difficult for them to consider continuing to build a business in an environment which is so hostile to what they do (admittedly lower tax rates are also a draw...). You may say 'so what' but for each one that goes, that's a hell of a lot of tax revenue that walks onto the plane with them - and leaves a hole in the public finances that one way or another the rest of us will have to fill afterwards.

I'm all with the idea of reducing the UK's dependence on financial services, but it seems to make sense to have worked out what we'll replace it with before we start knocking it down.

 

[bedouin]

so... that's where we've reached is it?

Anyone prepared to stand up, and say that the behaviour of (an admittedly small number of people within) the financial services sector is unacceptable is a communist?

Have you stopped for one single minute and realised that people are angry at the lack of contrition?

Maybe you should focus your energies as an industry on dealing with these damaging people within your own industry, rather than feeling sorry for yourselves.

Real people are losing their jobs, their houses and their pensions in 21st century Britain, while they read about collosal bonuses. What kind of reaction do you really expect?

You clearly missed the posts recommending killing and eliminating all bankers? (admittedly on another thread) - you think that is acceptable behaviour?

Even by your admission it is at worst "only a small number" yet you condone this inciting violence against the entire sector? As far as I know it is only communists who advocate killing capitalists

Would you mind explaining in simple terms that I can understand just what the responsibility of bankers as a whole is for the downturn?

This whole furore is based on propaganda.

For the record I am not in favour of mega bonuses but that is a tiny proportion of the 1,000,000 people employed in the financial sector.

 

[Phoenix of Hamble]

Show me the post where I have condoned any sort of violence.... I would NEVER condone violence. In fact I abhor it. Your inference does not help your agument.

To answer your point more directly, Bankers have indeed been part of a systemic failure, and far from solely culpable. Society as a whole must look carefully at its behaviour and be smart enough to not point the finger at one group and cry "its your fault". Rarely in history has anything significant caused by a single event. However, the issue I personally feel, is that banking HAS been part of the cause, and indeed heavily involved in the subsequent malaise that we are experiencing. It has reduced its lending positions dramatically, it has withdrawn credit lines, it has reduced the liquidity of cash between institutions, and it has allowed pension funds to reduce to the extent than many otherwise healthy companies in industry struggle with their banking covenants.

Yet it doesn't seem to want to accept that point... to reduce lending for example, while balance sheets are sorted, yet pay out billions of pounds in bonuses seems massively insensitive and selfish. I have never worked for a company (or in any industry) that would consider paying a bonus while the company recovered its financial position from a bad place, yet financial services seem to find this acceptable. Nowhere in my mind is this better illustrated than at CEO level. To earn ANY bonus while the company is not in A1 tip top shape is crazy, but to earn massive 7 figure bonuses is another way of saying "stuff you" to the general public. And all that is happening is the general public are saying "stuff you back"

 

[bluemoongaffer]

No sensible person condones violence against bankers or anybody else in financial services. That doesn't mean that the industry shouldn't be the subject of discussion and debate.

The payment of bonuses to employees of banks that were "too big to fail" a couple of years ago, while understandable in a purely logical financial sense, flies in the face of fair play for those taking pay cuts / job losses in the rest of the country. It is particularly galling that these bonuses look to have been earned relatively risk free by the banks getting large amounts of easy, cheap money through quantitive easing.

We are probably over dependent on investment banking as a wealth generator - it is very unlikely to produce the returns in the future that it has in the past. We need you guys in the city to develop other areas of commerce (including other financial services). Could be lots of very interesting business ideas ahead. Trouble is, the only debate at the moment is that of the bankers trying to justify their large salaries and bonuses for traditional investment banking work.

 

[bedouin]

Show me the post where I have condoned any sort of violence.... I would NEVER condone violence. In fact I abhor it. Your inference does not help your agument.

To answer your point more directly, Bankers have indeed been part of a systemic failure, and far from solely culpable. Society as a whole must look carefully at its behaviour and be smart enough to not point the finger at one group and cry "its your fault". Rarely in history has anything significant caused by a single event. However, the issue I personally feel, is that banking HAS been part of the cause, and indeed heavily involved in the subsequent malaise that we are experiencing. It has reduced its lending positions dramatically, it has withdrawn credit lines, it has reduced the liquidity of cash between institutions, and it has allowed pension funds to reduce to the extent than many otherwise healthy companies in industry struggle with their banking covenants.

