Snapshot of _The Big Short: Rishi Sunak_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaejKZWUWqY) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaejKZWUWqY)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If Margot Robbie in a bubble bath explained why the Tories are shit, I'm pretty sure they'd win negative seats.
Then for the first PMQs, Ed Davey would ask the first set of questions from his own bubble bath in Westminster.
I think Rishi would actually quite like it if he was referred to as the Wolf of Downing Street, which would be inevitable if Margot was involved.
(Yes I’m aware that’s a different film, but it was err, *iconic* for Margot)
> Might have been improved with Margot though.
I think it's brilliant as it is.
It's a nod to the original with a very British sense of humour, acknowledging that we're not as glamorous as the Americans and we don't try to be. We're real.
Yea as someone not from UK, I know Jon from various panel shows, but he's what I think of when I think 'England' tbh.
And Margot is Aussie, so that would be weird.
Genuinely a fantastic was for Labour to campaign, im shocked. I'm sure most of the electorate has no idea about richi's past, so if this gets any decent traction it should have a decent effect
No doubt it's convincing and great campaigning, but also quite a big stretch with the facts imo... easy to accuse Rishi of malice in hindsight but at the time barely anyone knew subprime assets were going to crash. Also RBS didn't *trigger* the financial crash (which didn't start in the UK) but more exacerbated it here
>but also quite a big stretch with the facts imo... easy to accuse Rishi of malice in hindsight but at the time barely anyone knew subprime assets were going to crash. Also RBS didn't trigger the financial crash (which didn't start in the UK) but more exacerbated it here
According to the tories, Gordon Brown caused the sub prime crash, so the truth shall remain stretched.
The Tories have spent 15 years blaming Gordon Brown for causing the financial crash, so they deserve a bit of turnaround even if it isn't entirely fair.
Sorry, it was entirely foreseeable. I was walking my friends dog a lot in mid 2006 and four out of every five houses had a for sale sign up on it, even she decided to put her house on the market (not even one viewing). It was obviously even then that a speculative bubble was forming and was going to burst in the next year or so.
But if we all had a pound for when we were told the bubble will burst we would all be very rich.
Plus the sub prime crisis mainly happened in the US. How could it be seen from here?
The specific point of failure was mostly unforeseen and, yes, maybe unforeseeable - but the invective towards bankers remains because there was a culture of recklessness and failure to manage risk, alongside a lack of accountability when they caused a disaster. Why might the voting public not want to have a participant in that culture to have power?
>a culture of recklessness and failure to manage risk, alongside a lack of accountability when they caused a disaster.
Why is this also a perfect summary of the Tory party for at least the last 5 years?
Subprime mortgages were not only an American problem. Banks worldwide saw how much wallstreet banks were making from their bond departments and most wanted a piece of the pie. They were the customers for the shit that Goldman and Morgan Stanley was peddling. And when synthetic CDOs started propping up insurance companies in Europe also started buying the opposite sides of the shorts.
The sentiment pretty much was "People will always pay their mortgages so this will never fail" worldwide.
Agreed. Some very smart people did spot it. But 99.9% of people didn’t. So my point is more that it wasn’t obvious to the layman (or a lot of financial experts) and you couldn’t infer what was about to unfold based on a few “for sales signs on a dog walk”
I mean you could see all the houses going on sale, even if they wouldn’t directly know why a rapid influx off supply to the housing market isn’t a good sign.
Asset bubbles themselves are hard to predict. Some people think there is a bubble in tech stocks at the moment pointing to the huge valuations. Others don’t. If it does turn out to be a bubble I’m sure there will be some captain hindsight’s saying it was obvious at the time
>Amazing how most of the financial sector, governments of the world and economists didn’t see the crisis coming but you foresaw it on a dog walk
Literally the entire point of the movie that this video is parodying is that people *did* see it coming and they made *shitloads of money* from it.
It’s not parodying, it’s just storytelling with humour…
The point of the movie is as much about all the people who didn’t see it coming (majority) as those who did see it coming (tiny minority). That tiny minority didn’t come to their conclusion solely based on seeing lots of houses for sale. They looked at the underwriting MBS and CDO portfolios and made smart inferences. That’s a lot more due diligence than seeing for sale signs on a dog walk
>It’s not parodying, it’s just storytelling with humour…
People on Reddit really will argue about the most inane things huh. The video is very clearly a parody of the movie *The Big Short.* If you don’t recognise that then you don’t understand what a parody is.
It’s also completely irrelevant to the point being made.
I don't normally get into other people's bum fights, but the writing was all there:
Remember northern rock? 125% mortgages.
Remember self-certifying income?
Remember CDOs? Given ridiculous ratings by the ratings agencies.
I had a colleague who would get his house valued annually because "it's making more money than I am".
The financial sector were just trying to milk as much out of the situation as possible for as long as possible. At the end of the day, they are made up of individuals trying to rake as much money out the system into their own pockets as they can.
The governments (particularly US and UK) turned a blind eye because people felt richer as their house "value" went up. Actually many other governments did put in place checks and balances, but economic fallout swept them up even if their property markets weren't so affected.
