FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Farage back account.
Farage back account.
Jump to: Newest in thread
This is what I wrote in another thread. I was told by 2/3 people I didn't knkw what i was talking about and private institutions have tbe right to close accounts at their behest
"I worked in this field for 5 years across bookmakers and financial institutions.
You have what's known as a braganza duty.
The Braganza case [2] involved a substantial departure by the Supreme Court from precedent in the interpretation of contractual provisions [3]. It effectively implied into a commercial contract, over and above the express terms of the contract, a new ‘duty’ akin to the public law concept of ‘Wednesbury reasonabless’ (that is, the requirement that the decision-making process in relation to the exercise of a contractual discretion be undertaken in good faith and not arbitrarily or capriciously).
It's a part no bank wishes to take on really.
You face discrimination suits, particularly in the protected characteristics as a consumer.
Typically it would be hard to justify closing the account to the financial conduct authority. Without proof of fraud or attacking workers etc."
Below is the e.u law cited by the "clever man" Andrew neil today.
"The Financial Conduct Authority, City watchdog for conduct of banks, points to relevant legislation which forbids discrimination: Regulation 18 of the Payment Accounts Regulations 2019 – one of the EU retained laws from 2015 – which states:
“A credit institution must not discriminate against consumers legally resident in the United Kingdom by reason of their nationality or place of residence or by reason of sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation when those consumers apply for or access a payment account.”
Which is why, despite the apology to NF, Alison Rose’s job is still on the line."
I will await my apology.
Sadly one of them has already deleted their account.
The other has disappeared and not posted since this all came out.
Brilliant timing
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Who deleted their account and who hasn’t posted? Rather cryptic?
Fabtastic deleted account
Easyuk has been Mia after telling me I had bo idea what i was talking about.
"
Hadn’t spotted that! Wonder why?
Anyhow, left a post for you in the Vattenfall thread. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is what I wrote in another thread. I was told by 2/3 people I didn't knkw what i was talking about and private institutions have tbe right to close accounts at their behest
"I worked in this field for 5 years across bookmakers and financial institutions.
You have what's known as a braganza duty.
The Braganza case [2] involved a substantial departure by the Supreme Court from precedent in the interpretation of contractual provisions [3]. It effectively implied into a commercial contract, over and above the express terms of the contract, a new ‘duty’ akin to the public law concept of ‘Wednesbury reasonabless’ (that is, the requirement that the decision-making process in relation to the exercise of a contractual discretion be undertaken in good faith and not arbitrarily or capriciously).
It's a part no bank wishes to take on really.
You face discrimination suits, particularly in the protected characteristics as a consumer.
Typically it would be hard to justify closing the account to the financial conduct authority. Without proof of fraud or attacking workers etc."
Below is the e.u law cited by the "clever man" Andrew neil today.
"The Financial Conduct Authority, City watchdog for conduct of banks, points to relevant legislation which forbids discrimination: Regulation 18 of the Payment Accounts Regulations 2019 – one of the EU retained laws from 2015 – which states:
“A credit institution must not discriminate against consumers legally resident in the United Kingdom by reason of their nationality or place of residence or by reason of sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation when those consumers apply for or access a payment account.”
Which is why, despite the apology to NF, Alison Rose’s job is still on the line."
I will await my apology.
Sadly one of them has already deleted their account.
The other has disappeared and not posted since this all came out.
Brilliant timing
"
Even if Farage is right, and I personally feel he is on this occasion, there's far too much hatred for him to ever get certain sectors of society to agree with him.
You'll wait a long time for any apology from those, fab will be back at some point (not that he ever added anything anyway)  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There is a very easy way to resolve this.
As you mention, Morley, banks have to subscribe to the following.
“A credit institution must not discriminate against consumers legally resident in the United Kingdom by reason of their nationality or place of residence or by reason of sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation when those consumers apply for or access a payment account.”
Makes sense although it does place some duress on the bank in to having to accept customers whose views might run counter to the bank's own values. Them's the breaks though.
.
So why not let customer's decide if they wish to align themselves to a bank by publishing an anonymised report on the make up of their customers ?
For example, if Courtt's customer base was made up mostly of customers whose ideologies ran counter to a prospective new customer's own ideologies, said new customer could make an informed choice on whether to invest with Courtt's, couldn't they ?
It's open and transparent by Courtt's, and let's customers decided more appropriately who they wish to invest with. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I remember trying to help my friend who was working with JPM private in London and she said all the people I would know in Ireland with the relevant asset level would be PEPs and not worth the risk.
Seems banks in the UK are very wary of PEP accounts and associated issues but up to last year didn’t seem too concerned about Russian citizens. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I've lost track where this is, but the apology appeared to be a non apology.
They apologised for the language. Not said the decision was wrong.
The language was poor. I don't agree with their veiws he was a PR risk to them. But as yet I haven't seen anything that's shows they did something outside the laws.
There's also in my mind some gaps in the timelines. I'm hoping NF proceeds formally to get some independence on what happened. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Banks moralising. People are entitled to their political beliefs.
If those in corporations and the elites had their way there would be no freedom, just unithought and unispeak. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"This is what I wrote in another thread. I was told by 2/3 people I didn't knkw what i was talking about and private institutions have tbe right to close accounts at their behest
"I worked in this field for 5 years across bookmakers and financial institutions.
You have what's known as a braganza duty.
The Braganza case [2] involved a substantial departure by the Supreme Court from precedent in the interpretation of contractual provisions [3]. It effectively implied into a commercial contract, over and above the express terms of the contract, a new ‘duty’ akin to the public law concept of ‘Wednesbury reasonabless’ (that is, the requirement that the decision-making process in relation to the exercise of a contractual discretion be undertaken in good faith and not arbitrarily or capriciously).
It's a part no bank wishes to take on really.
You face discrimination suits, particularly in the protected characteristics as a consumer.
Typically it would be hard to justify closing the account to the financial conduct authority. Without proof of fraud or attacking workers etc."
Below is the e.u law cited by the "clever man" Andrew neil today.
"The Financial Conduct Authority, City watchdog for conduct of banks, points to relevant legislation which forbids discrimination: Regulation 18 of the Payment Accounts Regulations 2019 – one of the EU retained laws from 2015 – which states:
“A credit institution must not discriminate against consumers legally resident in the United Kingdom by reason of their nationality or place of residence or by reason of sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation when those consumers apply for or access a payment account.”
Which is why, despite the apology to NF, Alison Rose’s job is still on the line."
I will await my apology.
Sadly one of them has already deleted their account.
The other has disappeared and not posted since this all came out.
Brilliant timing
Even if Farage is right, and I personally feel he is on this occasion, there's far too much hatred for him to ever get certain sectors of society to agree with him.
You'll wait a long time for any apology from those, fab will be back at some point (not that he ever added anything anyway) "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've lost track where this is, but the apology appeared to be a non apology.
They apologised for the language. Not said the decision was wrong.
The language was poor. I don't agree with their veiws he was a PR risk to them. But as yet I haven't seen anything that's shows they did something outside the laws.
There's also in my mind some gaps in the timelines. I'm hoping NF proceeds formally to get some independence on what happened. "
No.
The law taken over from the e.u ( as I described the case law) states people can not have accounts shut down because of political beliefs.
The SAR clearly shows his account was shut down due to beliefs that did not align with the banks
The entire SAR shows they had bo economic reason to shut down tbe accountand that he was not a political exposed risk going forward ifmhe stayed away from politics over the next year.
I was told I knew nothing and that banks can exclude whomever they want.
This was false.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've lost track where this is, but the apology appeared to be a non apology.
They apologised for the language. Not said the decision was wrong.
The language was poor. I don't agree with their veiws he was a PR risk to them. But as yet I haven't seen anything that's shows they did something outside the laws.
There's also in my mind some gaps in the timelines. I'm hoping NF proceeds formally to get some independence on what happened.
No.
The law taken over from the e.u ( as I described the case law) states people can not have accounts shut down because of political beliefs.
The SAR clearly shows his account was shut down due to beliefs that did not align with the banks
The entire SAR shows they had bo economic reason to shut down tbe accountand that he was not a political exposed risk going forward ifmhe stayed away from politics over the next year.
I was told I knew nothing and that banks can exclude whomever they want.
This was false.
"
the SAR shows that the economic reason was based on his mortgage. Which was repaid early this year. (About page 39 irrc).
And was due to finish about now even if he hadnt.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've lost track where this is, but the apology appeared to be a non apology.
They apologised for the language. Not said the decision was wrong.
The language was poor. I don't agree with their veiws he was a PR risk to them. But as yet I haven't seen anything that's shows they did something outside the laws.
There's also in my mind some gaps in the timelines. I'm hoping NF proceeds formally to get some independence on what happened.
No.
The law taken over from the e.u ( as I described the case law) states people can not have accounts shut down because of political beliefs.
The SAR clearly shows his account was shut down due to beliefs that did not align with the banks
The entire SAR shows they had bo economic reason to shut down tbe accountand that he was not a political exposed risk going forward ifmhe stayed away from politics over the next year.
I was told I knew nothing and that banks can exclude whomever they want.
This was false.
"
Has Nigel got his coutts account back yet? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"I've lost track where this is, but the apology appeared to be a non apology.
They apologised for the language. Not said the decision was wrong.
The language was poor. I don't agree with their veiws he was a PR risk to them. But as yet I haven't seen anything that's shows they did something outside the laws.
There's also in my mind some gaps in the timelines. I'm hoping NF proceeds formally to get some independence on what happened.
No.
The law taken over from the e.u ( as I described the case law) states people can not have accounts shut down because of political beliefs.
The SAR clearly shows his account was shut down due to beliefs that did not align with the banks
The entire SAR shows they had bo economic reason to shut down tbe accountand that he was not a political exposed risk going forward ifmhe stayed away from politics over the next year.
I was told I knew nothing and that banks can exclude whomever they want.
This was false.
Has Nigel got his coutts account back yet? "
 oh you said COUTTS I misread that at first |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've lost track where this is, but the apology appeared to be a non apology.
They apologised for the language. Not said the decision was wrong.
The language was poor. I don't agree with their veiws he was a PR risk to them. But as yet I haven't seen anything that's shows they did something outside the laws.
There's also in my mind some gaps in the timelines. I'm hoping NF proceeds formally to get some independence on what happened.
No.
The law taken over from the e.u ( as I described the case law) states people can not have accounts shut down because of political beliefs.
The SAR clearly shows his account was shut down due to beliefs that did not align with the banks
The entire SAR shows they had bo economic reason to shut down tbe accountand that he was not a political exposed risk going forward ifmhe stayed away from politics over the next year.
I was told I knew nothing and that banks can exclude whomever they want.
This was false.
the SAR shows that the economic reason was based on his mortgage. Which was repaid early this year. (About page 39 irrc).
And was due to finish about now even if he hadnt.
"
There was noe conomic reason.
In the report. They admit they use it as an excuse to get rid of him
Have you read the full 40 page document?
They say going forward he's still viable financially and there's no reason to close the account
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've lost track where this is, but the apology appeared to be a non apology.
They apologised for the language. Not said the decision was wrong.
The language was poor. I don't agree with their veiws he was a PR risk to them. But as yet I haven't seen anything that's shows they did something outside the laws.
There's also in my mind some gaps in the timelines. I'm hoping NF proceeds formally to get some independence on what happened.
No.
The law taken over from the e.u ( as I described the case law) states people can not have accounts shut down because of political beliefs.
The SAR clearly shows his account was shut down due to beliefs that did not align with the banks
The entire SAR shows they had bo economic reason to shut down tbe accountand that he was not a political exposed risk going forward ifmhe stayed away from politics over the next year.
I was told I knew nothing and that banks can exclude whomever they want.
This was false.
Has Nigel got his coutts account back yet? "
Not yet.
I think the question we all need to know the newer to is will the ceo of natwest be in a job in 3 months time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've lost track where this is, but the apology appeared to be a non apology.
They apologised for the language. Not said the decision was wrong.
The language was poor. I don't agree with their veiws he was a PR risk to them. But as yet I haven't seen anything that's shows they did something outside the laws.
There's also in my mind some gaps in the timelines. I'm hoping NF proceeds formally to get some independence on what happened.
No.
The law taken over from the e.u ( as I described the case law) states people can not have accounts shut down because of political beliefs.
The SAR clearly shows his account was shut down due to beliefs that did not align with the banks
The entire SAR shows they had bo economic reason to shut down tbe accountand that he was not a political exposed risk going forward ifmhe stayed away from politics over the next year.
I was told I knew nothing and that banks can exclude whomever they want.
This was false.
the SAR shows that the economic reason was based on his mortgage. Which was repaid early this year. (About page 39 irrc).
And was due to finish about now even if he hadnt.
There was noe conomic reason.
In the report. They admit they use it as an excuse to get rid of him
Have you read the full 40 page document?
They say going forward he's still viable financially and there's no reason to close the account
"
I pointed you to page 39.
"The relationship has been below commercial criteria for some time and upon review of Nigel's past public profile and connections, the perceived risks for the future weighed against the benefit the decision was to exit upon existing mortgage"
Even page 1 says he will not be a criteria client after his mortgage was paid of.
I admit that, as at Nov 22 they say he was commercially viable, given his reduced PEP status. That doesn't mean that he would be viable growing forward after his mortgage was done.
If you have read something that contradixts this, please point me to the page.
And to repeat. I disagree that there was a big PR risk.
I also believe that if Farage was below theri minimums they should have the ability to sacknhim as a client. I am conflicted with to what extent this was a PR risk they believed, an inclusivity issue or a policical issue. I do suspect it was ultimately down to money, because I doubt coutts give that much of a shit unless it earns dollars. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" I do suspect it was ultimately down to money, because I doubt coutts give that much of a shit unless it earns dollars. "
And therein lies the problem.
Bank accounts seem to be handed out like sweeties to any old oligarch, exiled warlord, coup d'état leader in hiding, and other unsavoury characters.
Customers are not aware of other customers who bank with that bank, and they have no way of knowing if the bank is propped up with money from dubious origins, or patronised by dubious customers.
How can customers make an informed choice if a web of secrecy is used to hide the bank's customer base from scrutiny ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Coutts are a bit shy about their esteemed Russian customers. Perhaps they need a closer look  "
I’d be absolutely certain they’ve got their share of shady customers, correct. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Coutts are a bit shy about their esteemed Russian customers. Perhaps they need a closer look
I’d be absolutely certain they’ve got their share of shady customers, correct. "
Farage is suspected of having shady Russian connections. Maybe he served his purpose and Coutts were told to get rid! Nige better keep away from hotel windows! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've lost track where this is, but the apology appeared to be a non apology.
They apologised for the language. Not said the decision was wrong.
The language was poor. I don't agree with their veiws he was a PR risk to them. But as yet I haven't seen anything that's shows they did something outside the laws.
There's also in my mind some gaps in the timelines. I'm hoping NF proceeds formally to get some independence on what happened.
No.
The law taken over from the e.u ( as I described the case law) states people can not have accounts shut down because of political beliefs.
The SAR clearly shows his account was shut down due to beliefs that did not align with the banks
The entire SAR shows they had bo economic reason to shut down tbe accountand that he was not a political exposed risk going forward ifmhe stayed away from politics over the next year.
I was told I knew nothing and that banks can exclude whomever they want.
This was false.
the SAR shows that the economic reason was based on his mortgage. Which was repaid early this year. (About page 39 irrc).
And was due to finish about now even if he hadnt.
There was noe conomic reason.
In the report. They admit they use it as an excuse to get rid of him
Have you read the full 40 page document?
They say going forward he's still viable financially and there's no reason to close the account
I pointed you to page 39.
"The relationship has been below commercial criteria for some time and upon review of Nigel's past public profile and connections, the perceived risks for the future weighed against the benefit the decision was to exit upon existing mortgage"
Even page 1 says he will not be a criteria client after his mortgage was paid of.
I admit that, as at Nov 22 they say he was commercially viable, given his reduced PEP status. That doesn't mean that he would be viable growing forward after his mortgage was done.
If you have read something that contradixts this, please point me to the page.
And to repeat. I disagree that there was a big PR risk.
I also believe that if Farage was below theri minimums they should have the ability to sacknhim as a client. I am conflicted with to what extent this was a PR risk they believed, an inclusivity issue or a policical issue. I do suspect it was ultimately down to money, because I doubt coutts give that much of a shit unless it earns dollars. "
Page 2 of the report.
"The clients EC, is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis"
What you are quoting of page 39 is the risk of retention vs benefit of retention.
Not the economic contribution.
The criteria client is in reference to their position of being an (ironically) inclusive organisation.
I am sorry. You have misread.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Coutts are a bit shy about their esteemed Russian customers. Perhaps they need a closer look
I’d be absolutely certain they’ve got their share of shady customers, correct.
Farage is suspected of having shady Russian connections. Maybe he served his purpose and Coutts were told to get rid! Nige better keep away from hotel windows!"
There have been no Russian connection coutts could find.
They allude to this in the report. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There have been no Russian connection coutts could find.
They allude to this in the report."
I would have thought even the merest whiff of shady dealings would have triggered assorted government agencies to investigate further. It's par for the course for certain individuals in certain positions regardless of political affiliation or ideology. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There have been no Russian connection coutts could find.
They allude to this in the report.
I would have thought even the merest whiff of shady dealings would have triggered assorted government agencies to investigate further. It's par for the course for certain individuals in certain positions regardless of political affiliation or ideology."
Sadly all the alleged Russian links come down to is that Chris bryant made a claim in.parliament he refuses to claim in public.
I think it's time we did away with parliamentry privilige. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Coutts are a bit shy about their esteemed Russian customers. Perhaps they need a closer look
I’d be absolutely certain they’ve got their share of shady customers, correct.
Farage is suspected of having shady Russian connections. Maybe he served his purpose and Coutts were told to get rid! Nige better keep away from hotel windows!"
I’d give my right arm to know what was on the USB that he exchanged with Assange. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've lost track where this is, but the apology appeared to be a non apology.
They apologised for the language. Not said the decision was wrong.
The language was poor. I don't agree with their veiws he was a PR risk to them. But as yet I haven't seen anything that's shows they did something outside the laws.
There's also in my mind some gaps in the timelines. I'm hoping NF proceeds formally to get some independence on what happened.
No.
The law taken over from the e.u ( as I described the case law) states people can not have accounts shut down because of political beliefs.
The SAR clearly shows his account was shut down due to beliefs that did not align with the banks
The entire SAR shows they had bo economic reason to shut down tbe accountand that he was not a political exposed risk going forward ifmhe stayed away from politics over the next year.
I was told I knew nothing and that banks can exclude whomever they want.
This was false.
the SAR shows that the economic reason was based on his mortgage. Which was repaid early this year. (About page 39 irrc).
