I've been telling anyone willing to listen that banks have a tendency to sit on time bombs while convincing themselves that they are conservative and nonvolatile.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
European and American banks are conservative in the sense that they don't come at their full strength to markets where we are; that leaves us an opportunity to be successful.
Banks are run by executives, and executives protect themselves, and that does not always mean that banks are going to behave rationally.
Banks need to think through their ethics very carefully, and many have done so. I don't know any bank that dismisses the concept of ethical banking.
We are all socialists now, it seems. John McCain, David Cameron and Gordon Brown attack bankers' irresponsible behaviour and salaries, and call for state intervention in the financial markets. But these calls will not get them elected or re-elected if they are addressed only to the banking sector.
Banks are an almost irresistible attraction for that element of our society which seeks unearned money.
Banking is a very treacherous business because you don't realize it is risky until it is too late. It is like calm waters that deliver huge storms.
It would not be a bad idea if bankers were to go and sit occasionally with politicians in their political surgeries, where they might get a sense of the injustice that some of the community feel about the banks.
The fundamental problem with banks is what it's always been: they're in the business of banking, and banking, whether plain vanilla or incredibly sophisticated, is inherently risky.
Conservatives brayed that government should stay out of the private sector; liberals bleated for nationalizing the banks.
You read constantly that banks are lobbying regulators and elected officials as if this is inappropriate. We don't look at it that way.