Of course, bankers were always interested in making money. But when bankers had clients, they bore some responsibility for the clients' welfare.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
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.
Instead, there were a variety of controls of which some could be influenced by bankers, some could be influenced by the government, and some could hardly be influenced by either.
With a group of bankers I always had the feeling that success was measured by the extent one gave nothing away.
In addition to their power over government based on government financing and personal influence, bankers could steer governments in ways they wished them to go by other pressures.
The reason I grew so fast in the supermarket business, without help of the banks in those days, was through my vendors. I convinced my vendors, the companies I was doing business with, if I did more business, they would do more business.
I think bankers will always get away with whatever they can get away with.
Banks are there to support businesses that have justifiable needs.
I think Dodd-Frank has contributed to a concentration of banking assets in the hands of a small number of banks.
At its core, banking is not simply about profit, but about personal relationships.
Is there anyone I wouldn't take as a client? Well, I'd never represent a banker.