And was due to finish about now even if he hadnt.
There was noe conomic reason.
In the report. They admit they use it as an excuse to get rid of him
Have you read the full 40 page document?
They say going forward he's still viable financially and there's no reason to close the account
I pointed you to page 39.
"The relationship has been below commercial criteria for some time and upon review of Nigel's past public profile and connections, the perceived risks for the future weighed against the benefit the decision was to exit upon existing mortgage"
Even page 1 says he will not be a criteria client after his mortgage was paid of.
I admit that, as at Nov 22 they say he was commercially viable, given his reduced PEP status. That doesn't mean that he would be viable growing forward after his mortgage was done.
If you have read something that contradixts this, please point me to the page.
And to repeat. I disagree that there was a big PR risk.
I also believe that if Farage was below theri minimums they should have the ability to sacknhim as a client. I am conflicted with to what extent this was a PR risk they believed, an inclusivity issue or a policical issue. I do suspect it was ultimately down to money, because I doubt coutts give that much of a shit unless it earns dollars.
Page 2 of the report.
"The clients EC, is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis"
What you are quoting of page 39 is the risk of retention vs benefit of retention.
Not the economic contribution.
The criteria client is in reference to their position of being an (ironically) inclusive organisation.
I am sorry. You have misread.
"
I pointed to that bit.
Would his commercial basis change once his mortgage was repaid? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've lost track where this is, but the apology appeared to be a non apology.
They apologised for the language. Not said the decision was wrong.
The language was poor. I don't agree with their veiws he was a PR risk to them. But as yet I haven't seen anything that's shows they did something outside the laws.
There's also in my mind some gaps in the timelines. I'm hoping NF proceeds formally to get some independence on what happened.
No.
The law taken over from the e.u ( as I described the case law) states people can not have accounts shut down because of political beliefs.
The SAR clearly shows his account was shut down due to beliefs that did not align with the banks
The entire SAR shows they had bo economic reason to shut down tbe accountand that he was not a political exposed risk going forward ifmhe stayed away from politics over the next year.
I was told I knew nothing and that banks can exclude whomever they want.
This was false.
the SAR shows that the economic reason was based on his mortgage. Which was repaid early this year. (About page 39 irrc).
And was due to finish about now even if he hadnt.
There was noe conomic reason.
In the report. They admit they use it as an excuse to get rid of him
Have you read the full 40 page document?
They say going forward he's still viable financially and there's no reason to close the account
I pointed you to page 39.
"The relationship has been below commercial criteria for some time and upon review of Nigel's past public profile and connections, the perceived risks for the future weighed against the benefit the decision was to exit upon existing mortgage"
Even page 1 says he will not be a criteria client after his mortgage was paid of.
I admit that, as at Nov 22 they say he was commercially viable, given his reduced PEP status. That doesn't mean that he would be viable growing forward after his mortgage was done.
If you have read something that contradixts this, please point me to the page.
And to repeat. I disagree that there was a big PR risk.
I also believe that if Farage was below theri minimums they should have the ability to sacknhim as a client. I am conflicted with to what extent this was a PR risk they believed, an inclusivity issue or a policical issue. I do suspect it was ultimately down to money, because I doubt coutts give that much of a shit unless it earns dollars.
Page 2 of the report.
"The clients EC, is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis"
What you are quoting of page 39 is the risk of retention vs benefit of retention.
Not the economic contribution.
The criteria client is in reference to their position of being an (ironically) inclusive organisation.
I am sorry. You have misread.
I pointed to that bit.
Would his commercial basis change once his mortgage was repaid? "
The commercial basis was the the risk vs reward.
But that's not the economic basis |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've lost track where this is, but the apology appeared to be a non apology.
They apologised for the language. Not said the decision was wrong.
The language was poor. I don't agree with their veiws he was a PR risk to them. But as yet I haven't seen anything that's shows they did something outside the laws.
There's also in my mind some gaps in the timelines. I'm hoping NF proceeds formally to get some independence on what happened.
No.
The law taken over from the e.u ( as I described the case law) states people can not have accounts shut down because of political beliefs.
The SAR clearly shows his account was shut down due to beliefs that did not align with the banks
The entire SAR shows they had bo economic reason to shut down tbe accountand that he was not a political exposed risk going forward ifmhe stayed away from politics over the next year.
I was told I knew nothing and that banks can exclude whomever they want.
This was false.
the SAR shows that the economic reason was based on his mortgage. Which was repaid early this year. (About page 39 irrc).
And was due to finish about now even if he hadnt.
There was noe conomic reason.
In the report. They admit they use it as an excuse to get rid of him
Have you read the full 40 page document?
They say going forward he's still viable financially and there's no reason to close the account
I pointed you to page 39.
"The relationship has been below commercial criteria for some time and upon review of Nigel's past public profile and connections, the perceived risks for the future weighed against the benefit the decision was to exit upon existing mortgage"
Even page 1 says he will not be a criteria client after his mortgage was paid of.
I admit that, as at Nov 22 they say he was commercially viable, given his reduced PEP status. That doesn't mean that he would be viable growing forward after his mortgage was done.
If you have read something that contradixts this, please point me to the page.
And to repeat. I disagree that there was a big PR risk.
I also believe that if Farage was below theri minimums they should have the ability to sacknhim as a client. I am conflicted with to what extent this was a PR risk they believed, an inclusivity issue or a policical issue. I do suspect it was ultimately down to money, because I doubt coutts give that much of a shit unless it earns dollars.
Page 2 of the report.
"The clients EC, is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis"
What you are quoting of page 39 is the risk of retention vs benefit of retention.
Not the economic contribution.
The criteria client is in reference to their position of being an (ironically) inclusive organisation.
I am sorry. You have misread.
I pointed to that bit.
Would his commercial basis change once his mortgage was repaid?
The commercial basis was the the risk vs reward.
But that's not the economic basis"
I will rephrase. Will his economic contribution reduce now his mortgage has been repaid?
(Also, wasn't this positioned in ten first instance as a commercial decision). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've lost track where this is, but the apology appeared to be a non apology.
They apologised for the language. Not said the decision was wrong.
The language was poor. I don't agree with their veiws he was a PR risk to them. But as yet I haven't seen anything that's shows they did something outside the laws.
There's also in my mind some gaps in the timelines. I'm hoping NF proceeds formally to get some independence on what happened.
No.
The law taken over from the e.u ( as I described the case law) states people can not have accounts shut down because of political beliefs.
The SAR clearly shows his account was shut down due to beliefs that did not align with the banks
The entire SAR shows they had bo economic reason to shut down tbe accountand that he was not a political exposed risk going forward ifmhe stayed away from politics over the next year.
I was told I knew nothing and that banks can exclude whomever they want.
This was false.
the SAR shows that the economic reason was based on his mortgage. Which was repaid early this year. (About page 39 irrc).
And was due to finish about now even if he hadnt.
There was noe conomic reason.
In the report. They admit they use it as an excuse to get rid of him
Have you read the full 40 page document?
They say going forward he's still viable financially and there's no reason to close the account
I pointed you to page 39.
"The relationship has been below commercial criteria for some time and upon review of Nigel's past public profile and connections, the perceived risks for the future weighed against the benefit the decision was to exit upon existing mortgage"
Even page 1 says he will not be a criteria client after his mortgage was paid of.
I admit that, as at Nov 22 they say he was commercially viable, given his reduced PEP status. That doesn't mean that he would be viable growing forward after his mortgage was done.
If you have read something that contradixts this, please point me to the page.
And to repeat. I disagree that there was a big PR risk.
I also believe that if Farage was below theri minimums they should have the ability to sacknhim as a client. I am conflicted with to what extent this was a PR risk they believed, an inclusivity issue or a policical issue. I do suspect it was ultimately down to money, because I doubt coutts give that much of a shit unless it earns dollars.
Page 2 of the report.
"The clients EC, is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis"
What you are quoting of page 39 is the risk of retention vs benefit of retention.
Not the economic contribution.
The criteria client is in reference to their position of being an (ironically) inclusive organisation.
I am sorry. You have misread.
I pointed to that bit.
Would his commercial basis change once his mortgage was repaid?
The commercial basis was the the risk vs reward.
But that's not the economic basisI will rephrase. Will his economic contribution reduce now his mortgage has been repaid?
(Also, wasn't this positioned in ten first instance as a commercial decision). "
I dont have access to his coutts account.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've lost track where this is, but the apology appeared to be a non apology.
They apologised for the language. Not said the decision was wrong.
The language was poor. I don't agree with their veiws he was a PR risk to them. But as yet I haven't seen anything that's shows they did something outside the laws.
There's also in my mind some gaps in the timelines. I'm hoping NF proceeds formally to get some independence on what happened.
No.
The law taken over from the e.u ( as I described the case law) states people can not have accounts shut down because of political beliefs.
The SAR clearly shows his account was shut down due to beliefs that did not align with the banks
The entire SAR shows they had bo economic reason to shut down tbe accountand that he was not a political exposed risk going forward ifmhe stayed away from politics over the next year.
I was told I knew nothing and that banks can exclude whomever they want.
This was false.
the SAR shows that the economic reason was based on his mortgage. Which was repaid early this year. (About page 39 irrc).
And was due to finish about now even if he hadnt.
There was noe conomic reason.
In the report. They admit they use it as an excuse to get rid of him
Have you read the full 40 page document?
They say going forward he's still viable financially and there's no reason to close the account
I pointed you to page 39.
"The relationship has been below commercial criteria for some time and upon review of Nigel's past public profile and connections, the perceived risks for the future weighed against the benefit the decision was to exit upon existing mortgage"
Even page 1 says he will not be a criteria client after his mortgage was paid of.
I admit that, as at Nov 22 they say he was commercially viable, given his reduced PEP status. That doesn't mean that he would be viable growing forward after his mortgage was done.
If you have read something that contradixts this, please point me to the page.
And to repeat. I disagree that there was a big PR risk.
I also believe that if Farage was below theri minimums they should have the ability to sacknhim as a client. I am conflicted with to what extent this was a PR risk they believed, an inclusivity issue or a policical issue. I do suspect it was ultimately down to money, because I doubt coutts give that much of a shit unless it earns dollars.
Page 2 of the report.
"The clients EC, is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis"
What you are quoting of page 39 is the risk of retention vs benefit of retention.
Not the economic contribution.
The criteria client is in reference to their position of being an (ironically) inclusive organisation.
I am sorry. You have misread.
I pointed to that bit.
Would his commercial basis change once his mortgage was repaid?
The commercial basis was the the risk vs reward.
But that's not the economic basisI will rephrase. Will his economic contribution reduce now his mortgage has been repaid?
(Also, wasn't this positioned in ten first instance as a commercial decision).
I dont have access to his coutts account.
"
you could make an educated guess.
Or (re)read page 10. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"They said it was commercial decision based on the fact they believed his political views didn't align with the coutts.
This was illegal.
You can't de banking some one because of their politics."
When did they say political views. Rather than publicly stated views. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"They said it was commercial decision based on the fact they believed his political views didn't align with the coutts.
This was illegal.
You can't de banking some one because of their politics."
No. They said it was not political, but due to his publicly stated views. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"They said it was commercial decision based on the fact they believed his political views didn't align with the coutts.
This was illegal.
You can't de banking some one because of their politics.
No. They said it was not political, but due to his publicly stated views. "
Oh dear |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"They said it was commercial decision based on the fact they believed his political views didn't align with the coutts.
This was illegal.
You can't de banking some one because of their politics.
No. They said it was not political, but due to his publicly stated views.
Oh dear"
Aw don’t be sad. Nige will be alright |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've lost track where this is, but the apology appeared to be a non apology.
They apologised for the language. Not said the decision was wrong.
The language was poor. I don't agree with their veiws he was a PR risk to them. But as yet I haven't seen anything that's shows they did something outside the laws.
There's also in my mind some gaps in the timelines. I'm hoping NF proceeds formally to get some independence on what happened.
No.
The law taken over from the e.u ( as I described the case law) states people can not have accounts shut down because of political beliefs.
The SAR clearly shows his account was shut down due to beliefs that did not align with the banks
The entire SAR shows they had bo economic reason to shut down tbe accountand that he was not a political exposed risk going forward ifmhe stayed away from politics over the next year.
I was told I knew nothing and that banks can exclude whomever they want.
This was false.
the SAR shows that the economic reason was based on his mortgage. Which was repaid early this year. (About page 39 irrc).
And was due to finish about now even if he hadnt.
There was noe conomic reason.
In the report. They admit they use it as an excuse to get rid of him
Have you read the full 40 page document?
They say going forward he's still viable financially and there's no reason to close the account
I pointed you to page 39.
"The relationship has been below commercial criteria for some time and upon review of Nigel's past public profile and connections, the perceived risks for the future weighed against the benefit the decision was to exit upon existing mortgage"
Even page 1 says he will not be a criteria client after his mortgage was paid of.
I admit that, as at Nov 22 they say he was commercially viable, given his reduced PEP status. That doesn't mean that he would be viable growing forward after his mortgage was done.
If you have read something that contradixts this, please point me to the page.
And to repeat. I disagree that there was a big PR risk.
I also believe that if Farage was below theri minimums they should have the ability to sacknhim as a client. I am conflicted with to what extent this was a PR risk they believed, an inclusivity issue or a policical issue. I do suspect it was ultimately down to money, because I doubt coutts give that much of a shit unless it earns dollars.
Page 2 of the report.
"The clients EC, is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis"
What you are quoting of page 39 is the risk of retention vs benefit of retention.
Not the economic contribution.
The criteria client is in reference to their position of being an (ironically) inclusive organisation.
I am sorry. You have misread.
I pointed to that bit.
Would his commercial basis change once his mortgage was repaid?
The commercial basis was the the risk vs reward.
But that's not the economic basisI will rephrase. Will his economic contribution reduce now his mortgage has been repaid?
(Also, wasn't this positioned in ten first instance as a commercial decision).
I dont have access to his coutts account.
you could make an educated guess.
Or (re)read page 10. "
No one can attest to the future ongoing.
Page 10 re affirms my point
Again they say he is EC viable currently.
They say " EC likely to fall in next 24 months"
So the EC was not know. It was a guess. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They said it was commercial decision based on the fact they believed his political views didn't align with the coutts.
This was illegal.
You can't de banking some one because of their politics.
No. They said it was not political, but due to his publicly stated views.
Oh dear"
I can believe he's said this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've lost track where this is, but the apology appeared to be a non apology.
They apologised for the language. Not said the decision was wrong.
The language was poor. I don't agree with their veiws he was a PR risk to them. But as yet I haven't seen anything that's shows they did something outside the laws.
There's also in my mind some gaps in the timelines. I'm hoping NF proceeds formally to get some independence on what happened.
No.
The law taken over from the e.u ( as I described the case law) states people can not have accounts shut down because of political beliefs.
The SAR clearly shows his account was shut down due to beliefs that did not align with the banks
The entire SAR shows they had bo economic reason to shut down tbe accountand that he was not a political exposed risk going forward ifmhe stayed away from politics over the next year.
I was told I knew nothing and that banks can exclude whomever they want.
This was false.
the SAR shows that the economic reason was based on his mortgage. Which was repaid early this year. (About page 39 irrc).
And was due to finish about now even if he hadnt.
There was noe conomic reason.
In the report. They admit they use it as an excuse to get rid of him
Have you read the full 40 page document?
They say going forward he's still viable financially and there's no reason to close the account
I pointed you to page 39.
"The relationship has been below commercial criteria for some time and upon review of Nigel's past public profile and connections, the perceived risks for the future weighed against the benefit the decision was to exit upon existing mortgage"
Even page 1 says he will not be a criteria client after his mortgage was paid of.
I admit that, as at Nov 22 they say he was commercially viable, given his reduced PEP status. That doesn't mean that he would be viable growing forward after his mortgage was done.
If you have read something that contradixts this, please point me to the page.
And to repeat. I disagree that there was a big PR risk.
I also believe that if Farage was below theri minimums they should have the ability to sacknhim as a client. I am conflicted with to what extent this was a PR risk they believed, an inclusivity issue or a policical issue. I do suspect it was ultimately down to money, because I doubt coutts give that much of a shit unless it earns dollars.
Page 2 of the report.
"The clients EC, is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis"
What you are quoting of page 39 is the risk of retention vs benefit of retention.
Not the economic contribution.
The criteria client is in reference to their position of being an (ironically) inclusive organisation.
I am sorry. You have misread.
I pointed to that bit.
Would his commercial basis change once his mortgage was repaid?
The commercial basis was the the risk vs reward.
But that's not the economic basisI will rephrase. Will his economic contribution reduce now his mortgage has been repaid?
(Also, wasn't this positioned in ten first instance as a commercial decision).
I dont have access to his coutts account.
you could make an educated guess.
Or (re)read page 10.
No one can attest to the future ongoing.
Page 10 re affirms my point
Again they say he is EC viable currently.
They say " EC likely to fall in next 24 months"
So the EC was not know. It was a guess. "
did you miss the word significantly out on purpose?
And from a "low" position.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"They said it was commercial decision based on the fact they believed his political views didn't align with the coutts.
This was illegal.
You can't de banking some one because of their politics.
No. They said it was not political, but due to his publicly stated views.
Oh dear
I can believe he's said this."
What, repeated what Coutts said? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why do we have this third thread about Farage's bank account being closed?
Is it that interesting?"
Because his fan boys and girls love him. His haters love to hate him.
But the story is really pretty boring.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"They said it was commercial decision based on the fact they believed his political views didn't align with the coutts.
This was illegal.
You can't de banking some one because of their politics.
No. They said it was not political, but due to his publicly stated views.
Oh dear
I can believe he's said this."
Coutts document - page 1:
“The Committee did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his
publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation”
“this was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and Purpose”
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've lost track where this is, but the apology appeared to be a non apology.
They apologised for the language. Not said the decision was wrong.
The language was poor. I don't agree with their veiws he was a PR risk to them. But as yet I haven't seen anything that's shows they did something outside the laws.
There's also in my mind some gaps in the timelines. I'm hoping NF proceeds formally to get some independence on what happened.
No.
The law taken over from the e.u ( as I described the case law) states people can not have accounts shut down because of political beliefs.
The SAR clearly shows his account was shut down due to beliefs that did not align with the banks
The entire SAR shows they had bo economic reason to shut down tbe accountand that he was not a political exposed risk going forward ifmhe stayed away from politics over the next year.
I was told I knew nothing and that banks can exclude whomever they want.
This was false.
the SAR shows that the economic reason was based on his mortgage. Which was repaid early this year. (About page 39 irrc).
And was due to finish about now even if he hadnt.
There was noe conomic reason.
In the report. They admit they use it as an excuse to get rid of him
Have you read the full 40 page document?
They say going forward he's still viable financially and there's no reason to close the account
I pointed you to page 39.
