From the BBC:
Mr Dimon said: "After a Brexit we cannot do it all here and we will have to start planning for that. I don't know if it means a thousand jobs, two thousand jobs, it could be many as 4000, and they will be jobs all around the UK."
He added: "Brexit will result in years of uncertainty and I believe that this uncertainty will hurt the economies of both Britain and the European Union. If the UK leaves the EU, we may have no choice but to re-organise our business model here."
And here's the obvious response:
Steve Baker MP, a Leave campaigner, said: "The British people will not be bullied into voting to hand more money and more power to Brussels by someone whose bonus would make even some eurocrat's eyes water and whose bank helped crash the economy. It's time for the 'In' campaign to engage in an honest debate, not make unsubstantiated and illogical threats which are the real danger to our economy."
I don't get this whole "uncertainty" thing, that is just a threat, that is not something that would just happen of its own accord, that would be something that people would deliberately and maliciously do. And there's only one way to find out if it was all just idle threats or whether other countries' leaders really are psychopaths... either way... it's better to find out.
Friday, 3 June 2016
Nobody move or the bankers' bonuses get it!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The whole 'uncertainty' argument is spurious. Life is always uncertain. I'll demonstrate that by punching Cameron on the nose the next time he says it.
For someone who goes on about the "uncertainty" of leaving the EU, Dave seems pretty certain about all the bad things that will happen if we do. Perhaps he can be certain, because that's what he was doing when he was supposed to be negotiating concessions, negotiating punishments for the UK if it left, like the 10% tariff on British cars sold to the EU he mentioned on the radio this morning.
With the people we have at the helm in the UK I think a discernable increase in nervousness and subsequent stalling of investment is a given. People can rightly say, so be it lets do it anyway and assert our sovereign rights but clearly we ought to expect much hitting of fan by shit to follow. World economy looks to be turning now in any case. UK manufacturing is already in recession and we'll have another referendum back on the agenda in due course. Scotland that is. Oh happy days. If only the upside of Brexit held out hope rather than incoherent contradictions piled on top of hubris.
We have an election in 2020 Paul. One where can change direction.
Mark ,
I have a problem (not with you) with what I perceive to be gross misuse of the term "investment bank" .
The term surely should only apply to organisations which make most of their money from fees and commissions on services .
G.S. and their ilk engage in trading on their own account on a massive scale after levering up the money numerous times .
I think that makes them a hedge fund and to refer to them as an investment bank is partly an attempt to make them look legitimate and respectable .
What do you think ?
Striebs, I must admit, quite what "investment bank" is supposed to mean is a mystery to me.
If you make money from brokering and underwriting share issues and take-overs etc, you aren't really a bank.
And if you borrow money/take deposits to do speculation on your own account, then you are just a "bank", all banks "invest" even though mainly they "invest" in residential mortgages and derivatives thereon.
I suppose a hedge fund is slightly different, that's sort of managing money/speculating on behalf of customers, the customers take all the risks and the managers get the lovely fees and commissions.
Where is the dividing line between investment bank and hedge fund? Your guess is as good as mine.
Post a Comment