Thank you both for your comments to which I also agree with. Needless to say in the main if any losses are to be incurred it is generally the retail side of things that bare the brunt of the matter. As you are probably both aware I have been monitoring this saga for a number of years, your good selves being here some what longer will also know of what can only be called shenanigans of the past, present and heaven forbid the future.
As can be seen it is evident that the power to be lies with investment/institutional element. There has been an interesting development in the UK regarding the splitting of the Banks to Banking sections, investment and Retail.
You may not be aware in the UK our government (us tax payers) bailed out the Banks during the last crisis. Here is a bit of the news.
The UK's big banks will be broken up if they fail to follow new rules to ring-fence risky investment operations from High Street outlets, Chancellor George Osborne has announced.
He has said taxpayers are angry at banks' behaviour and will never again be expected to bail them out.
The Independent Commission on Banking, led by Sir John Vickers in 2011, had concluded that ring-fencing was the best way to protect "core" retail banking activities from any future investment banking losses
The 2008 crisis, which marked the start of the credit crunch, saw the government use £65bn of public money propping up Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group.
Mr Osborne also referred to greed and corruption over banks' rigging of the Libor interest rate, but said that staying angry about bankers' behaviour would not fix the system.
I know we are miles apart and have different ways but one thing I would say is common. When a given institution/company/group have more power/money than that of the government we know we are in trouble.
My apologies from getting away from KK, it would hurt me to say he is on the end of the strings.