"The relationship has been below commercial criteria for some time and upon review of Nigel's past public profile and connections, the perceived risks for the future weighed against the benefit the decision was to exit upon existing mortgage"
Even page 1 says he will not be a criteria client after his mortgage was paid of.
I admit that, as at Nov 22 they say he was commercially viable, given his reduced PEP status. That doesn't mean that he would be viable growing forward after his mortgage was done.
If you have read something that contradixts this, please point me to the page.
And to repeat. I disagree that there was a big PR risk.
I also believe that if Farage was below theri minimums they should have the ability to sacknhim as a client. I am conflicted with to what extent this was a PR risk they believed, an inclusivity issue or a policical issue. I do suspect it was ultimately down to money, because I doubt coutts give that much of a shit unless it earns dollars.
Page 2 of the report.
"The clients EC, is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis"
What you are quoting of page 39 is the risk of retention vs benefit of retention.
Not the economic contribution.
The criteria client is in reference to their position of being an (ironically) inclusive organisation.
I am sorry. You have misread.
I pointed to that bit.
Would his commercial basis change once his mortgage was repaid?
The commercial basis was the the risk vs reward.
But that's not the economic basisI will rephrase. Will his economic contribution reduce now his mortgage has been repaid?
(Also, wasn't this positioned in ten first instance as a commercial decision).
I dont have access to his coutts account.
you could make an educated guess.
Or (re)read page 10.
No one can attest to the future ongoing.
Page 10 re affirms my point
Again they say he is EC viable currently.
They say " EC likely to fall in next 24 months"
So the EC was not know. It was a guess. did you miss the word significantly out on purpose?
And from a "low" position.
"
It has no baring.
He didn't fall below the EC.
We established that
There was a belief he may in the next 24 months.
This isn't him falling below the levels currently.
As much as you wish it to be.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why do we have this third thread about Farage's bank account being closed?
Is it that interesting?"
Because other threads reach their limits and its ongoing developments.
And some people claim others didn't knkw what they were talking about.
Yet can no longer see the record has been stated by those who do know what they're talking about |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why do we have this third thread about Farage's bank account being closed?
Is it that interesting?
Because his fan boys and girls love him. His haters love to hate him.
But the story is really pretty boring.."
Very true.
This mundane story is unlikely to sway anyone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"They said it was commercial decision based on the fact they believed his political views didn't align with the coutts.
This was illegal.
You can't de banking some one because of their politics.
No. They said it was not political, but due to his publicly stated views.
Oh dear
I can believe he's said this."
Agreed it very believable and it is the common reoccurrence of misunderstanding. I'm not going to go down a rabbit hole to plug the gap either, that train has literally left the station..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"They said it was commercial decision based on the fact they believed his political views didn't align with the coutts.
This was illegal.
You can't de banking some one because of their politics.
No. They said it was not political, but due to his publicly stated views.
Oh dear
I can believe he's said this.
Agreed it very believable and it is the common reoccurrence of misunderstanding. I'm not going to go down a rabbit hole to plug the gap either, that train has literally left the station..... "
Did you read the Coutts document? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've lost track where this is, but the apology appeared to be a non apology.
They apologised for the language. Not said the decision was wrong.
The language was poor. I don't agree with their veiws he was a PR risk to them. But as yet I haven't seen anything that's shows they did something outside the laws.
There's also in my mind some gaps in the timelines. I'm hoping NF proceeds formally to get some independence on what happened.
No.
The law taken over from the e.u ( as I described the case law) states people can not have accounts shut down because of political beliefs.
The SAR clearly shows his account was shut down due to beliefs that did not align with the banks
The entire SAR shows they had bo economic reason to shut down tbe accountand that he was not a political exposed risk going forward ifmhe stayed away from politics over the next year.
I was told I knew nothing and that banks can exclude whomever they want.
This was false.
the SAR shows that the economic reason was based on his mortgage. Which was repaid early this year. (About page 39 irrc).
And was due to finish about now even if he hadnt.
There was noe conomic reason.
In the report. They admit they use it as an excuse to get rid of him
Have you read the full 40 page document?
They say going forward he's still viable financially and there's no reason to close the account
I pointed you to page 39.
"The relationship has been below commercial criteria for some time and upon review of Nigel's past public profile and connections, the perceived risks for the future weighed against the benefit the decision was to exit upon existing mortgage"
Even page 1 says he will not be a criteria client after his mortgage was paid of.
I admit that, as at Nov 22 they say he was commercially viable, given his reduced PEP status. That doesn't mean that he would be viable growing forward after his mortgage was done.
If you have read something that contradixts this, please point me to the page.
And to repeat. I disagree that there was a big PR risk.
I also believe that if Farage was below theri minimums they should have the ability to sacknhim as a client. I am conflicted with to what extent this was a PR risk they believed, an inclusivity issue or a policical issue. I do suspect it was ultimately down to money, because I doubt coutts give that much of a shit unless it earns dollars.
Page 2 of the report.
"The clients EC, is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis"
What you are quoting of page 39 is the risk of retention vs benefit of retention.
Not the economic contribution.
The criteria client is in reference to their position of being an (ironically) inclusive organisation.
I am sorry. You have misread.
I pointed to that bit.
Would his commercial basis change once his mortgage was repaid?
The commercial basis was the the risk vs reward.
But that's not the economic basisI will rephrase. Will his economic contribution reduce now his mortgage has been repaid?
(Also, wasn't this positioned in ten first instance as a commercial decision).
I dont have access to his coutts account.
you could make an educated guess.
Or (re)read page 10.
No one can attest to the future ongoing.
Page 10 re affirms my point
Again they say he is EC viable currently.
They say " EC likely to fall in next 24 months"
So the EC was not know. It was a guess. did you miss the word significantly out on purpose?
And from a "low" position.
It has no baring.
He didn't fall below the EC.
We established that
There was a belief he may in the next 24 months.
This isn't him falling below the levels currently.
As much as you wish it to be.
"
we don't know how current EC.
these "current" documents were from Nov 2022. The fall was anticipated when he paid off his mortgage. Which he has. Around March this year (which makes me wonder when we was notified)
Did you miss off the word "significantly" on purpose or was it an accident ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Im glad the ceo got canned. Now they should fire the whole board for giving her a vote of confidence when she clearly let her personal politics cause her to break the law. Obviously the board have dreadful lack of judgement and unserstanding of their obligations to clients expectations of privacy. Whoever the client is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've lost track where this is, but the apology appeared to be a non apology.
They apologised for the language. Not said the decision was wrong.
The language was poor. I don't agree with their veiws he was a PR risk to them. But as yet I haven't seen anything that's shows they did something outside the laws.
There's also in my mind some gaps in the timelines. I'm hoping NF proceeds formally to get some independence on what happened.
No.
The law taken over from the e.u ( as I described the case law) states people can not have accounts shut down because of political beliefs.
The SAR clearly shows his account was shut down due to beliefs that did not align with the banks
The entire SAR shows they had bo economic reason to shut down tbe accountand that he was not a political exposed risk going forward ifmhe stayed away from politics over the next year.
I was told I knew nothing and that banks can exclude whomever they want.
This was false.
the SAR shows that the economic reason was based on his mortgage. Which was repaid early this year. (About page 39 irrc).
And was due to finish about now even if he hadnt.
There was noe conomic reason.
In the report. They admit they use it as an excuse to get rid of him
Have you read the full 40 page document?
They say going forward he's still viable financially and there's no reason to close the account
I pointed you to page 39.
"The relationship has been below commercial criteria for some time and upon review of Nigel's past public profile and connections, the perceived risks for the future weighed against the benefit the decision was to exit upon existing mortgage"
Even page 1 says he will not be a criteria client after his mortgage was paid of.
I admit that, as at Nov 22 they say he was commercially viable, given his reduced PEP status. That doesn't mean that he would be viable growing forward after his mortgage was done.
If you have read something that contradixts this, please point me to the page.
And to repeat. I disagree that there was a big PR risk.
I also believe that if Farage was below theri minimums they should have the ability to sacknhim as a client. I am conflicted with to what extent this was a PR risk they believed, an inclusivity issue or a policical issue. I do suspect it was ultimately down to money, because I doubt coutts give that much of a shit unless it earns dollars.
Page 2 of the report.
"The clients EC, is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis"
What you are quoting of page 39 is the risk of retention vs benefit of retention.
Not the economic contribution.
The criteria client is in reference to their position of being an (ironically) inclusive organisation.
I am sorry. You have misread.
I pointed to that bit.
Would his commercial basis change once his mortgage was repaid?
The commercial basis was the the risk vs reward.
But that's not the economic basisI will rephrase. Will his economic contribution reduce now his mortgage has been repaid?
(Also, wasn't this positioned in ten first instance as a commercial decision).
I dont have access to his coutts account.
you could make an educated guess.
Or (re)read page 10.
No one can attest to the future ongoing.
Page 10 re affirms my point
Again they say he is EC viable currently.
They say " EC likely to fall in next 24 months"
So the EC was not know. It was a guess. did you miss the word significantly out on purpose?
And from a "low" position.
It has no baring.
He didn't fall below the EC.
We established that
There was a belief he may in the next 24 months.
This isn't him falling below the levels currently.
As much as you wish it to be.
we don't know how current EC.
these "current" documents were from Nov 2022. The fall was anticipated when he paid off his mortgage. Which he has. Around March this year (which makes me wonder when we was notified)
Did you miss off the word "significantly" on purpose or was it an accident ? "
This was from Nov 22( iir ) that they'd enlarged him a viable EC
They said that circumstances MAY change I the next 2 years.
At the time he was debanked her was economically viable for coutts. And thus its bot a reason or the debanking |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've lost track where this is, but the apology appeared to be a non apology.
They apologised for the language. Not said the decision was wrong.
The language was poor. I don't agree with their veiws he was a PR risk to them. But as yet I haven't seen anything that's shows they did something outside the laws.
There's also in my mind some gaps in the timelines. I'm hoping NF proceeds formally to get some independence on what happened.
No.
The law taken over from the e.u ( as I described the case law) states people can not have accounts shut down because of political beliefs.
The SAR clearly shows his account was shut down due to beliefs that did not align with the banks
The entire SAR shows they had bo economic reason to shut down tbe accountand that he was not a political exposed risk going forward ifmhe stayed away from politics over the next year.
I was told I knew nothing and that banks can exclude whomever they want.
This was false.
the SAR shows that the economic reason was based on his mortgage. Which was repaid early this year. (About page 39 irrc).
And was due to finish about now even if he hadnt.
There was noe conomic reason.
In the report. They admit they use it as an excuse to get rid of him
Have you read the full 40 page document?
They say going forward he's still viable financially and there's no reason to close the account
I pointed you to page 39.
"The relationship has been below commercial criteria for some time and upon review of Nigel's past public profile and connections, the perceived risks for the future weighed against the benefit the decision was to exit upon existing mortgage"
Even page 1 says he will not be a criteria client after his mortgage was paid of.
I admit that, as at Nov 22 they say he was commercially viable, given his reduced PEP status. That doesn't mean that he would be viable growing forward after his mortgage was done.
If you have read something that contradixts this, please point me to the page.
And to repeat. I disagree that there was a big PR risk.
I also believe that if Farage was below theri minimums they should have the ability to sacknhim as a client. I am conflicted with to what extent this was a PR risk they believed, an inclusivity issue or a policical issue. I do suspect it was ultimately down to money, because I doubt coutts give that much of a shit unless it earns dollars.
Page 2 of the report.
"The clients EC, is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis"
What you are quoting of page 39 is the risk of retention vs benefit of retention.
Not the economic contribution.
The criteria client is in reference to their position of being an (ironically) inclusive organisation.
I am sorry. You have misread.
I pointed to that bit.
Would his commercial basis change once his mortgage was repaid?
The commercial basis was the the risk vs reward.
But that's not the economic basisI will rephrase. Will his economic contribution reduce now his mortgage has been repaid?
(Also, wasn't this positioned in ten first instance as a commercial decision).
I dont have access to his coutts account.
you could make an educated guess.
Or (re)read page 10.
No one can attest to the future ongoing.
Page 10 re affirms my point
Again they say he is EC viable currently.
They say " EC likely to fall in next 24 months"
So the EC was not know. It was a guess. did you miss the word significantly out on purpose?
And from a "low" position.
It has no baring.
He didn't fall below the EC.
We established that
There was a belief he may in the next 24 months.
This isn't him falling below the levels currently.
As much as you wish it to be.
we don't know how current EC.
these "current" documents were from Nov 2022. The fall was anticipated when he paid off his mortgage. Which he has. Around March this year (which makes me wonder when we was notified)
Did you miss off the word "significantly" on purpose or was it an accident ?
This was from Nov 22( iir ) that they'd enlarged him a viable EC
They said that circumstances MAY change I the next 2 years.
At the time he was debanked her was economically viable for coutts. And thus its bot a reason or the debanking"
Do you have a page? I'm looking at page 10. That says likely to fall significantly on the next 24 months which imo is a stronger statement than "may fall"
When would you say he was debanked? Maybe you mean when the glide path was first agreed rather than when he was notified. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Some people here could do with Googling "Led by donkeys nigel farage" and watching the YouTube video to remind themselves what an insufferable cunt this man is.
Lots of thinly veiled hero worship here judging by the amount of torrid verbiage, but however much some might be dressing this up a human rights GDPR issue the time spent by most people discussing this only ultimately reveals a great deal about those who keep banging on about it and falling for the whole dead cattery of it.
Let him fucking rot in his own dreary sewage.
I'll let you into a little secret... he doesn't actually care about you  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *estivalMan
over a year ago
borehamwood |
"Some people here could do with Googling "Led by donkeys nigel farage" and watching the YouTube video to remind themselves what an insufferable cunt this man is.
Lots of thinly veiled hero worship here judging by the amount of torrid verbiage, but however much some might be dressing this up a human rights GDPR issue the time spent by most people discussing this only ultimately reveals a great deal about those who keep banging on about it and falling for the whole dead cattery of it.
Let him fucking rot in his own dreary sewage.
I'll let you into a little secret... he doesn't actually care about you "
angry much lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Some people here could do with Googling "Led by donkeys nigel farage" and watching the YouTube video to remind themselves what an insufferable cunt this man is.
Lots of thinly veiled hero worship here judging by the amount of torrid verbiage, but however much some might be dressing this up a human rights GDPR issue the time spent by most people discussing this only ultimately reveals a great deal about those who keep banging on about it and falling for the whole dead cattery of it.
Let him fucking rot in his own dreary sewage.
I'll let you into a little secret... he doesn't actually care about you "
Got nothing to do with that. It's the fact banks can debank you based on your personal beliefs and politics. Which is wrong. Just because you clearly dont like the exemplar. Sharing your confidential data in the public when you are a trusted employee of the bank is wrong. For him. And for anybody. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Honestly, if you're the CEO of a large banking group and you lack the common sense to see the clear GDPR breach when it comes to discussing customer details with the BBC then you deserve the boot. £5,000,000 a year with that level of thought process? Good riddance to the silly cow. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
Seems there may be more to this...
Bloomberg - Nigel Farage has a new Brexit crusade: Softening European Union-era anti-money-laundering laws that see him and other UK political figures as a high banking risk. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've lost track where this is, but the apology appeared to be a non apology.
They apologised for the language. Not said the decision was wrong.
The language was poor. I don't agree with their veiws he was a PR risk to them. But as yet I haven't seen anything that's shows they did something outside the laws.
There's also in my mind some gaps in the timelines. I'm hoping NF proceeds formally to get some independence on what happened.
No.
The law taken over from the e.u ( as I described the case law) states people can not have accounts shut down because of political beliefs.
The SAR clearly shows his account was shut down due to beliefs that did not align with the banks
The entire SAR shows they had bo economic reason to shut down tbe accountand that he was not a political exposed risk going forward ifmhe stayed away from politics over the next year.
I was told I knew nothing and that banks can exclude whomever they want.
This was false.
the SAR shows that the economic reason was based on his mortgage. Which was repaid early this year. (About page 39 irrc).
And was due to finish about now even if he hadnt.
There was noe conomic reason.
In the report. They admit they use it as an excuse to get rid of him
Have you read the full 40 page document?
They say going forward he's still viable financially and there's no reason to close the account
I pointed you to page 39.
"The relationship has been below commercial criteria for some time and upon review of Nigel's past public profile and connections, the perceived risks for the future weighed against the benefit the decision was to exit upon existing mortgage"
Even page 1 says he will not be a criteria client after his mortgage was paid of.
I admit that, as at Nov 22 they say he was commercially viable, given his reduced PEP status. That doesn't mean that he would be viable growing forward after his mortgage was done.
If you have read something that contradixts this, please point me to the page.
And to repeat. I disagree that there was a big PR risk.
I also believe that if Farage was below theri minimums they should have the ability to sacknhim as a client. I am conflicted with to what extent this was a PR risk they believed, an inclusivity issue or a policical issue. I do suspect it was ultimately down to money, because I doubt coutts give that much of a shit unless it earns dollars.
Page 2 of the report.
"The clients EC, is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis"
What you are quoting of page 39 is the risk of retention vs benefit of retention.
Not the economic contribution.
The criteria client is in reference to their position of being an (ironically) inclusive organisation.
I am sorry. You have misread.
I pointed to that bit.
Would his commercial basis change once his mortgage was repaid?
The commercial basis was the the risk vs reward.
But that's not the economic basisI will rephrase. Will his economic contribution reduce now his mortgage has been repaid?
(Also, wasn't this positioned in ten first instance as a commercial decision).
I dont have access to his coutts account.
you could make an educated guess.
Or (re)read page 10.
No one can attest to the future ongoing.
Page 10 re affirms my point
Again they say he is EC viable currently.
They say " EC likely to fall in next 24 months"
So the EC was not know. It was a guess. did you miss the word significantly out on purpose?
And from a "low" position.
It has no baring.
He didn't fall below the EC.
We established that
There was a belief he may in the next 24 months.
This isn't him falling below the levels currently.
As much as you wish it to be.
we don't know how current EC.
these "current" documents were from Nov 2022. The fall was anticipated when he paid off his mortgage. Which he has. Around March this year (which makes me wonder when we was notified)
Did you miss off the word "significantly" on purpose or was it an accident ?
This was from Nov 22( iir ) that they'd enlarged him a viable EC
They said that circumstances MAY change I the next 2 years.
At the time he was debanked her was economically viable for coutts. And thus its bot a reason or the debanking
Do you have a page? I'm looking at page 10. That says likely to fall significantly on the next 24 months which imo is a stronger statement than "may fall"
When would you say he was debanked? Maybe you mean when the glide path was first agreed rather than when he was notified. "
See the bit " likely to fall in the next 24 months"
That doesn't mean he fell. They had agreed to debank him at the same time in Nov 2022. The same time they AGREED he was an EC customer.