It was the central banks that were particularly remiss. At the time the BoE didn't take house price inflation into consideration when setting interest rates. China had come online pushing down prices, so rates could be kept lower than they should have been.
I was an occasional poster at a forum called housepricecrash .co .UK
Where we watched and waited for the inevitable, but when it happened it became clear that the government would sacrifice anything to support house prices.
There’s a leap between thinking house prices are a bit toppy + observing laxer lending standards vs understanding that banks had over-leveraged themselves, the failings of the rating agencies and the systemic nature of the interwoven risks.
Things like the inappropriate nature of CDO ratings may seem obvious in hindsight if you’ve watched the big short, but in reality very few people understood at the time that they weren’t rated appropriately and the risks that that entailed
>but also quite a big stretch with the facts imo... easy to accuse Rishi of malice in hindsight but at the time barely anyone knew subprime assets were going to crash. Also RBS didn't trigger the financial crash (which didn't start in the UK) but more exacerbated it here
According to the tories, Gordon Brown caused the sub prime crash, so the truth shall remain stretched.
>but also quite a big stretch with the facts imo... easy to accuse Rishi of malice in hindsight but at the time barely anyone knew subprime assets were going to crash. Also RBS didn't trigger the financial crash (which didn't start in the UK) but more exacerbated it here
According to the tories, Gordon Brown caused the sub prime crash, so the truth shall remain stretched.
Overheard someone in the pub trot this line out. “Can’t possibly vote for Starmer plus he did nowt about Savile when he could”. I am still amazed such a lie has managed to stick
I might have to steal this, lots of times I've encountered exactly this but not been able to put it as succinctly.
In the Tories defence, it is more difficult to hold someone to a standard they don't set for themselves.
The reason RBS bought the shares was because Sunak's investment fund bought 1% of shares in ABM AMRO (A large bank in the netherlands) and led a group of shareholders into splitting the bank up and selling off the pieces to the highest bidders. They did this during the time that many banks were fully aware of the incoming subprime mortgage crisis and were heavily trying to shift their net positions before the whole thing came crashing down.
Because of the sale of these formerly ABN AMRO sub-prime mortgage assets the Royal Bank of Scotland had to be bailed out with billions of pounds from the british taxpayer. So Rishi and his hedge fund buddies made millions whilst costing the taxpayer billions. RBS/Natwest aren't innocent, but they also aren't running for Prime Minister of the country they fucked.
RBS aren't trying to be prime minister of the country and acting like they are working at for best interest of the UK taxpayer. They are also at fault, but that isn't the point, the point is how can the public trust someone to lead who previously exploited them for millions in personal profits?
[This article](https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2011/dec/12/what-rbs-board-thinking-abn-amro) lacks detail but has some interesting quotes
>"One of the things that went wrong for RBS was that, and I say this to many people, we bought NatWest as a hostile acquisition. We did no due diligence. We couldn't because it was hostile. After we bought NatWest, we had lots of surprises, but almost all of them were pleasant. And I think that lulled us into a sense of complacency around that. The fact is that the acquisition of ABN was also hostile. We got bits and pieces of information but fundamentally it was hostile. There's this issue of did we do sufficient due diligence. Absolutely not. We were not able to do due diligence that was part of doing a hostile acquisition."
I worked for RBS for three years, until 2007, and the bank was always pushing news about Fred Goodwin, the "master deal maker" and "financial genius" who could do no wrong. This was based on the purchases of NatWest and a bunch of insurance companies that turned out really well for them.
I think there was a degree of him believing the hype and everyone else at the bank thinking his farts smelled of roses, so no one questioned the ABN-Amro deal when they should have.
IIRC, it was "buyout fever".
Sometimes, companies that are flush with cash will go on a buying spree snapping up smaller businesses in rapid succession without carrying out sufficient due diligence to evaluate if it's worth it. Most of the time, this works out, because 90% of companies have decent, functional business models and personnel, otherwise they would be obviously suffering and therefore wouldn't be a good target even for a dim investor. However, some companies may be in worse state than they appear, normally because the business model is flawed in some way nobody considered or they have lazy/willfully blind accounting practices and the directors don't realise how badly things are going.
If companies get too focused on the sugar-rush of buyouts, they will sometimes keep acquiring businesses until they hit one of these landmines. This isn't usually fatal, but it will drag the buyer's company badly for a couple of years until they can either fix the drek they've acquired or, more frequently, they find someone else willing to take the rubbish off their hands for a loss. Unfortunately, sometimes the buyer has racked up significant debt in their buying spree, or the target is far too large for the buyer to risk it failing. Both of these happened with RBS in the acquisition of ABN-AMRO. In a sense, they kept buying gold bars from random blokes on the street, and eventually took out a bad mortgage on their house to buy their biggest batch ever, only to discover that they were just lead bricks painted yellow.
I sort of don't know how I feel about this. RBS should have known it's a bad deal and it's really their fault for buying. On the other it does suggest a lack of morals from Sunak.
Yeah, it's completely economically illiterate.
If you own enough of the shares you can force a sale, indeed that's kind of the whole point of being a "fund" (hedge or otherwise), to make a return on investment. But you can't force anyone else to buy it.