Yet it doesn't seem to want to accept that point... to reduce lending for example, while balance sheets are sorted, yet pay out billions of pounds in bonuses seems massively insensitive and selfish. I have never worked for a company (or in any industry) that would consider paying a bonus while the company recovered its financial position from a bad place, yet financial services seem to find this acceptable. Nowhere in my mind is this better illustrated than at CEO level. To earn ANY bonus while the company is not in A1 tip top shape is crazy, but to earn massive 7 figure bonuses is another way of saying "stuff you" to the general public. And all that is happening is the general public are saying "stuff you back"

Sorry - my comments were not aimed at you specifically but you must recognise that there are very extreme and irrational views being expressed. Your post above is pretty much the first time anyone from the "anti" side as acknowledged the unpleasant truth that it is more than just the Bankers responsible.

But I think that there is one factor you are overlooking. Banks do not lend their own money - they lend money that they themselves have borrowed from others in one form or another. They should never lend their own capital but rather keep that in reserve to cover any losses on the loans. (Note that normally the bank is liable for losses on the loans, but passes most of the profit back to the originator of the money). So if the banks can't borrow money then they can't lend it

 

[pyrojames]

I agree with you GOG. I have never worked for a bank, but they get a lot of stick for doing what people want, which is providing finance so peeps can spend foolishly or invest wisely without the strain of building up savings first.

A journalist was interviewing a bank spokesman here and harassed him on all the usual charges, usurious rates, huge profits etc. Spokesman finally said "Well OK, if you won't change your mind, why don't you call your superannuation fund or insurance fund and tell them "I want less money." - because they own a lot of shares in the banks".

Pyrojames especially, made comments which were just about libellous, after stating that he did not know what Tullet Prebon did.

Really? Would you like to clarify which of my comments were verging on libellous? I also did not know what TP did, until checking their own website. I stand by my summary. As a broker with "no risk" (others suggestions) and broking obviously huge deals which the financial sector appears to consider good value, I retain the position that they are making more money for those who already control significant amounts. I simply paraphrased that more crudely.

By way of comment, I save sectors of the financial world large sums of money on a daily basis, the difference being that I am paid by the hour, not on a percentage of the savings.

As far as bankers go, I do not consider that the current financial crisis results primarily from banking. The previous government had unrealistic growth expectations and borrowed heavily against those expectation. The banking sector just played along with it. As far as the issues of banking shares goes, I suspect you will find that those with pensions have lost a great deal of money, seeing as the bank profits and share prices have crashed.

As the government then effectively saved the banks from their own eagerness, it is now tax payers money that is financing the bank bonuses, I am surprised that anyone in the industry is prepared to say how hard done by they are. However, the bankers so called recklessness in lending to people should be tempered by considering that the borrowers defaulted on the loans, and that those borrowers have also walked away or at least lost that money. Not entirely up to the banking sector.

 

[bedouin]

it is now tax payers money that is financing the bank bonuses,.

Would you mind explaining that for those of us who are a bit slow.

The reports suggest that Barclays will be paying the largest bonuses - but they didn't take any taxpayers money, so how is our money paying those bonuses?

 

[grumpy_o_g]

As the government then effectively saved the banks from their own eagerness...

I like that phrase, though some would insert incompetence or greed for eagerness. But you don't mention the Government's role (or lack of it) in letting them get to the state where they needed saving, the regulatory authorities total uselessness in regulating, the ratings agencies incompetence and partisan nature or the national media's (especially the BBC) role in sensationalising and emphasing worst case scenario's rather than calming and informing.

I would expect the Bank's to be greedy - no corporation is allowed to refuse an opportuity to make money really. Would VAG charge Audi prices for Skoda if they could? Of course they would. I would expect the customer to default if you have pressure sold or even border mis-represented, though many of the customers where "sophisticated" enough to know better. None of that excuses the errors made but it could be anticipated and was predicatable enough.

Some of the others existed purely to prevent exactly what happened from happenning yet they haven't really been changed or criticised to any great extent, never mind totallly villified.

For what it's worth my comments were not aimed as rebuttal to any particular person - it was rather a comment and reaction to the general situation. I understood PyroJames remarks to be at least slightly tongue-in-cheek and Morgana certainly makes reasoned and considered posts.

 

[philiphurst]

I love the smell of envy in the morning.

Why is it that so many people rant against things they don't understand? Are they venting their frustrations at their own ignorance or are they santimonious individuals trying to look down upon those who earn more than they do/

Time for some people to accept what they are and live with it I reckon.