Any else "likely to fall" is not being below the EC when the decision was made to debank.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Some people here could do with Googling "Led by donkeys nigel farage" and watching the YouTube video to remind themselves what an insufferable cunt this man is.
Lots of thinly veiled hero worship here judging by the amount of torrid verbiage, but however much some might be dressing this up a human rights GDPR issue the time spent by most people discussing this only ultimately reveals a great deal about those who keep banging on about it and falling for the whole dead cattery of it.
Let him fucking rot in his own dreary sewage.
I'll let you into a little secret... he doesn't actually care about you "
Thank god you aren't any form of legal representation or judgement. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seems there may be more to this...
Bloomberg - Nigel Farage has a new Brexit crusade: Softening European Union-era anti-money-laundering laws that see him and other UK political figures as a high banking risk."
Oh god. The copium |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Seems there may be more to this...
Bloomberg - Nigel Farage has a new Brexit crusade: Softening European Union-era anti-money-laundering laws that see him and other UK political figures as a high banking risk.
Oh god. The copium "
Just sharing info that is out there nothing more. Here’s another bit...
Chair of NatWest Nigel Higgins has been a strong voice for better regulation and thinks banks should consider the threat of Climate change in their strategies. He criticised Brexit and Trusses disaster of a budget too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seems there may be more to this...
Bloomberg - Nigel Farage has a new Brexit crusade: Softening European Union-era anti-money-laundering laws that see him and other UK political figures as a high banking risk.
Oh god. The copium
Just sharing info that is out there nothing more. Here’s another bit...
Chair of NatWest Nigel Higgins has been a strong voice for better regulation and thinks banks should consider the threat of Climate change in their strategies. He criticised Brexit and Trusses disaster of a budget too."
The copium smells good doesn't it.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seems there may be more to this...
Bloomberg - Nigel Farage has a new Brexit crusade: Softening European Union-era anti-money-laundering laws that see him and other UK political figures as a high banking risk.
Oh god. The copium
Just sharing info that is out there nothing more. Here’s another bit...
Chair of NatWest Nigel Higgins has been a strong voice for better regulation and thinks banks should consider the threat of Climate change in their strategies. He criticised Brexit and Trusses disaster of a budget too."
What does consider the threat of climate change in their strategies mean? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Seems there may be more to this...
Bloomberg - Nigel Farage has a new Brexit crusade: Softening European Union-era anti-money-laundering laws that see him and other UK political figures as a high banking risk."
Did you pay for that article?what was the conclusion? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seems there may be more to this...
Bloomberg - Nigel Farage has a new Brexit crusade: Softening European Union-era anti-money-laundering laws that see him and other UK political figures as a high banking risk.
Oh god. The copium
Just sharing info that is out there nothing more. Here’s another bit...
Chair of NatWest Nigel Higgins has been a strong voice for better regulation and thinks banks should consider the threat of Climate change in their strategies. He criticised Brexit and Trusses disaster of a budget too."
Very populist. Shame he gsve a vote of confidence to his ceo.. Obviously hes ok with the practice of his staff sharing confidential client banking data with the media, 8 hrs before sacking her though. Not a great look. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Seems there may be more to this...
Bloomberg - Nigel Farage has a new Brexit crusade: Softening European Union-era anti-money-laundering laws that see him and other UK political figures as a high banking risk."
This was a key driver of Brexit, allegedly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Seems there may be more to this...
Bloomberg - Nigel Farage has a new Brexit crusade: Softening European Union-era anti-money-laundering laws that see him and other UK political figures as a high banking risk.
This was a key driver of Brexit, allegedly."
I’m all ears, what’s the back story to this? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seems there may be more to this...
Bloomberg - Nigel Farage has a new Brexit crusade: Softening European Union-era anti-money-laundering laws that see him and other UK political figures as a high banking risk.
Did you pay for that article?what was the conclusion?"
Thay bigel farage saw his debanking coming , because he has his birdies in rbs group, and he always wanted to de reg the baking sector with his zero power.
So he got his birdies to inte tipnslly shut down his account..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Seems there may be more to this...
Bloomberg - Nigel Farage has a new Brexit crusade: Softening European Union-era anti-money-laundering laws that see him and other UK political figures as a high banking risk.
This was a key driver of Brexit, allegedly.
I’m all ears, what’s the back story to this?"
There were rumours, and it’s important to state that they were/are only rumours, that some of the key people involved in pushing Brexit (not necessarily politicians) were keen to avoid the AMLD regs of the EU. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seems there may be more to this...
Bloomberg - Nigel Farage has a new Brexit crusade: Softening European Union-era anti-money-laundering laws that see him and other UK political figures as a high banking risk.
Did you pay for that article?what was the conclusion?
Thay bigel farage saw his debanking coming , because he has his birdies in rbs group, and he always wanted to de reg the baking sector with his zero power.
So he got his birdies to inte tipnslly shut down his account....."
When is the second part of that fiction coming out,, I hope the meddling ruskies are mentioned in it they were missed out in part 1. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seems there may be more to this...
Bloomberg - Nigel Farage has a new Brexit crusade: Softening European Union-era anti-money-laundering laws that see him and other UK political figures as a high banking risk.
Did you pay for that article?what was the conclusion?
Thay bigel farage saw his debanking coming , because he has his birdies in rbs group, and he always wanted to de reg the baking sector with his zero power.
So he got his birdies to inte tipnslly shut down his account.....
When is the second part of that fiction coming out,, I hope the meddling ruskies are mentioned in it they were missed out in part 1."
No doubt they want further de regulation to launder their rules.
This has all bee in the design since he opened the account 25 years ago |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seems there may be more to this...
Bloomberg - Nigel Farage has a new Brexit crusade: Softening European Union-era anti-money-laundering laws that see him and other UK political figures as a high banking risk.
Did you pay for that article?what was the conclusion?
Thay bigel farage saw his debanking coming , because he has his birdies in rbs group, and he always wanted to de reg the baking sector with his zero power.
So he got his birdies to inte tipnslly shut down his account.....
When is the second part of that fiction coming out,, I hope the meddling ruskies are mentioned in it they were missed out in part 1.
No doubt they want further de regulation to launder their rules.
This has all bee in the design since he opened the account 25 years ago"
So you are saying Mr farage planned his own de banking over a 25 yr period and used a dame and a BBC journo to initiate it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seems there may be more to this...
Bloomberg - Nigel Farage has a new Brexit crusade: Softening European Union-era anti-money-laundering laws that see him and other UK political figures as a high banking risk.
Did you pay for that article?what was the conclusion?
Thay bigel farage saw his debanking coming , because he has his birdies in rbs group, and he always wanted to de reg the baking sector with his zero power.
So he got his birdies to inte tipnslly shut down his account.....
When is the second part of that fiction coming out,, I hope the meddling ruskies are mentioned in it they were missed out in part 1.
No doubt they want further de regulation to launder their rules.
This has all bee in the design since he opened the account 25 years ago
So you are saying Mr farage planned his own de banking over a 25 yr period and used a dame and a BBC journo to initiate it."
It's the only logical explanation  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seems there may be more to this...
Bloomberg - Nigel Farage has a new Brexit crusade: Softening European Union-era anti-money-laundering laws that see him and other UK political figures as a high banking risk.
This was a key driver of Brexit, allegedly.
I’m all ears, what’s the back story to this?
There were rumours, and it’s important to state that they were/are only rumours, that some of the key people involved in pushing Brexit (not necessarily politicians) were keen to avoid the AMLD regs of the EU."
Was it the Russians? I bet it was the russians... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"How has the slander spreading, politically neutral bbc managed to get away with it scot free? And the cut and paste press journos? "
Farage seemed to give them a get out of jail card by saying they had a story and was right to run with it.
what wasn't right was the way the BBC informed the public that Farage was in the wrong because it had inside info, the reporting of this was personal and really exposed the BBC |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Seems there may be more to this...
Bloomberg - Nigel Farage has a new Brexit crusade: Softening European Union-era anti-money-laundering laws that see him and other UK political figures as a high banking risk.
Did you pay for that article?what was the conclusion?
Thay bigel farage saw his debanking coming , because he has his birdies in rbs group, and he always wanted to de reg the baking sector with his zero power.
So he got his birdies to inte tipnslly shut down his account....."
That made me LOL as I read it as Bagel Farage. Must be a new special down Brick Lane!
BTW who is consuming the Copium? I couldn’t give a fuck and have already clearly said I disagree with Coutts’ actions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"How has the slander spreading, politically neutral bbc managed to get away with it scot free? And the cut and paste press journos?
Farage seemed to give them a get out of jail card by saying they had a story and was right to run with it.
what wasn't right was the way the BBC informed the public that Farage was in the wrong because it had inside info, the reporting of this was personal and really exposed the BBC"
It really did |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How has the slander spreading, politically neutral bbc managed to get away with it scot free? And the cut and paste press journos?
Farage seemed to give them a get out of jail card by saying they had a story and was right to run with it.
what wasn't right was the way the BBC informed the public that Farage was in the wrong because it had inside info, the reporting of this was personal and really exposed the BBC"
And yet once again... The shoddy beeb values gets away with basically making shit up or ruining someone's life amd nada... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seems there may be more to this...
Bloomberg - Nigel Farage has a new Brexit crusade: Softening European Union-era anti-money-laundering laws that see him and other UK political figures as a high banking risk.
Did you pay for that article?what was the conclusion?
Thay bigel farage saw his debanking coming , because he has his birdies in rbs group, and he always wanted to de reg the baking sector with his zero power.
So he got his birdies to inte tipnslly shut down his account.....
That made me LOL as I read it as Bagel Farage. Must be a new special down Brick Lane!
BTW who is consuming the Copium? I couldn’t give a fuck and have already clearly said I disagree with Coutts’ actions."
I gave up with my typing on his name and in general a long time ago. My phone predicts what it wants. But I am due an upgrade in 2 months so my saved words will re set.
Seems like people are already trying to turn this into a NF making money from natwest downfall.
I've seen twitter awash with expel.clsiming a hedge fund linked to NF somehow made money. Even though it was an automatic buy system and the short was bought in march.
The copium of the #FBPE is in full swing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've lost track where this is, but the apology appeared to be a non apology.
They apologised for the language. Not said the decision was wrong.
The language was poor. I don't agree with their veiws he was a PR risk to them. But as yet I haven't seen anything that's shows they did something outside the laws.
There's also in my mind some gaps in the timelines. I'm hoping NF proceeds formally to get some independence on what happened.
No.
The law taken over from the e.u ( as I described the case law) states people can not have accounts shut down because of political beliefs.
The SAR clearly shows his account was shut down due to beliefs that did not align with the banks
The entire SAR shows they had bo economic reason to shut down tbe accountand that he was not a political exposed risk going forward ifmhe stayed away from politics over the next year.
I was told I knew nothing and that banks can exclude whomever they want.
This was false.
the SAR shows that the economic reason was based on his mortgage. Which was repaid early this year. (About page 39 irrc).
And was due to finish about now even if he hadnt.
There was noe conomic reason.
In the report. They admit they use it as an excuse to get rid of him
Have you read the full 40 page document?
They say going forward he's still viable financially and there's no reason to close the account
I pointed you to page 39.
"The relationship has been below commercial criteria for some time and upon review of Nigel's past public profile and connections, the perceived risks for the future weighed against the benefit the decision was to exit upon existing mortgage"
Even page 1 says he will not be a criteria client after his mortgage was paid of.
I admit that, as at Nov 22 they say he was commercially viable, given his reduced PEP status. That doesn't mean that he would be viable growing forward after his mortgage was done.
If you have read something that contradixts this, please point me to the page.
And to repeat. I disagree that there was a big PR risk.
I also believe that if Farage was below theri minimums they should have the ability to sacknhim as a client. I am conflicted with to what extent this was a PR risk they believed, an inclusivity issue or a policical issue. I do suspect it was ultimately down to money, because I doubt coutts give that much of a shit unless it earns dollars.
Page 2 of the report.
"The clients EC, is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis"
What you are quoting of page 39 is the risk of retention vs benefit of retention.
Not the economic contribution.
The criteria client is in reference to their position of being an (ironically) inclusive organisation.
I am sorry. You have misread.
I pointed to that bit.
Would his commercial basis change once his mortgage was repaid?
The commercial basis was the the risk vs reward.
But that's not the economic basisI will rephrase. Will his economic contribution reduce now his mortgage has been repaid?
(Also, wasn't this positioned in ten first instance as a commercial decision).
I dont have access to his coutts account.
you could make an educated guess.
Or (re)read page 10.
No one can attest to the future ongoing.
Page 10 re affirms my point
Again they say he is EC viable currently.
They say " EC likely to fall in next 24 months"
So the EC was not know. It was a guess. did you miss the word significantly out on purpose?
And from a "low" position.
It has no baring.
He didn't fall below the EC.
We established that
There was a belief he may in the next 24 months.
This isn't him falling below the levels currently.
As much as you wish it to be.
we don't know how current EC.
these "current" documents were from Nov 2022. The fall was anticipated when he paid off his mortgage. Which he has. Around March this year (which makes me wonder when we was notified)
Did you miss off the word "significantly" on purpose or was it an accident ?
This was from Nov 22( iir ) that they'd enlarged him a viable EC
They said that circumstances MAY change I the next 2 years.
At the time he was debanked her was economically viable for coutts. And thus its bot a reason or the debanking
Do you have a page? I'm looking at page 10. That says likely to fall significantly on the next 24 months which imo is a stronger statement than "may fall"
When would you say he was debanked? Maybe you mean when the glide path was first agreed rather than when he was notified.
See the bit " likely to fall in the next 24 months"
That doesn't mean he fell. They had agreed to debank him at the same time in Nov 2022. The same time they AGREED he was an EC customer.
Any else "likely to fall" is not being below the EC when the decision was made to debank.
"
you don't like including the word significantly.
They agreed to exit him once he stopped being a criteria client.
He was already a low EC (albeit within their limits).
I don't like them picking and choosing when to invoke t&cs and when not to. However it's not unfair for a business to decide in advance to walk away from an arrangement as and when that arrangement fails to be commercially viable. A more complete analysis would have included an estimate of the EC post the mortgage running off. However I suspect they would have understood that the EC would reduce when the mortgage goes. (that you only need a £1m mortgage to be a client but 3m cash shows they make a margin here). They didn't need it worked through.
Again, I disagree with the nature of their report. I think it's poor they didn't seek to quantity the PR risk. They were unprofessional throughout. And while I think a party should be able to exit a contract if the other doesn't meet their side, I'm hugely uncomfortable that any subjectivity around inviting T&Cs could be politically charged.
There is plenty to beat coutts with. But I cant see any suggestion they demanded a client who had the contractual right to bank with them. Pointing to an EC in Nov isn't enough when other parts of the document were pointing to him falling in value in the future. Cling to semantics of "likely to fall" doesn't mean definitely for sure. But include the full quote. You'd hold others to that higher standard. As you should.
But I will still say that a low EC that is likely to have a significant reduction is more than likely below EC limits. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've lost track where this is, but the apology appeared to be a non apology.
They apologised for the language. Not said the decision was wrong.
The language was poor. I don't agree with their veiws he was a PR risk to them. But as yet I haven't seen anything that's shows they did something outside the laws.
There's also in my mind some gaps in the timelines. I'm hoping NF proceeds formally to get some independence on what happened.
No.
The law taken over from the e.u ( as I described the case law) states people can not have accounts shut down because of political beliefs.
The SAR clearly shows his account was shut down due to beliefs that did not align with the banks
The entire SAR shows they had bo economic reason to shut down tbe accountand that he was not a political exposed risk going forward ifmhe stayed away from politics over the next year.
I was told I knew nothing and that banks can exclude whomever they want.
This was false.
the SAR shows that the economic reason was based on his mortgage. Which was repaid early this year. (About page 39 irrc).
And was due to finish about now even if he hadnt.
There was noe conomic reason.
In the report. They admit they use it as an excuse to get rid of him
Have you read the full 40 page document?
They say going forward he's still viable financially and there's no reason to close the account
I pointed you to page 39.
"The relationship has been below commercial criteria for some time and upon review of Nigel's past public profile and connections, the perceived risks for the future weighed against the benefit the decision was to exit upon existing mortgage"
Even page 1 says he will not be a criteria client after his mortgage was paid of.
I admit that, as at Nov 22 they say he was commercially viable, given his reduced PEP status. That doesn't mean that he would be viable growing forward after his mortgage was done.
If you have read something that contradixts this, please point me to the page.
And to repeat. I disagree that there was a big PR risk.
I also believe that if Farage was below theri minimums they should have the ability to sacknhim as a client. I am conflicted with to what extent this was a PR risk they believed, an inclusivity issue or a policical issue. I do suspect it was ultimately down to money, because I doubt coutts give that much of a shit unless it earns dollars.
Page 2 of the report.
"The clients EC, is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis"
What you are quoting of page 39 is the risk of retention vs benefit of retention.
Not the economic contribution.
The criteria client is in reference to their position of being an (ironically) inclusive organisation.
I am sorry. You have misread.
I pointed to that bit.
Would his commercial basis change once his mortgage was repaid?
The commercial basis was the the risk vs reward.
But that's not the economic basisI will rephrase. Will his economic contribution reduce now his mortgage has been repaid?
(Also, wasn't this positioned in ten first instance as a commercial decision).
I dont have access to his coutts account.
you could make an educated guess.
Or (re)read page 10.
No one can attest to the future ongoing.
Page 10 re affirms my point
Again they say he is EC viable currently.
They say " EC likely to fall in next 24 months"
So the EC was not know. It was a guess. did you miss the word significantly out on purpose?
And from a "low" position.
It has no baring.
He didn't fall below the EC.
We established that
There was a belief he may in the next 24 months.
This isn't him falling below the levels currently.
As much as you wish it to be.
we don't know how current EC.
these "current" documents were from Nov 2022. The fall was anticipated when he paid off his mortgage. Which he has. Around March this year (which makes me wonder when we was notified)
Did you miss off the word "significantly" on purpose or was it an accident ?
This was from Nov 22( iir ) that they'd enlarged him a viable EC
They said that circumstances MAY change I the next 2 years.
At the time he was debanked her was economically viable for coutts. And thus its bot a reason or the debanking
Do you have a page? I'm looking at page 10. That says likely to fall significantly on the next 24 months which imo is a stronger statement than "may fall"
When would you say he was debanked? Maybe you mean when the glide path was first agreed rather than when he was notified.
See the bit " likely to fall in the next 24 months"
That doesn't mean he fell. They had agreed to debank him at the same time in Nov 2022. The same time they AGREED he was an EC customer.
Any else "likely to fall" is not being below the EC when the decision was made to debank.
you don't like including the word significantly.
They agreed to exit him once he stopped being a criteria client.
He was already a low EC (albeit within their limits).
I don't like them picking and choosing when to invoke t&cs and when not to. However it's not unfair for a business to decide in advance to walk away from an arrangement as and when that arrangement fails to be commercially viable. A more complete analysis would have included an estimate of the EC post the mortgage running off. However I suspect they would have understood that the EC would reduce when the mortgage goes. (that you only need a £1m mortgage to be a client but 3m cash shows they make a margin here). They didn't need it worked through.
Again, I disagree with the nature of their report. I think it's poor they didn't seek to quantity the PR risk. They were unprofessional throughout. And while I think a party should be able to exit a contract if the other doesn't meet their side, I'm hugely uncomfortable that any subjectivity around inviting T&Cs could be politically charged.
There is plenty to beat coutts with. But I cant see any suggestion they demanded a client who had the contractual right to bank with them. Pointing to an EC in Nov isn't enough when other parts of the document were pointing to him falling in value in the future. Cling to semantics of "likely to fall" doesn't mean definitely for sure. But include the full quote. You'd hold others to that higher standard. As you should.
But I will still say that a low EC that is likely to have a significant reduction is more than likely below EC limits. "
Significantly has no baring on the discussion. That is why.
I have no idea why you are so hyper focused on a word thatbdoes not alter the fact that.
1)in November 22 nigel was a considered EC .
2) in November coutts decided to shut down NF accout
3) they decides the ruse of this would be commercial
4) they predicted he might bight be EC in 2 years. But Nov 22 is NOT Nov 24
5) they declare his political values don't align with the banks as the reason for debanking him.
These are the facts of the report.
The hyper focus of one words that doesn't change the outcome of the dates nor the factual statements in the report doesn't alter their clear breach.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've lost track where this is, but the apology appeared to be a non apology.
They apologised for the language. Not said the decision was wrong.
The language was poor. I don't agree with their veiws he was a PR risk to them. But as yet I haven't seen anything that's shows they did something outside the laws.
There's also in my mind some gaps in the timelines. I'm hoping NF proceeds formally to get some independence on what happened.
No.
The law taken over from the e.u ( as I described the case law) states people can not have accounts shut down because of political beliefs.
The SAR clearly shows his account was shut down due to beliefs that did not align with the banks
The entire SAR shows they had bo economic reason to shut down tbe accountand that he was not a political exposed risk going forward ifmhe stayed away from politics over the next year.
I was told I knew nothing and that banks can exclude whomever they want.
This was false.
the SAR shows that the economic reason was based on his mortgage. Which was repaid early this year. (About page 39 irrc).
And was due to finish about now even if he hadnt.
There was noe conomic reason.
In the report. They admit they use it as an excuse to get rid of him
Have you read the full 40 page document?
They say going forward he's still viable financially and there's no reason to close the account
I pointed you to page 39.
"The relationship has been below commercial criteria for some time and upon review of Nigel's past public profile and connections, the perceived risks for the future weighed against the benefit the decision was to exit upon existing mortgage"
Even page 1 says he will not be a criteria client after his mortgage was paid of.
I admit that, as at Nov 22 they say he was commercially viable, given his reduced PEP status. That doesn't mean that he would be viable growing forward after his mortgage was done.
If you have read something that contradixts this, please point me to the page.
And to repeat. I disagree that there was a big PR risk.
I also believe that if Farage was below theri minimums they should have the ability to sacknhim as a client. I am conflicted with to what extent this was a PR risk they believed, an inclusivity issue or a policical issue. I do suspect it was ultimately down to money, because I doubt coutts give that much of a shit unless it earns dollars.
Page 2 of the report.
"The clients EC, is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis"
What you are quoting of page 39 is the risk of retention vs benefit of retention.
Not the economic contribution.
The criteria client is in reference to their position of being an (ironically) inclusive organisation.
I am sorry. You have misread.
I pointed to that bit.
Would his commercial basis change once his mortgage was repaid?
The commercial basis was the the risk vs reward.
But that's not the economic basisI will rephrase. Will his economic contribution reduce now his mortgage has been repaid?
(Also, wasn't this positioned in ten first instance as a commercial decision).
I dont have access to his coutts account.
you could make an educated guess.
Or (re)read page 10.
No one can attest to the future ongoing.
Page 10 re affirms my point
Again they say he is EC viable currently.
They say " EC likely to fall in next 24 months"
So the EC was not know. It was a guess. did you miss the word significantly out on purpose?
And from a "low" position.
It has no baring.
He didn't fall below the EC.
We established that
There was a belief he may in the next 24 months.
This isn't him falling below the levels currently.
As much as you wish it to be.
we don't know how current EC.
these "current" documents were from Nov 2022. The fall was anticipated when he paid off his mortgage. Which he has. Around March this year (which makes me wonder when we was notified)
Did you miss off the word "significantly" on purpose or was it an accident ?
This was from Nov 22( iir ) that they'd enlarged him a viable EC
They said that circumstances MAY change I the next 2 years.
At the time he was debanked her was economically viable for coutts. And thus its bot a reason or the debanking
Do you have a page? I'm looking at page 10. That says likely to fall significantly on the next 24 months which imo is a stronger statement than "may fall"
When would you say he was debanked? Maybe you mean when the glide path was first agreed rather than when he was notified.
See the bit " likely to fall in the next 24 months"
That doesn't mean he fell. They had agreed to debank him at the same time in Nov 2022. The same time they AGREED he was an EC customer.
Any else "likely to fall" is not being below the EC when the decision was made to debank.
you don't like including the word significantly.
They agreed to exit him once he stopped being a criteria client.
He was already a low EC (albeit within their limits).
I don't like them picking and choosing when to invoke t&cs and when not to. However it's not unfair for a business to decide in advance to walk away from an arrangement as and when that arrangement fails to be commercially viable. A more complete analysis would have included an estimate of the EC post the mortgage running off. However I suspect they would have understood that the EC would reduce when the mortgage goes. (that you only need a £1m mortgage to be a client but 3m cash shows they make a margin here). They didn't need it worked through.
Again, I disagree with the nature of their report. I think it's poor they didn't seek to quantity the PR risk. They were unprofessional throughout. And while I think a party should be able to exit a contract if the other doesn't meet their side, I'm hugely uncomfortable that any subjectivity around inviting T&Cs could be politically charged.
There is plenty to beat coutts with. But I cant see any suggestion they demanded a client who had the contractual right to bank with them. Pointing to an EC in Nov isn't enough when other parts of the document were pointing to him falling in value in the future. Cling to semantics of "likely to fall" doesn't mean definitely for sure. But include the full quote. You'd hold others to that higher standard. As you should.
But I will still say that a low EC that is likely to have a significant reduction is more than likely below EC limits.
Significantly has no baring on the discussion. That is why.
I have no idea why you are so hyper focused on a word thatbdoes not alter the fact that.
1)in November 22 nigel was a considered EC .
2) in November coutts decided to shut down NF accout
3) they decides the ruse of this would be commercial
4) they predicted he might bight be EC in 2 years. But Nov 22 is NOT Nov 24
5) they declare his political values don't align with the banks as the reason for debanking him.
These are the facts of the report.
The hyper focus of one words that doesn't change the outcome of the dates nor the factual statements in the report doesn't alter their clear breach.
"
we disagree if the word significant is significant. That's fine.
I agree with 1. New was low but viable. I agree with 2, with the key bit being when his mortgage ran out.
You need to provide evidence for 3. IMO they wanted rid and his drop in value gave them the excuse to do what they wanted to. My reading is they did have a commercial reason. It just wasn't the only factor (and I don't like that)
I think you are being disingenuous with the word might in 4. We will go in circles. 4b is that this change was connected to to him repaying his mortgage. Do you agree that as a fact? And 4c is he had repaid his mortgage.
5 needs evidence. They say his views. Not his political views. When.did they declare it was because of his political views?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've lost track where this is, but the apology appeared to be a non apology.
They apologised for the language. Not said the decision was wrong.
The language was poor. I don't agree with their veiws he was a PR risk to them. But as yet I haven't seen anything that's shows they did something outside the laws.
There's also in my mind some gaps in the timelines. I'm hoping NF proceeds formally to get some independence on what happened.
No.
The law taken over from the e.u ( as I described the case law) states people can not have accounts shut down because of political beliefs.
The SAR clearly shows his account was shut down due to beliefs that did not align with the banks
The entire SAR shows they had bo economic reason to shut down tbe accountand that he was not a political exposed risk going forward ifmhe stayed away from politics over the next year.
I was told I knew nothing and that banks can exclude whomever they want.
This was false.
the SAR shows that the economic reason was based on his mortgage. Which was repaid early this year. (About page 39 irrc).
And was due to finish about now even if he hadnt.
There was noe conomic reason.
In the report. They admit they use it as an excuse to get rid of him
Have you read the full 40 page document?
They say going forward he's still viable financially and there's no reason to close the account
I pointed you to page 39.
"The relationship has been below commercial criteria for some time and upon review of Nigel's past public profile and connections, the perceived risks for the future weighed against the benefit the decision was to exit upon existing mortgage"
Even page 1 says he will not be a criteria client after his mortgage was paid of.
I admit that, as at Nov 22 they say he was commercially viable, given his reduced PEP status. That doesn't mean that he would be viable growing forward after his mortgage was done.
If you have read something that contradixts this, please point me to the page.
And to repeat. I disagree that there was a big PR risk.
I also believe that if Farage was below theri minimums they should have the ability to sacknhim as a client. I am conflicted with to what extent this was a PR risk they believed, an inclusivity issue or a policical issue. I do suspect it was ultimately down to money, because I doubt coutts give that much of a shit unless it earns dollars.
Page 2 of the report.
"The clients EC, is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis"
What you are quoting of page 39 is the risk of retention vs benefit of retention.
Not the economic contribution.
The criteria client is in reference to their position of being an (ironically) inclusive organisation.
I am sorry. You have misread.
I pointed to that bit.
Would his commercial basis change once his mortgage was repaid?
The commercial basis was the the risk vs reward.
But that's not the economic basisI will rephrase. Will his economic contribution reduce now his mortgage has been repaid?
(Also, wasn't this positioned in ten first instance as a commercial decision).
I dont have access to his coutts account.
you could make an educated guess.
Or (re)read page 10.
No one can attest to the future ongoing.
Page 10 re affirms my point
Again they say he is EC viable currently.
They say " EC likely to fall in next 24 months"
So the EC was not know. It was a guess. did you miss the word significantly out on purpose?
And from a "low" position.
It has no baring.
He didn't fall below the EC.
We established that
There was a belief he may in the next 24 months.
This isn't him falling below the levels currently.
As much as you wish it to be.
we don't know how current EC.
these "current" documents were from Nov 2022. The fall was anticipated when he paid off his mortgage. Which he has. Around March this year (which makes me wonder when we was notified)
Did you miss off the word "significantly" on purpose or was it an accident ?
This was from Nov 22( iir ) that they'd enlarged him a viable EC
They said that circumstances MAY change I the next 2 years.
At the time he was debanked her was economically viable for coutts. And thus its bot a reason or the debanking
Do you have a page? I'm looking at page 10. That says likely to fall significantly on the next 24 months which imo is a stronger statement than "may fall"
When would you say he was debanked? Maybe you mean when the glide path was first agreed rather than when he was notified.
See the bit " likely to fall in the next 24 months"
That doesn't mean he fell. They had agreed to debank him at the same time in Nov 2022. The same time they AGREED he was an EC customer.
Any else "likely to fall" is not being below the EC when the decision was made to debank.
you don't like including the word significantly.
They agreed to exit him once he stopped being a criteria client.
He was already a low EC (albeit within their limits).
I don't like them picking and choosing when to invoke t&cs and when not to. However it's not unfair for a business to decide in advance to walk away from an arrangement as and when that arrangement fails to be commercially viable. A more complete analysis would have included an estimate of the EC post the mortgage running off. However I suspect they would have understood that the EC would reduce when the mortgage goes. (that you only need a £1m mortgage to be a client but 3m cash shows they make a margin here). They didn't need it worked through.
Again, I disagree with the nature of their report. I think it's poor they didn't seek to quantity the PR risk. They were unprofessional throughout. And while I think a party should be able to exit a contract if the other doesn't meet their side, I'm hugely uncomfortable that any subjectivity around inviting T&Cs could be politically charged.
There is plenty to beat coutts with. But I cant see any suggestion they demanded a client who had the contractual right to bank with them. Pointing to an EC in Nov isn't enough when other parts of the document were pointing to him falling in value in the future. Cling to semantics of "likely to fall" doesn't mean definitely for sure. But include the full quote. You'd hold others to that higher standard. As you should.
But I will still say that a low EC that is likely to have a significant reduction is more than likely below EC limits.
Significantly has no baring on the discussion. That is why.
I have no idea why you are so hyper focused on a word thatbdoes not alter the fact that.
1)in November 22 nigel was a considered EC .
2) in November coutts decided to shut down NF accout
3) they decides the ruse of this would be commercial
4) they predicted he might bight be EC in 2 years. But Nov 22 is NOT Nov 24
5) they declare his political values don't align with the banks as the reason for debanking him.
These are the facts of the report.
The hyper focus of one words that doesn't change the outcome of the dates nor the factual statements in the report doesn't alter their clear breach.
we disagree if the word significant is significant. That's fine.
I agree with 1. New was low but viable. I agree with 2, with the key bit being when his mortgage ran out.
You need to provide evidence for 3. IMO they wanted rid and his drop in value gave them the excuse to do what they wanted to. My reading is they did have a commercial reason. It just wasn't the only factor (and I don't like that)
I think you are being disingenuous with the word might in 4. We will go in circles. 4b is that this change was connected to to him repaying his mortgage. Do you agree that as a fact? And 4c is he had repaid his mortgage.
5 needs evidence. They say his views. Not his political views. When.did they declare it was because of his political views?
"
Sticks my neck out, if brexit was mentioned in the report just once, it is about his political views.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've lost track where this is, but the apology appeared to be a non apology.
They apologised for the language. Not said the decision was wrong.
The language was poor. I don't agree with their veiws he was a PR risk to them. But as yet I haven't seen anything that's shows they did something outside the laws.
There's also in my mind some gaps in the timelines. I'm hoping NF proceeds formally to get some independence on what happened.
No.
The law taken over from the e.u ( as I described the case law) states people can not have accounts shut down because of political beliefs.
The SAR clearly shows his account was shut down due to beliefs that did not align with the banks
The entire SAR shows they had bo economic reason to shut down tbe accountand that he was not a political exposed risk going forward ifmhe stayed away from politics over the next year.
I was told I knew nothing and that banks can exclude whomever they want.
This was false.
the SAR shows that the economic reason was based on his mortgage. Which was repaid early this year. (About page 39 irrc).
And was due to finish about now even if he hadnt.
There was noe conomic reason.
In the report. They admit they use it as an excuse to get rid of him
Have you read the full 40 page document?
They say going forward he's still viable financially and there's no reason to close the account
I pointed you to page 39.
"The relationship has been below commercial criteria for some time and upon review of Nigel's past public profile and connections, the perceived risks for the future weighed against the benefit the decision was to exit upon existing mortgage"
Even page 1 says he will not be a criteria client after his mortgage was paid of.
I admit that, as at Nov 22 they say he was commercially viable, given his reduced PEP status. That doesn't mean that he would be viable growing forward after his mortgage was done.
If you have read something that contradixts this, please point me to the page.
And to repeat. I disagree that there was a big PR risk.
I also believe that if Farage was below theri minimums they should have the ability to sacknhim as a client. I am conflicted with to what extent this was a PR risk they believed, an inclusivity issue or a policical issue. I do suspect it was ultimately down to money, because I doubt coutts give that much of a shit unless it earns dollars.
Page 2 of the report.
"The clients EC, is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis"
What you are quoting of page 39 is the risk of retention vs benefit of retention.
Not the economic contribution.
The criteria client is in reference to their position of being an (ironically) inclusive organisation.
I am sorry. You have misread.
I pointed to that bit.
Would his commercial basis change once his mortgage was repaid?
The commercial basis was the the risk vs reward.
But that's not the economic basisI will rephrase. Will his economic contribution reduce now his mortgage has been repaid?
(Also, wasn't this positioned in ten first instance as a commercial decision).
I dont have access to his coutts account.
you could make an educated guess.
Or (re)read page 10.
No one can attest to the future ongoing.
Page 10 re affirms my point
Again they say he is EC viable currently.
They say " EC likely to fall in next 24 months"
So the EC was not know. It was a guess. did you miss the word significantly out on purpose?
And from a "low" position.
It has no baring.
He didn't fall below the EC.
We established that
There was a belief he may in the next 24 months.
This isn't him falling below the levels currently.
As much as you wish it to be.
we don't know how current EC.
these "current" documents were from Nov 2022. The fall was anticipated when he paid off his mortgage. Which he has. Around March this year (which makes me wonder when we was notified)
Did you miss off the word "significantly" on purpose or was it an accident ?
This was from Nov 22( iir ) that they'd enlarged him a viable EC
They said that circumstances MAY change I the next 2 years.
At the time he was debanked her was economically viable for coutts. And thus its bot a reason or the debanking
Do you have a page? I'm looking at page 10. That says likely to fall significantly on the next 24 months which imo is a stronger statement than "may fall"
When would you say he was debanked? Maybe you mean when the glide path was first agreed rather than when he was notified.
See the bit " likely to fall in the next 24 months"
That doesn't mean he fell. They had agreed to debank him at the same time in Nov 2022. The same time they AGREED he was an EC customer.
Any else "likely to fall" is not being below the EC when the decision was made to debank.
you don't like including the word significantly.
They agreed to exit him once he stopped being a criteria client.
He was already a low EC (albeit within their limits).
I don't like them picking and choosing when to invoke t&cs and when not to. However it's not unfair for a business to decide in advance to walk away from an arrangement as and when that arrangement fails to be commercially viable. A more complete analysis would have included an estimate of the EC post the mortgage running off. However I suspect they would have understood that the EC would reduce when the mortgage goes. (that you only need a £1m mortgage to be a client but 3m cash shows they make a margin here). They didn't need it worked through.
Again, I disagree with the nature of their report. I think it's poor they didn't seek to quantity the PR risk. They were unprofessional throughout. And while I think a party should be able to exit a contract if the other doesn't meet their side, I'm hugely uncomfortable that any subjectivity around inviting T&Cs could be politically charged.
There is plenty to beat coutts with. But I cant see any suggestion they demanded a client who had the contractual right to bank with them. Pointing to an EC in Nov isn't enough when other parts of the document were pointing to him falling in value in the future. Cling to semantics of "likely to fall" doesn't mean definitely for sure. But include the full quote. You'd hold others to that higher standard. As you should.
But I will still say that a low EC that is likely to have a significant reduction is more than likely below EC limits.
Significantly has no baring on the discussion. That is why.
I have no idea why you are so hyper focused on a word thatbdoes not alter the fact that.
1)in November 22 nigel was a considered EC .
2) in November coutts decided to shut down NF accout
3) they decides the ruse of this would be commercial
4) they predicted he might bight be EC in 2 years. But Nov 22 is NOT Nov 24
5) they declare his political values don't align with the banks as the reason for debanking him.
These are the facts of the report.
The hyper focus of one words that doesn't change the outcome of the dates nor the factual statements in the report doesn't alter their clear breach.
we disagree if the word significant is significant. That's fine.
I agree with 1. New was low but viable. I agree with 2, with the key bit being when his mortgage ran out.
You need to provide evidence for 3. IMO they wanted rid and his drop in value gave them the excuse to do what they wanted to. My reading is they did have a commercial reason. It just wasn't the only factor (and I don't like that)
I think you are being disingenuous with the word might in 4. We will go in circles. 4b is that this change was connected to to him repaying his mortgage. Do you agree that as a fact? And 4c is he had repaid his mortgage.
5 needs evidence. They say his views. Not his political views. When.did they declare it was because of his political views?
"
This is all in tbe report.
Disagree as much as you want.
They said it was a commercial decision. Not an EC decision. Thay commercial decision was around his views. They use the mortgage as the reason. Again all in the report.
There is no being disingenuous. There is absolutely no way coutts knows as of Nov 2022 what NF intentions are in terms of banking with them I the 2 years after his mortgage runs out. This is simply fact. No bank knows the future.
They declare his views don't align with theirs.
"The values NF actively and publicly promotes/champions, do not align with the bank’s."
"However he does have strongly and in many cases controversial, publicly held views on many aspects of policy particularly climate & race, and although no legal or other censure has occurred it is clear they do not align with our purpose."
"While it is accepted that no criminal convictions have resulted, commentary and behaviours that do not align to the bank’s purpose and values have been demonstrated. individuals that convey pro-Russian sentiment or excuse Putin’s behaviour - which NF “appears” to have done on various occasions."
All these are prt of the basis of decision making that he wasn't commercially viable , because of his reputational risk to the bank. Because of his views.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
According to The Telegraph the Hedge Fund owner of GB News started shorting NatWest a few months back. The implication is this reveal about Farage’s account is linked (possibly even planned). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"According to The Telegraph the Hedge Fund owner of GB News started shorting NatWest a few months back. The implication is this reveal about Farage’s account is linked (possibly even planned)."
We already mocked this last night. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"According to The Telegraph the Hedge Fund owner of GB News started shorting NatWest a few months back. The implication is this reveal about Farage’s account is linked (possibly even planned)."
Planned between the board of coutts the BBC and farage, that's way into conspiracy territory, but the move by the hedge fund owner, brilliant insight or a tip off from another bankster within nat west, if true. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"According to The Telegraph the Hedge Fund owner of GB News started shorting NatWest a few months back. The implication is this reveal about Farage’s account is linked (possibly even planned).
We already mocked this last night."
Did we? Where? Last thing I can see was a different discussion...
Bloomberg - Nigel Farage has a new Brexit crusade: Softening European Union-era anti-money-laundering laws that see him and other UK political figures as a high banking risk.
Which is not the same as a hedge fund (that happens to belong to the owner of GB News) shorting NatWest. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"According to The Telegraph the Hedge Fund owner of GB News started shorting NatWest a few months back. The implication is this reveal about Farage’s account is linked (possibly even planned).
Planned between the board of coutts the BBC and farage, that's way into conspiracy territory, but the move by the hedge fund owner, brilliant insight or a tip off from another bankster within nat west, if true. "
It does *feel* a bit insider trading. The bit about Coutts BBC and Farage is clearly very silly but not what the article remotely refers to do no idea why you would bring that up? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"According to The Telegraph the Hedge Fund owner of GB News started shorting NatWest a few months back. The implication is this reveal about Farage’s account is linked (possibly even planned).
We already mocked this last night.
Did we? Where? Last thing I can see was a different discussion...
Bloomberg - Nigel Farage has a new Brexit crusade: Softening European Union-era anti-money-laundering laws that see him and other UK political figures as a high banking risk.
Which is not the same as a hedge fund (that happens to belong to the owner of GB News) shorting NatWest."
Seems like people are already trying to turn this into a NF making money from natwest downfall.
I've seen twitter awash with exclaiming a hedge fund linked to NF somehow made money. Even though it was an automatic buy system and the short was bought in march.
The copium of the #FBPE is in full swing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"According to The Telegraph the Hedge Fund owner of GB News started shorting NatWest a few months back. The implication is this reveal about Farage’s account is linked (possibly even planned).
We already mocked this last night.
Did we? Where? Last thing I can see was a different discussion...
Bloomberg - Nigel Farage has a new Brexit crusade: Softening European Union-era anti-money-laundering laws that see him and other UK political figures as a high banking risk.
Which is not the same as a hedge fund (that happens to belong to the owner of GB News) shorting NatWest.
Seems like people are already trying to turn this into a NF making money from natwest downfall.
I've seen twitter awash with exclaiming a hedge fund linked to NF somehow made money. Even though it was an automatic buy system and the short was bought in march.
The copium of the #FBPE is in full swing."
Possibly/probably I don’t know. As I have said before, nothing in life is black & white so the truth will lie somewhere in the middle. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"According to The Telegraph the Hedge Fund owner of GB News started shorting NatWest a few months back. The implication is this reveal about Farage’s account is linked (possibly even planned).
Planned between the board of coutts the BBC and farage, that's way into conspiracy territory, but the move by the hedge fund owner, brilliant insight or a tip off from another bankster within nat west, if true.
It does *feel* a bit insider trading. The bit about Coutts BBC and Farage is clearly very silly but not what the article remotely refers to do no idea why you would bring that up?"
Why insider trading? The fall of natwest current share price vs other banks have been driven by the loss of a ceo which always happens.
I'm not sure how in March whomever it was hedgefund automatic buy system knew farage was going to be debanked, then specifically shorted natwest shares( probably among other banking shares) then knew the ceo had acted unethically and resigned. Thay the ceo was going to be at a dinner I'm July with Simon Jack tbe reporter of the artie and divulge protected information.
Pr could it be. We know we are seeing s big economic down turn and they've shorted share prices of banks knowing they will lose value as they always do in recessions? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"According to The Telegraph the Hedge Fund owner of GB News started shorting NatWest a few months back. The implication is this reveal about Farage’s account is linked (possibly even planned)."
Marshall Wace have lots of short positions, including multiple different banking institutions.
This is nothing more than sensationalism by The Telegraph. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"According to The Telegraph the Hedge Fund owner of GB News started shorting NatWest a few months back. The implication is this reveal about Farage’s account is linked (possibly even planned).
Marshall Wace have lots of short positions, including multiple different banking institutions.
This is nothing more than sensationalism by The Telegraph."
Fair enough |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"According to The Telegraph the Hedge Fund owner of GB News started shorting NatWest a few months back. The implication is this reveal about Farage’s account is linked (possibly even planned).
Planned between the board of coutts the BBC and farage, that's way into conspiracy territory, but the move by the hedge fund owner, brilliant insight or a tip off from another bankster within nat west, if true.
It does *feel* a bit insider trading. The bit about Coutts BBC and Farage is clearly very silly but not what the article remotely refers to do no idea why you would bring that up?"
. How could this be considered to be a tip off ? ? No one can predict the future. The hedge fund concerned use software called TOPS. ( Trade Optimised Portfolio System ) . The press release states that the fund has made a gain, it fails to disclose whether or not the gain has been cashed in ( or the position closed ) . If the shares gain his profit will decrease or could be wiped out. TOPS analyses the views of analysts and economists and gives indications of where to invest . It started its position in March when fears were growing over the health of the global financial system following the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse . Marshall Wade has recently reduced its borrowed shares from. .8 percent to .6 percent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've lost track where this is, but the apology appeared to be a non apology.
They apologised for the language. Not said the decision was wrong.
The language was poor. I don't agree with their veiws he was a PR risk to them. But as yet I haven't seen anything that's shows they did something outside the laws.
There's also in my mind some gaps in the timelines. I'm hoping NF proceeds formally to get some independence on what happened.
No.
The law taken over from the e.u ( as I described the case law) states people can not have accounts shut down because of political beliefs.
The SAR clearly shows his account was shut down due to beliefs that did not align with the banks
The entire SAR shows they had bo economic reason to shut down tbe accountand that he was not a political exposed risk going forward ifmhe stayed away from politics over the next year.
I was told I knew nothing and that banks can exclude whomever they want.
This was false.
the SAR shows that the economic reason was based on his mortgage. Which was repaid early this year. (About page 39 irrc).
And was due to finish about now even if he hadnt.
There was noe conomic reason.
In the report. They admit they use it as an excuse to get rid of him
Have you read the full 40 page document?
They say going forward he's still viable financially and there's no reason to close the account
I pointed you to page 39.
"The relationship has been below commercial criteria for some time and upon review of Nigel's past public profile and connections, the perceived risks for the future weighed against the benefit the decision was to exit upon existing mortgage"
Even page 1 says he will not be a criteria client after his mortgage was paid of.
I admit that, as at Nov 22 they say he was commercially viable, given his reduced PEP status. That doesn't mean that he would be viable growing forward after his mortgage was done.
If you have read something that contradixts this, please point me to the page.
And to repeat. I disagree that there was a big PR risk.
I also believe that if Farage was below theri minimums they should have the ability to sacknhim as a client. I am conflicted with to what extent this was a PR risk they believed, an inclusivity issue or a policical issue. I do suspect it was ultimately down to money, because I doubt coutts give that much of a shit unless it earns dollars.
Page 2 of the report.
"The clients EC, is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis"
What you are quoting of page 39 is the risk of retention vs benefit of retention.
Not the economic contribution.
The criteria client is in reference to their position of being an (ironically) inclusive organisation.
I am sorry. You have misread.
I pointed to that bit.
Would his commercial basis change once his mortgage was repaid?
The commercial basis was the the risk vs reward.
But that's not the economic basisI will rephrase. Will his economic contribution reduce now his mortgage has been repaid?
(Also, wasn't this positioned in ten first instance as a commercial decision).
I dont have access to his coutts account.
you could make an educated guess.
Or (re)read page 10.
No one can attest to the future ongoing.
Page 10 re affirms my point
Again they say he is EC viable currently.
They say " EC likely to fall in next 24 months"
So the EC was not know. It was a guess. did you miss the word significantly out on purpose?
And from a "low" position.
It has no baring.
He didn't fall below the EC.
We established that
There was a belief he may in the next 24 months.
This isn't him falling below the levels currently.
As much as you wish it to be.
we don't know how current EC.
these "current" documents were from Nov 2022. The fall was anticipated when he paid off his mortgage. Which he has. Around March this year (which makes me wonder when we was notified)
Did you miss off the word "significantly" on purpose or was it an accident ?
This was from Nov 22( iir ) that they'd enlarged him a viable EC
They said that circumstances MAY change I the next 2 years.
At the time he was debanked her was economically viable for coutts. And thus its bot a reason or the debanking
Do you have a page? I'm looking at page 10. That says likely to fall significantly on the next 24 months which imo is a stronger statement than "may fall"
When would you say he was debanked? Maybe you mean when the glide path was first agreed rather than when he was notified.
See the bit " likely to fall in the next 24 months"
That doesn't mean he fell. They had agreed to debank him at the same time in Nov 2022. The same time they AGREED he was an EC customer.
Any else "likely to fall" is not being below the EC when the decision was made to debank.
you don't like including the word significantly.
They agreed to exit him once he stopped being a criteria client.
He was already a low EC (albeit within their limits).
I don't like them picking and choosing when to invoke t&cs and when not to. However it's not unfair for a business to decide in advance to walk away from an arrangement as and when that arrangement fails to be commercially viable. A more complete analysis would have included an estimate of the EC post the mortgage running off. However I suspect they would have understood that the EC would reduce when the mortgage goes. (that you only need a £1m mortgage to be a client but 3m cash shows they make a margin here). They didn't need it worked through.
Again, I disagree with the nature of their report. I think it's poor they didn't seek to quantity the PR risk. They were unprofessional throughout. And while I think a party should be able to exit a contract if the other doesn't meet their side, I'm hugely uncomfortable that any subjectivity around inviting T&Cs could be politically charged.
There is plenty to beat coutts with. But I cant see any suggestion they demanded a client who had the contractual right to bank with them. Pointing to an EC in Nov isn't enough when other parts of the document were pointing to him falling in value in the future. Cling to semantics of "likely to fall" doesn't mean definitely for sure. But include the full quote. You'd hold others to that higher standard. As you should.
But I will still say that a low EC that is likely to have a significant reduction is more than likely below EC limits.
Significantly has no baring on the discussion. That is why.
I have no idea why you are so hyper focused on a word thatbdoes not alter the fact that.
1)in November 22 nigel was a considered EC .
2) in November coutts decided to shut down NF accout
3) they decides the ruse of this would be commercial
4) they predicted he might bight be EC in 2 years. But Nov 22 is NOT Nov 24
5) they declare his political values don't align with the banks as the reason for debanking him.
These are the facts of the report.
The hyper focus of one words that doesn't change the outcome of the dates nor the factual statements in the report doesn't alter their clear breach.
we disagree if the word significant is significant. That's fine.
I agree with 1. New was low but viable. I agree with 2, with the key bit being when his mortgage ran out.
You need to provide evidence for 3. IMO they wanted rid and his drop in value gave them the excuse to do what they wanted to. My reading is they did have a commercial reason. It just wasn't the only factor (and I don't like that)
I think you are being disingenuous with the word might in 4. We will go in circles. 4b is that this change was connected to to him repaying his mortgage. Do you agree that as a fact? And 4c is he had repaid his mortgage.
5 needs evidence. They say his views. Not his political views. When.did they declare it was because of his political views?
This is all in tbe report.
Disagree as much as you want.
They said it was a commercial decision. Not an EC decision. Thay commercial decision was around his views. They use the mortgage as the reason. Again all in the report.
There is no being disingenuous. There is absolutely no way coutts knows as of Nov 2022 what NF intentions are in terms of banking with them I the 2 years after his mortgage runs out. This is simply fact. No bank knows the future.
They declare his views don't align with theirs.
"The values NF actively and publicly promotes/champions, do not align with the bank’s."
"However he does have strongly and in many cases controversial, publicly held views on many aspects of policy particularly climate & race, and although no legal or other censure has occurred it is clear they do not align with our purpose."
"While it is accepted that no criminal convictions have resulted, commentary and behaviours that do not align to the bank’s purpose and values have been demonstrated. individuals that convey pro-Russian sentiment or excuse Putin’s behaviour - which NF “appears” to have done on various occasions."
All these are prt of the basis of decision making that he wasn't commercially viable , because of his reputational risk to the bank. Because of his views.
"
I'm happy to agree it was a commercial decision. Not purely based in EC That's a mix of ec versus risk. I've only focussed in the ex side as you did.
They didn't know what his ec would be in the future. He could have added more money. Their runway was based on the mortgage being paid off and no other changes. Which means ceasing the relationship today is valid if he hasn't added funds.
We don't know his EC today. We do know his mortgage has been exited. If his ec has reduced significantly, then it may have commercial validity to exot the contract. Possibly even without the additional PR risk. I'd love to know if he was below the t&c mins.
I also agree his publically held views were a part of it. When do views become political? Would a relationship with Russia be political? His support of Trump probably is, but Trump is up on charges. Does that change things?
I'm disagreeing they declared it was because of political views. They have worded minutes to say the opposite. Fine to disagree and say they are lying. Not arguing that point.
I'm by no means defending Coutts. Key questions are "did they have the contractual right to cease the relationship" and "was there any political bias in invoking the t&cs". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"According to The Telegraph the Hedge Fund owner of GB News started shorting NatWest a few months back. The implication is this reveal about Farage’s account is linked (possibly even planned).
Planned between the board of coutts the BBC and farage, that's way into conspiracy territory, but the move by the hedge fund owner, brilliant insight or a tip off from another bankster within nat west, if true.
It does *feel* a bit insider trading. The bit about Coutts BBC and Farage is clearly very silly but not what the article remotely refers to do no idea why you would bring that up?. How could this be considered to be a tip off ? ? No one can predict the future. The hedge fund concerned use software called TOPS. ( Trade Optimised Portfolio System ) . The press release states that the fund has made a gain, it fails to disclose whether or not the gain has been cashed in ( or the position closed ) . If the shares gain his profit will decrease or could be wiped out. TOPS analyses the views of analysts and economists and gives indications of where to invest . It started its position in March when fears were growing over the health of the global financial system following the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse . Marshall Wade has recently reduced its borrowed shares from. .8 percent to .6 percent. "
It wasn’t me who said “tip off” but if someone inside Coutts let Farage or people connected to him or a hedge fund know what was going to happen then that enables them to take a position to benefit from future events. Not saying that happened (how would I even know) but do not try to say it isn’t at least plausible.
As you well understand, insider trading is not about “telling the future” it is about sharing confidential information that is going to have an impact when it goes public. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've lost track where this is, but the apology appeared to be a non apology.
They apologised for the language. Not said the decision was wrong.
The language was poor. I don't agree with their veiws he was a PR risk to them. But as yet I haven't seen anything that's shows they did something outside the laws.
There's also in my mind some gaps in the timelines. I'm hoping NF proceeds formally to get some independence on what happened.
No.
The law taken over from the e.u ( as I described the case law) states people can not have accounts shut down because of political beliefs.
The SAR clearly shows his account was shut down due to beliefs that did not align with the banks
The entire SAR shows they had bo economic reason to shut down tbe accountand that he was not a political exposed risk going forward ifmhe stayed away from politics over the next year.
I was told I knew nothing and that banks can exclude whomever they want.
This was false.
the SAR shows that the economic reason was based on his mortgage. Which was repaid early this year. (About page 39 irrc).
And was due to finish about now even if he hadnt.
There was noe conomic reason.
In the report. They admit they use it as an excuse to get rid of him
Have you read the full 40 page document?
They say going forward he's still viable financially and there's no reason to close the account
I pointed you to page 39.
"The relationship has been below commercial criteria for some time and upon review of Nigel's past public profile and connections, the perceived risks for the future weighed against the benefit the decision was to exit upon existing mortgage"
Even page 1 says he will not be a criteria client after his mortgage was paid of.
I admit that, as at Nov 22 they say he was commercially viable, given his reduced PEP status. That doesn't mean that he would be viable growing forward after his mortgage was done.
If you have read something that contradixts this, please point me to the page.
And to repeat. I disagree that there was a big PR risk.
I also believe that if Farage was below theri minimums they should have the ability to sacknhim as a client. I am conflicted with to what extent this was a PR risk they believed, an inclusivity issue or a policical issue. I do suspect it was ultimately down to money, because I doubt coutts give that much of a shit unless it earns dollars.
Page 2 of the report.
"The clients EC, is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis"
What you are quoting of page 39 is the risk of retention vs benefit of retention.
Not the economic contribution.
The criteria client is in reference to their position of being an (ironically) inclusive organisation.
I am sorry. You have misread.
I pointed to that bit.
Would his commercial basis change once his mortgage was repaid?
The commercial basis was the the risk vs reward.
But that's not the economic basisI will rephrase. Will his economic contribution reduce now his mortgage has been repaid?
(Also, wasn't this positioned in ten first instance as a commercial decision).
I dont have access to his coutts account.
you could make an educated guess.
Or (re)read page 10.
No one can attest to the future ongoing.
Page 10 re affirms my point
Again they say he is EC viable currently.
They say " EC likely to fall in next 24 months"
So the EC was not know. It was a guess. did you miss the word significantly out on purpose?
And from a "low" position.
It has no baring.
He didn't fall below the EC.
We established that
There was a belief he may in the next 24 months.
This isn't him falling below the levels currently.
As much as you wish it to be.
we don't know how current EC.
these "current" documents were from Nov 2022. The fall was anticipated when he paid off his mortgage. Which he has. Around March this year (which makes me wonder when we was notified)
Did you miss off the word "significantly" on purpose or was it an accident ?
This was from Nov 22( iir ) that they'd enlarged him a viable EC
They said that circumstances MAY change I the next 2 years.
At the time he was debanked her was economically viable for coutts. And thus its bot a reason or the debanking
Do you have a page? I'm looking at page 10. That says likely to fall significantly on the next 24 months which imo is a stronger statement than "may fall"
When would you say he was debanked? Maybe you mean when the glide path was first agreed rather than when he was notified.
See the bit " likely to fall in the next 24 months"
That doesn't mean he fell. They had agreed to debank him at the same time in Nov 2022. The same time they AGREED he was an EC customer.
Any else "likely to fall" is not being below the EC when the decision was made to debank.
you don't like including the word significantly.
They agreed to exit him once he stopped being a criteria client.
He was already a low EC (albeit within their limits).
I don't like them picking and choosing when to invoke t&cs and when not to. However it's not unfair for a business to decide in advance to walk away from an arrangement as and when that arrangement fails to be commercially viable. A more complete analysis would have included an estimate of the EC post the mortgage running off. However I suspect they would have understood that the EC would reduce when the mortgage goes. (that you only need a £1m mortgage to be a client but 3m cash shows they make a margin here). They didn't need it worked through.
Again, I disagree with the nature of their report. I think it's poor they didn't seek to quantity the PR risk. They were unprofessional throughout. And while I think a party should be able to exit a contract if the other doesn't meet their side, I'm hugely uncomfortable that any subjectivity around inviting T&Cs could be politically charged.
There is plenty to beat coutts with. But I cant see any suggestion they demanded a client who had the contractual right to bank with them. Pointing to an EC in Nov isn't enough when other parts of the document were pointing to him falling in value in the future. Cling to semantics of "likely to fall" doesn't mean definitely for sure. But include the full quote. You'd hold others to that higher standard. As you should.
But I will still say that a low EC that is likely to have a significant reduction is more than likely below EC limits.
Significantly has no baring on the discussion. That is why.
I have no idea why you are so hyper focused on a word thatbdoes not alter the fact that.
1)in November 22 nigel was a considered EC .
2) in November coutts decided to shut down NF accout
3) they decides the ruse of this would be commercial
4) they predicted he might bight be EC in 2 years. But Nov 22 is NOT Nov 24
5) they declare his political values don't align with the banks as the reason for debanking him.
These are the facts of the report.
The hyper focus of one words that doesn't change the outcome of the dates nor the factual statements in the report doesn't alter their clear breach.
we disagree if the word significant is significant. That's fine.
I agree with 1. New was low but viable. I agree with 2, with the key bit being when his mortgage ran out.
You need to provide evidence for 3. IMO they wanted rid and his drop in value gave them the excuse to do what they wanted to. My reading is they did have a commercial reason. It just wasn't the only factor (and I don't like that)
I think you are being disingenuous with the word might in 4. We will go in circles. 4b is that this change was connected to to him repaying his mortgage. Do you agree that as a fact? And 4c is he had repaid his mortgage.
5 needs evidence. They say his views. Not his political views. When.did they declare it was because of his political views?
This is all in tbe report.
Disagree as much as you want.
They said it was a commercial decision. Not an EC decision. Thay commercial decision was around his views. They use the mortgage as the reason. Again all in the report.
There is no being disingenuous. There is absolutely no way coutts knows as of Nov 2022 what NF intentions are in terms of banking with them I the 2 years after his mortgage runs out. This is simply fact. No bank knows the future.
They declare his views don't align with theirs.
"The values NF actively and publicly promotes/champions, do not align with the bank’s."
"However he does have strongly and in many cases controversial, publicly held views on many aspects of policy particularly climate & race, and although no legal or other censure has occurred it is clear they do not align with our purpose."
"While it is accepted that no criminal convictions have resulted, commentary and behaviours that do not align to the bank’s purpose and values have been demonstrated. individuals that convey pro-Russian sentiment or excuse Putin’s behaviour - which NF “appears” to have done on various occasions."
All these are prt of the basis of decision making that he wasn't commercially viable , because of his reputational risk to the bank. Because of his views.
I'm happy to agree it was a commercial decision. Not purely based in EC That's a mix of ec versus risk. I've only focussed in the ex side as you did.
They didn't know what his ec would be in the future. He could have added more money. Their runway was based on the mortgage being paid off and no other changes. Which means ceasing the relationship today is valid if he hasn't added funds.
We don't know his EC today. We do know his mortgage has been exited. If his ec has reduced significantly, then it may have commercial validity to exot the contract. Possibly even without the additional PR risk. I'd love to know if he was below the t&c mins.
I also agree his publically held views were a part of it. When do views become political? Would a relationship with Russia be political? His support of Trump probably is, but Trump is up on charges. Does that change things?
I'm disagreeing they declared it was because of political views. They have worded minutes to say the opposite. Fine to disagree and say they are lying. Not arguing that point.
I'm by no means defending Coutts. Key questions are "did they have the contractual right to cease the relationship" and "was there any political bias in invoking the t&cs". "
Their worded views matter not. Their actions deem it so.
They say its nit because eof his political views , but also state they're closing the account because of his controversial views bot aligning with theirs.
This is like having boardminutes saying " we are not closing down an account because some one is black, then saying, "his racial background may cause us problems in the future"
The political views are the very basis why they deem him banking a risk. There nigh on 30 pages of links and Investigstions to it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And the bbc journo and editor with journalistic responsibility should also be canned. You cant trash people just because you dont like them. "
Tell that to Corbyn or Sadiq Khan.
God that Farage has a big mouth. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Do we know when the account was closed?
The data request could easy be seen to suggest March...
Whenever he paid off his mortgage. He was debabked. I think that was March."
Wait a minute. Am I reading that right? He lost his Coutts account in March? If so why wait until July to kick off? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do we know when the account was closed?
The data request could easy be seen to suggest March...
Whenever he paid off his mortgage. He was debabked. I think that was March.
Wait a minute. Am I reading that right? He lost his Coutts account in March? If so why wait until July to kick off?"
I'm assuming they sent the 60 days notice in March. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And the bbc journo and editor with journalistic responsibility should also be canned. You cant trash people just because you dont like them.
Tell that to Corbyn or Sadiq Khan.
God that Farage has a big mouth. "
Agree, it’s hilarious to see people saying it’s unfair to trash Farage whilst also parroting stories about Corbyn being an IRA sympathiser or telling stories about Ed Milliband’s dad. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And the bbc journo and editor with journalistic responsibility should also be canned. You cant trash people just because you dont like them.
Tell that to Corbyn or Sadiq Khan.
God that Farage has a big mouth.
Agree, it’s hilarious to see people saying it’s unfair to trash Farage whilst also parroting stories about Corbyn being an IRA sympathiser or telling stories about Ed Milliband’s dad."
Who done that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do we know when the account was closed?
The data request could easy be seen to suggest March...
Whenever he paid off his mortgage. He was debabked. I think that was March.
Wait a minute. Am I reading that right? He lost his Coutts account in March? If so why wait until July to kick off?"
I can't be bothered to go re read the document I full again
I think as per faf below he paid off the mortgage early in March was given notice then was rejected by several other institutions.
I think upon kicking off, he was offered a natwest account( but I cant remember timeline of that offer so possibly wrong?)
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Do we know when the account was closed?
The data request could easy be seen to suggest March...
Whenever he paid off his mortgage. He was debabked. I think that was March.
Wait a minute. Am I reading that right? He lost his Coutts account in March? If so why wait until July to kick off?
I can't be bothered to go re read the document I full again
I think as per faf below he paid off the mortgage early in March was given notice then was rejected by several other institutions.
I think upon kicking off, he was offered a natwest account( but I cant remember timeline of that offer so possibly wrong?)
"
And when did the Hedge Fund take their position? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And the bbc journo and editor with journalistic responsibility should also be canned. You cant trash people just because you dont like them.
Tell that to Corbyn or Sadiq Khan.
God that Farage has a big mouth.
Agree, it’s hilarious to see people saying it’s unfair to trash Farage whilst also parroting stories about Corbyn being an IRA sympathiser or telling stories about Ed Milliband’s dad."
Not seen anyone saying thats ok. Want to share who has said such things.? The comment still stands. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Do we know when the account was closed?
The data request could easy be seen to suggest March...
Whenever he paid off his mortgage. He was debabked. I think that was March.
Wait a minute. Am I reading that right? He lost his Coutts account in March? If so why wait until July to kick off?
I can't be bothered to go re read the document I full again
I think as per faf below he paid off the mortgage early in March was given notice then was rejected by several other institutions.
I think upon kicking off, he was offered a natwest account( but I cant remember timeline of that offer so possibly wrong?)
And when did the Hedge Fund take their position?"
No response but scrolling back I see Trucker Pat said this...
“It started its position in March when fears were growing over the health of the global financial system following the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse . Marshall Wade has recently reduced its borrowed shares from. .8 percent to .6 percent.”
So if Pat is correct the Hedge Fund owned by the guy who bankrolled GB News that employs Farage, took out a position on NatWest Group which owns Coutts, just at the same time, March, that Farage found out he was having his account closed. Just a coincidence? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do we know when the account was closed?
The data request could easy be seen to suggest March...
Whenever he paid off his mortgage. He was debabked. I think that was March.
Wait a minute. Am I reading that right? He lost his Coutts account in March? If so why wait until July to kick off?
I can't be bothered to go re read the document I full again
I think as per faf below he paid off the mortgage early in March was given notice then was rejected by several other institutions.
I think upon kicking off, he was offered a natwest account( but I cant remember timeline of that offer so possibly wrong?)
And when did the Hedge Fund take their position?
No response but scrolling back I see Trucker Pat said this...
“It started its position in March when fears were growing over the health of the global financial system following the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse . Marshall Wade has recently reduced its borrowed shares from. .8 percent to .6 percent.”
So if Pat is correct the Hedge Fund owned by the guy who bankrolled GB News that employs Farage, took out a position on NatWest Group which owns Coutts, just at the same time, March, that Farage found out he was having his account closed. Just a coincidence?"
Marshall Wace shorted Natwest on 13/7/2023.
Its really easy to find this information. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do we know when the account was closed?
The data request could easy be seen to suggest March...
Whenever he paid off his mortgage. He was debabked. I think that was March.
Wait a minute. Am I reading that right? He lost his Coutts account in March? If so why wait until July to kick off?
I can't be bothered to go re read the document I full again
I think as per faf below he paid off the mortgage early in March was given notice then was rejected by several other institutions.
I think upon kicking off, he was offered a natwest account( but I cant remember timeline of that offer so possibly wrong?)
And when did the Hedge Fund take their position?
No response but scrolling back I see Trucker Pat said this...
“It started its position in March when fears were growing over the health of the global financial system following the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse . Marshall Wade has recently reduced its borrowed shares from. .8 percent to .6 percent.”
So if Pat is correct the Hedge Fund owned by the guy who bankrolled GB News that employs Farage, took out a position on NatWest Group which owns Coutts, just at the same time, March, that Farage found out he was having his account closed. Just a coincidence?"
Yes coincidence.
Farage had no idea his account was being closed.
He'd need an insider at coutts to tell him.
He'd need them to have been at risk and board level.
He'd have had to then for some reason payntbe mortgage of 3 months early. When he could have kept his account going by keeping it until July.
He'd have had to know other banks would reject him
As stated prior. The same hedgefund took out multiple short positions across tbe whole banking sector.
Again though.
Hedgefunds HEDGE its in the name.
They are both long and short.
For shorting they bet the price goes down , for long positions they bet the price goes up.
Their margins for their investors returns require the long position to go back up |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do we know when the account was closed?
The data request could easy be seen to suggest March...
Whenever he paid off his mortgage. He was debabked. I think that was March.
Wait a minute. Am I reading that right? He lost his Coutts account in March? If so why wait until July to kick off?
I can't be bothered to go re read the document I full again
I think as per faf below he paid off the mortgage early in March was given notice then was rejected by several other institutions.
I think upon kicking off, he was offered a natwest account( but I cant remember timeline of that offer so possibly wrong?)
And when did the Hedge Fund take their position?
No response but scrolling back I see Trucker Pat said this...
“It started its position in March when fears were growing over the health of the global financial system following the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse . Marshall Wade has recently reduced its borrowed shares from. .8 percent to .6 percent.”
So if Pat is correct the Hedge Fund owned by the guy who bankrolled GB News that employs Farage, took out a position on NatWest Group which owns Coutts, just at the same time, March, that Farage found out he was having his account closed. Just a coincidence?
Marshall Wace shorted Natwest on 13/7/2023.
Its really easy to find this information. "
Apologies, that was their latest position. I don't know before that because a subscription is required to view info |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do we know when the account was closed?
The data request could easy be seen to suggest March...
Whenever he paid off his mortgage. He was debabked. I think that was March.
Wait a minute. Am I reading that right? He lost his Coutts account in March? If so why wait until July to kick off?
I can't be bothered to go re read the document I full again
I think as per faf below he paid off the mortgage early in March was given notice then was rejected by several other institutions.
I think upon kicking off, he was offered a natwest account( but I cant remember timeline of that offer so possibly wrong?)
And when did the Hedge Fund take their position?
No response but scrolling back I see Trucker Pat said this...
“It started its position in March when fears were growing over the health of the global financial system following the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse . Marshall Wade has recently reduced its borrowed shares from. .8 percent to .6 percent.”
So if Pat is correct the Hedge Fund owned by the guy who bankrolled GB News that employs Farage, took out a position on NatWest Group which owns Coutts, just at the same time, March, that Farage found out he was having his account closed. Just a coincidence?
Marshall Wace shorted Natwest on 13/7/2023.
Its really easy to find this information. "
If this is the new date. Then I guess the information has been updated from the bollocks being shared last night thay the short was taken March. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Do we know when the account was closed?
The data request could easy be seen to suggest March...
Whenever he paid off his mortgage. He was debabked. I think that was March.
Wait a minute. Am I reading that right? He lost his Coutts account in March? If so why wait until July to kick off?
I can't be bothered to go re read the document I full again
I think as per faf below he paid off the mortgage early in March was given notice then was rejected by several other institutions.
I think upon kicking off, he was offered a natwest account( but I cant remember timeline of that offer so possibly wrong?)
And when did the Hedge Fund take their position?
No response but scrolling back I see Trucker Pat said this...
“It started its position in March when fears were growing over the health of the global financial system following the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse . Marshall Wade has recently reduced its borrowed shares from. .8 percent to .6 percent.”
So if Pat is correct the Hedge Fund owned by the guy who bankrolled GB News that employs Farage, took out a position on NatWest Group which owns Coutts, just at the same time, March, that Farage found out he was having his account closed. Just a coincidence?
Yes coincidence.
Farage had no idea his account was being closed.
He'd need an insider at coutts to tell him.
He'd need them to have been at risk and board level.
He'd have had to then for some reason payntbe mortgage of 3 months early. When he could have kept his account going by keeping it until July.
He'd have had to know other banks would reject him
As stated prior. The same hedgefund took out multiple short positions across tbe whole banking sector.
Again though.
Hedgefunds HEDGE its in the name.
They are both long and short.
For shorting they bet the price goes down , for long positions they bet the price goes up.
Their margins for their investors returns require the long position to go back up"
I'm a little lost. Are you saying he didn't pay off his mortgage early?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do we know when the account was closed?
The data request could easy be seen to suggest March...
Whenever he paid off his mortgage. He was debabked. I think that was March.
Wait a minute. Am I reading that right? He lost his Coutts account in March? If so why wait until July to kick off?
I can't be bothered to go re read the document I full again
I think as per faf below he paid off the mortgage early in March was given notice then was rejected by several other institutions.
I think upon kicking off, he was offered a natwest account( but I cant remember timeline of that offer so possibly wrong?)
And when did the Hedge Fund take their position?
No response but scrolling back I see Trucker Pat said this...
“It started its position in March when fears were growing over the health of the global financial system following the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse . Marshall Wade has recently reduced its borrowed shares from. .8 percent to .6 percent.”
So if Pat is correct the Hedge Fund owned by the guy who bankrolled GB News that employs Farage, took out a position on NatWest Group which owns Coutts, just at the same time, March, that Farage found out he was having his account closed. Just a coincidence?
Marshall Wace shorted Natwest on 13/7/2023.
Its really easy to find this information.
If this is the new date. Then I guess the information has been updated from the bollocks being shared last night thay the short was taken March."
I updated. That was their latest position |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
As educational and interesting as this is. Are people really suggesting that farage outed himself... Under the guise of bbc leaking an inaccurate set of information from the ceo of his bank, also sharing personal and inaccurate confidential information of one of its ex clients? Im kind of lost. Nat West fucked up. The bbc decided to dine out on it and fucked up. Now they should pay the price. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do we know when the account was closed?
The data request could easy be seen to suggest March...
Whenever he paid off his mortgage. He was debabked. I think that was March.
Wait a minute. Am I reading that right? He lost his Coutts account in March? If so why wait until July to kick off?
I can't be bothered to go re read the document I full again
I think as per faf below he paid off the mortgage early in March was given notice then was rejected by several other institutions.
I think upon kicking off, he was offered a natwest account( but I cant remember timeline of that offer so possibly wrong?)
And when did the Hedge Fund take their position?
No response but scrolling back I see Trucker Pat said this...
“It started its position in March when fears were growing over the health of the global financial system following the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse . Marshall Wade has recently reduced its borrowed shares from. .8 percent to .6 percent.”
So if Pat is correct the Hedge Fund owned by the guy who bankrolled GB News that employs Farage, took out a position on NatWest Group which owns Coutts, just at the same time, March, that Farage found out he was having his account closed. Just a coincidence?
Yes coincidence.
Farage had no idea his account was being closed.
He'd need an insider at coutts to tell him.
He'd need them to have been at risk and board level.
He'd have had to then for some reason payntbe mortgage of 3 months early. When he could have kept his account going by keeping it until July.
He'd have had to know other banks would reject him
As stated prior. The same hedgefund took out multiple short positions across tbe whole banking sector.
Again though.
Hedgefunds HEDGE its in the name.
They are both long and short.
For shorting they bet the price goes down , for long positions they bet the price goes up.
Their margins for their investors returns require the long position to go back upI'm a little lost. Are you saying he didn't pay off his mortgage early?
"
He paid it off 4 months early iirc in march |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Do we know when the account was closed?
The data request could easy be seen to suggest March...
Whenever he paid off his mortgage. He was debabked. I think that was March.
Wait a minute. Am I reading that right? He lost his Coutts account in March? If so why wait until July to kick off?
I can't be bothered to go re read the document I full again
I think as per faf below he paid off the mortgage early in March was given notice then was rejected by several other institutions.
I think upon kicking off, he was offered a natwest account( but I cant remember timeline of that offer so possibly wrong?)
And when did the Hedge Fund take their position?
No response but scrolling back I see Trucker Pat said this...
“It started its position in March when fears were growing over the health of the global financial system following the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse . Marshall Wade has recently reduced its borrowed shares from. .8 percent to .6 percent.”
So if Pat is correct the Hedge Fund owned by the guy who bankrolled GB News that employs Farage, took out a position on NatWest Group which owns Coutts, just at the same time, March, that Farage found out he was having his account closed. Just a coincidence?
Yes coincidence.
Farage had no idea his account was being closed.
He'd need an insider at coutts to tell him.
He'd need them to have been at risk and board level.
He'd have had to then for some reason payntbe mortgage of 3 months early. When he could have kept his account going by keeping it until July.
He'd have had to know other banks would reject him
As stated prior. The same hedgefund took out multiple short positions across tbe whole banking sector.
Again though.
Hedgefunds HEDGE its in the name.
They are both long and short.
For shorting they bet the price goes down , for long positions they bet the price goes up.
Their margins for their investors returns require the long position to go back upI'm a little lost. Are you saying he didn't pay off his mortgage early?
He paid it off 4 months early iirc in march"
I'm confused by yr post but nm. Do we know when Farage was told? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Do we know when the account was closed?
The data request could easy be seen to suggest March...
Whenever he paid off his mortgage. He was debabked. I think that was March.
Wait a minute. Am I reading that right? He lost his Coutts account in March? If so why wait until July to kick off?
I can't be bothered to go re read the document I full again
I think as per faf below he paid off the mortgage early in March was given notice then was rejected by several other institutions.
I think upon kicking off, he was offered a natwest account( but I cant remember timeline of that offer so possibly wrong?)
And when did the Hedge Fund take their position?
No response but scrolling back I see Trucker Pat said this...
“It started its position in March when fears were growing over the health of the global financial system following the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse . Marshall Wade has recently reduced its borrowed shares from. .8 percent to .6 percent.”
So if Pat is correct the Hedge Fund owned by the guy who bankrolled GB News that employs Farage, took out a position on NatWest Group which owns Coutts, just at the same time, March, that Farage found out he was having his account closed. Just a coincidence?
Marshall Wace shorted Natwest on 13/7/2023.
Its really easy to find this information.
If this is the new date. Then I guess the information has been updated from the bollocks being shared last night thay the short was taken March."
So Morley are you saying Trucker Pat is wrong and they didn’t take a position in March?
We know hedge funds hedge but did they not take a position in March? If they did then when in March? Before or after Farage was “debanked”? Did their position favour short or long? Would knowing a scandal was coming inform their position? Again I ask, if Farage was “debanked” in March why did he stay quiet until July? Did the reveal and scandal impact on NatWest share price? Has the hedge fund benefitted? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"As educational and interesting as this is. Are people really suggesting that farage outed himself... Under the guise of bbc leaking an inaccurate set of information from the ceo of his bank, also sharing personal and inaccurate confidential information of one of its ex clients? Im kind of lost. Nat West fucked up. The bbc decided to dine out on it and fucked up. Now they should pay the price. "
Not suggesting that no. Just trying to understand why The Telegraph ran a piece on the hedge fund owned by Farage’s boss at GB News and their NatWest position and what appears to be odd timing around when Farage knew his Coutts account was being closed and when he started kicking off about it. Maybe nothing at all but then again seems rather strange? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do we know when the account was closed?
The data request could easy be seen to suggest March...
Whenever he paid off his mortgage. He was debabked. I think that was March.
Wait a minute. Am I reading that right? He lost his Coutts account in March? If so why wait until July to kick off?
I can't be bothered to go re read the document I full again
I think as per faf below he paid off the mortgage early in March was given notice then was rejected by several other institutions.
I think upon kicking off, he was offered a natwest account( but I cant remember timeline of that offer so possibly wrong?)
And when did the Hedge Fund take their position?
No response but scrolling back I see Trucker Pat said this...
“It started its position in March when fears were growing over the health of the global financial system following the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse . Marshall Wade has recently reduced its borrowed shares from. .8 percent to .6 percent.”
So if Pat is correct the Hedge Fund owned by the guy who bankrolled GB News that employs Farage, took out a position on NatWest Group which owns Coutts, just at the same time, March, that Farage found out he was having his account closed. Just a coincidence?
Marshall Wace shorted Natwest on 13/7/2023.
Its really easy to find this information.
If this is the new date. Then I guess the information has been updated from the bollocks being shared last night thay the short was taken March.
So Morley are you saying Trucker Pat is wrong and they didn’t take a position in March?
We know hedge funds hedge but did they not take a position in March? If they did then when in March? Before or after Farage was “debanked”? Did their position favour short or long? Would knowing a scandal was coming inform their position? Again I ask, if Farage was “debanked” in March why did he stay quiet until July? Did the reveal and scandal impact on NatWest share price? Has the hedge fund benefitted? "
If we're to believe farage, I think I remember him saying that he was 'notified' by an email he didn't receive.
My only guess is this was notified in March, and he wasn't aware until the closure until late June/early July.
Everything to do with the short position as far as I can see is speculation. The Telegraph have sensationalised it to sell papers. As I said before, Marshall Wace have a lot of short positions, including plenty of different financial institutions.
Coincidence or not, it's a hedge fund, I'd expect them to be in the know. Maybe their source is the Dame, apparently she likes talking to people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do we know when the account was closed?
The data request could easy be seen to suggest March...
Whenever he paid off his mortgage. He was debabked. I think that was March.
Wait a minute. Am I reading that right? He lost his Coutts account in March? If so why wait until July to kick off?
I can't be bothered to go re read the document I full again
I think as per faf below he paid off the mortgage early in March was given notice then was rejected by several other institutions.
I think upon kicking off, he was offered a natwest account( but I cant remember timeline of that offer so possibly wrong?)
And when did the Hedge Fund take their position?
No response but scrolling back I see Trucker Pat said this...
“It started its position in March when fears were growing over the health of the global financial system following the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse . Marshall Wade has recently reduced its borrowed shares from. .8 percent to .6 percent.”
So if Pat is correct the Hedge Fund owned by the guy who bankrolled GB News that employs Farage, took out a position on NatWest Group which owns Coutts, just at the same time, March, that Farage found out he was having his account closed. Just a coincidence?
Marshall Wace shorted Natwest on 13/7/2023.
Its really easy to find this information.
If this is the new date. Then I guess the information has been updated from the bollocks being shared last night thay the short was taken March.
So Morley are you saying Trucker Pat is wrong and they didn’t take a position in March?
We know hedge funds hedge but did they not take a position in March? If they did then when in March? Before or after Farage was “debanked”? Did their position favour short or long? Would knowing a scandal was coming inform their position? Again I ask, if Farage was “debanked” in March why did he stay quiet until July? Did the reveal and scandal impact on NatWest share price? Has the hedge fund benefitted? "
He didnt stay quiet till july. Its been rumbling on for quite a while hasnt it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As educational and interesting as this is. Are people really suggesting that farage outed himself... Under the guise of bbc leaking an inaccurate set of information from the ceo of his bank, also sharing personal and inaccurate confidential information of one of its ex clients? Im kind of lost. Nat West fucked up. The bbc decided to dine out on it and fucked up. Now they should pay the price.
Not suggesting that no. Just trying to understand why The Telegraph ran a piece on the hedge fund owned by Farage’s boss at GB News and their NatWest position and what appears to be odd timing around when Farage knew his Coutts account was being closed and when he started kicking off about it. Maybe nothing at all but then again seems rather strange?"
You're not usually a conspiracy nut... More raisin bran should help |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
You need to ask these simple questions, would anyone risk manipulating the markets in such a high profile media story?
The reward to risk is far to great and people knowing what they are doing would know this I assume.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"As educational and interesting as this is. Are people really suggesting that farage outed himself... Under the guise of bbc leaking an inaccurate set of information from the ceo of his bank, also sharing personal and inaccurate confidential information of one of its ex clients? Im kind of lost. Nat West fucked up. The bbc decided to dine out on it and fucked up. Now they should pay the price.
Not suggesting that no. Just trying to understand why The Telegraph ran a piece on the hedge fund owned by Farage’s boss at GB News and their NatWest position and what appears to be odd timing around when Farage knew his Coutts account was being closed and when he started kicking off about it. Maybe nothing at all but then again seems rather strange?
You're not usually a conspiracy nut... More raisin bran should help"
Lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"You need to ask these simple questions, would anyone risk manipulating the markets in such a high profile media story?
The reward to risk is far to great and people knowing what they are doing would know this I assume.
"
(You know I agree) sometimes the more outlandish something is, the more likely it could actually have happened. Plausible deniability! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"You need to ask these simple questions, would anyone risk manipulating the markets in such a high profile media story?
The reward to risk is far to great and people knowing what they are doing would know this I assume.
(You know I agree) sometimes the more outlandish something is, the more likely it could actually have happened. Plausible deniability!"
Report this morning from Natwest declaring profits of £3.6bn |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"You need to ask these simple questions, would anyone risk manipulating the markets in such a high profile media story?
The reward to risk is far to great and people knowing what they are doing would know this I assume.
(You know I agree) sometimes the more outlandish something is, the more likely it could actually have happened. Plausible deniability!
Report this morning from Natwest declaring profits of £3.6bn"
So would that likely see share price rise and screw over a short position OR if bought the shares at the reduced price (did share price drop in July after Farage stuff?) actually now pay off nicely? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"You need to ask these simple questions, would anyone risk manipulating the markets in such a high profile media story?
The reward to risk is far to great and people knowing what they are doing would know this I assume.
(You know I agree) sometimes the more outlandish something is, the more likely it could actually have happened. Plausible deniability!
Report this morning from Natwest declaring profits of £3.6bn
So would that likely see share price rise and screw over a short position OR if bought the shares at the reduced price (did share price drop in July after Farage stuff?) actually now pay off nicely?"
Shares up 0.25% this morning. Still a long way from the year high.
A profit notice doesn't automatically reflect in a share price increase. The market might have been anticipating a higher profit, and in those circumstances, share prices can actually fall. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You need to ask these simple questions, would anyone risk manipulating the markets in such a high profile media story?
The reward to risk is far to great and people knowing what they are doing would know this I assume.
(You know I agree) sometimes the more outlandish something is, the more likely it could actually have happened. Plausible deniability!
Report this morning from Natwest declaring profits of £3.6bn
So would that likely see share price rise and screw over a short position OR if bought the shares at the reduced price (did share price drop in July after Farage stuff?) actually now pay off nicely?
Shares up 0.25% this morning. Still a long way from the year high.
A profit notice doesn't automatically reflect in a share price increase. The market might have been anticipating a higher profit, and in those circumstances, share prices can actually fall."
Essentially as you say markets will have anticipated better share prices, with the incoming harsher times, I'd expect the bank to hold onto cash than pay out large dividends which will likely mean not such a large rise in share price. You also have the fact that they just lost 2 of their ceos and the chairman is standing down next year.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do we know when the account was closed?
The data request could easy be seen to suggest March...
Whenever he paid off his mortgage. He was debabked. I think that was March.
Wait a minute. Am I reading that right? He lost his Coutts account in March? If so why wait until July to kick off?
I can't be bothered to go re read the document I full again
I think as per faf below he paid off the mortgage early in March was given notice then was rejected by several other institutions.
I think upon kicking off, he was offered a natwest account( but I cant remember timeline of that offer so possibly wrong?)
And when did the Hedge Fund take their position?
No response but scrolling back I see Trucker Pat said this...
“It started its position in March when fears were growing over the health of the global financial system following the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse . Marshall Wade has recently reduced its borrowed shares from. .8 percent to .6 percent.”
So if Pat is correct the Hedge Fund owned by the guy who bankrolled GB News that employs Farage, took out a position on NatWest Group which owns Coutts, just at the same time, March, that Farage found out he was having his account closed. Just a coincidence?
Marshall Wace shorted Natwest on 13/7/2023.
Its really easy to find this information.
If this is the new date. Then I guess the information has been updated from the bollocks being shared last night thay the short was taken March.
So Morley are you saying Trucker Pat is wrong and they didn’t take a position in March?
We know hedge funds hedge but did they not take a position in March? If they did then when in March? Before or after Farage was “debanked”? Did their position favour short or long? Would knowing a scandal was coming inform their position? Again I ask, if Farage was “debanked” in March why did he stay quiet until July? Did the reveal and scandal impact on NatWest share price? Has the hedge fund benefitted? "
I'm paywalled by the telegraph. On twitter it said some time early march they bought the position.
This was when NF paid off his mortgage. But the exact dates when they took that position and when NF received notification i dont know.
They have taken up multiple positions on banks shorting them.
Again though. It's a hedge fund, so they are also long on the banks too.
They haven't cashed in their trading positions yet which is wise as I expect bank share prices to.fall.further ...look at what happened after the ecb announcements yesterday.
This is a non story.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Do we know when the account was closed?
The data request could easy be seen to suggest March...
Whenever he paid off his mortgage. He was debabked. I think that was March.
Wait a minute. Am I reading that right? He lost his Coutts account in March? If so why wait until July to kick off?
I can't be bothered to go re read the document I full again
I think as per faf below he paid off the mortgage early in March was given notice then was rejected by several other institutions.
I think upon kicking off, he was offered a natwest account( but I cant remember timeline of that offer so possibly wrong?)
And when did the Hedge Fund take their position?
No response but scrolling back I see Trucker Pat said this...
“It started its position in March when fears were growing over the health of the global financial system following the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse . Marshall Wade has recently reduced its borrowed shares from. .8 percent to .6 percent.”
So if Pat is correct the Hedge Fund owned by the guy who bankrolled GB News that employs Farage, took out a position on NatWest Group which owns Coutts, just at the same time, March, that Farage found out he was having his account closed. Just a coincidence?
Marshall Wace shorted Natwest on 13/7/2023.
Its really easy to find this information.
If this is the new date. Then I guess the information has been updated from the bollocks being shared last night thay the short was taken March.
So Morley are you saying Trucker Pat is wrong and they didn’t take a position in March?
We know hedge funds hedge but did they not take a position in March? If they did then when in March? Before or after Farage was “debanked”? Did their position favour short or long? Would knowing a scandal was coming inform their position? Again I ask, if Farage was “debanked” in March why did he stay quiet until July? Did the reveal and scandal impact on NatWest share price? Has the hedge fund benefitted?
I'm paywalled by the telegraph. On twitter it said some time early march they bought the position.
This was when NF paid off his mortgage. But the exact dates when they took that position and when NF received notification i dont know.
They have taken up multiple positions on banks shorting them.
Again though. It's a hedge fund, so they are also long on the banks too.
They haven't cashed in their trading positions yet which is wise as I expect bank share prices to.fall.further ...look at what happened after the ecb announcements yesterday.
This is a non story.
"
NF wouldn't have been notified before 13 March based on emails.
Fun coincidence in my view. The position (in terms of the fund) was small. The timing, the fund, and the fact they were top hedger on NW is just good for gossip and clicks. May help bring more facts to light, not a bad thing.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Do we know when the account was closed?
The data request could easy be seen to suggest March...
Whenever he paid off his mortgage. He was debabked. I think that was March.
Wait a minute. Am I reading that right? He lost his Coutts account in March? If so why wait until July to kick off?
I can't be bothered to go re read the document I full again
I think as per faf below he paid off the mortgage early in March was given notice then was rejected by several other institutions.
I think upon kicking off, he was offered a natwest account( but I cant remember timeline of that offer so possibly wrong?)
And when did the Hedge Fund take their position?
No response but scrolling back I see Trucker Pat said this...
“It started its position in March when fears were growing over the health of the global financial system following the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse . Marshall Wade has recently reduced its borrowed shares from. .8 percent to .6 percent.”
So if Pat is correct the Hedge Fund owned by the guy who bankrolled GB News that employs Farage, took out a position on NatWest Group which owns Coutts, just at the same time, March, that Farage found out he was having his account closed. Just a coincidence?
Marshall Wace shorted Natwest on 13/7/2023.
Its really easy to find this information.
If this is the new date. Then I guess the information has been updated from the bollocks being shared last night thay the short was taken March.
So Morley are you saying Trucker Pat is wrong and they didn’t take a position in March?
We know hedge funds hedge but did they not take a position in March? If they did then when in March? Before or after Farage was “debanked”? Did their position favour short or long? Would knowing a scandal was coming inform their position? Again I ask, if Farage was “debanked” in March why did he stay quiet until July? Did the reveal and scandal impact on NatWest share price? Has the hedge fund benefitted?
I'm paywalled by the telegraph. On twitter it said some time early march they bought the position.
This was when NF paid off his mortgage. But the exact dates when they took that position and when NF received notification i dont know.
They have taken up multiple positions on banks shorting them.
Again though. It's a hedge fund, so they are also long on the banks too.
They haven't cashed in their trading positions yet which is wise as I expect bank share prices to.fall.further ...look at what happened after the ecb announcements yesterday.
This is a non story.
NF wouldn't have been notified before 13 March based on emails.
Fun coincidence in my view. The position (in terms of the fund) was small. The timing, the fund, and the fact they were top hedger on NW is just good for gossip and clicks. May help bring more facts to light, not a bad thing.
"
Both of you - thanks makes sense |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