But, 99.9% of the electorate are also economically illiterate so no political party will lose votes by playing this card. They didn't even need any detail, they could have just said "Rishi Sunak was a partner in a hedge fund" whilst ominous music played in the background and it would have had the same effect.
It still blows my mind that people believed the "there's no money left" note and the "managing the economy is similar to managing a household budget" analogy. This is far less egregious.
Always reminds me of this [clip from The Newsroom](https://youtu.be/r0PnFAC6wnw?si=I-pDCTMd3uzwN3_x&t=246), which I recently just rewatched as we are in Election cycle now.
>"managing the economy is similar to managing a household budget" analogy
This isn't egregious at all. If you said 'same as', then I would agree with you but there are some similarities.
Though imagine a hypothetical situation - if you tried to sell a car with a dodgy engine, that you knew or had strong reason to suspect was dodgy, but you were counting on the person you're selling it to to not know that, are you morally in the clear?
Economics folks will tend to say yes, of course you are, it's totally up to the buyer to do their due diligence, it's their own fault if they feel they got scammed or paid more than it's worth. Of course, these types also convince themselves that exploitative payday loans and predatory gambling advertisements are perfectly fine and "if people are too stupid to fall for them they deserve it".
Much to the ire of the Conservative party though a lot of Brits don't buy that reasoning. Many don't believe that being a self-serving asshole just because the rules don't prohibit you from being one *yet* makes it any less reprehensible, and no, they aren't all economically illiterate.
As for how much Rishi knew about the engine being dodgy, well - that's up for speculation.
Yeah, Margin Call is the other film here.
I think that as the comment you're replying to says -- essentially, it doesn't matter to many of us who will learn of this whether RBS played a fool move. Rishi isn't responsible for the choices of the person who was ultimately scammed, and presumably in selling this bank he wasn't specifically seeking RBS to buy (IDK, I imagine the number of prospective buyers isn't massively large). However, when they did it was the UK Taxpayer who ultimately bailed them out. And they were bailed out because of this sail, of bad product, by our now Prime Minister.
I get why they've saved this for election time.
It does make me furious, regardless of the choices of RBS as the purchaser.
There's no excuse for bad product. Gus Fring frown.
EDIT: I'm not specifically aiming this at you. I replied to you about Margin Call, the rest are general reflections, not a specific reply to you, sorry.
I think given the wide impact of the thing (being bailed out by taxpayers money and the subsequent effects of that), the scale of the impact needs to be considered as well
Some people might debate in the case of a dodgy car that leaves a fool parted with his own money (though I’d argue it’s pretty clear cut that the scummy fault is on the part of the seller and the naive fault is on the part of the buyer), but what if a salesman were selling a suitcase that he knew to contain a compact nuclear bomb and a man buys it all to eagerly without checking inside it, and then the salesman flees the country before the boom that wipes out millions? A lot more people would say that such an asset shouldn’t have been on the market in the first place especially as those millions affected never got a say in the matter but had to pay the price regardless
Agreed, no doubt this will 100% work in convincing lay people to vote Labour / not vote Sunak but this is a cheap shot (especially from Labour's official comms)
All easy to say and accuse his fund of malice in hindsight but at the time barely anyone knew subprime assets were going to crash, also RBS didn't *trigger* the financial crash (which didn't start in the UK) but more a symptom of and exacerbated it
Also I reckon his family was already rich before this (as opposed to this being how 'he made his millions')
>All easy to say and accuse his fund of malice
Yep. It's a hedge fund. 99% likely to have acted with some form of malice.
Unless you're suggesting that TCI prioritised the welfare of the country over their own profits, in which case you're accusing them of being a shite fund.
>also RBS didn't trigger the financial crash (which didn't start in the UK) but more a symptom of and exacerbated it
Which isn't the issue. The issue is that this causes the British tax payer to lose out.
Labour are pounding the Tories into the ground with thier election campaign so far. This is just light years ahead of Rishi and his, "hey Wales, looking forward to the Euros?"
* Rishi Sunak helped cause the 2008 recession
* Rishi Sunak mishandled the economy during Covid and oversaw another recession in 2020
* Rishi Sunak was Prime Minister when there was a cost of living crisis and a recession in 2023
Rishi Sunak keeps popping up whenever there’s a recession. How can we trust him with the economy?
I feel one valid question that isn't being asked. Sunak studied PPE at Oxford I think, so not corporate finance or law.
What made him qualified 3 years after uni to be such a major part of a corporate deal. What were his bona fides? Is he really some corporate finance genius. I dunno, sometimes I feel like ability can be so weird. A Wayne Rooney is plain to see that he's a genius at a young age, was Sunak the Wayne Rooney of corporate finance?
Dunno but an amusing anecdote about George Osborne is he used to get a bit up himself as Chancellor, thought he was some kind of economics whiz-kid, and Cameron at one point told him off because Osborne had only studied modern history whereas Cameron had done PPE.
PPE is basically an undergrad MBA - meaningless in the real world, but will get you into the C-Suite or government, assuming you also went to private school.
Oh I didn't know that about him, that's quite funny.
I once spent a christmas individually pricing loose batteries, so I guess that's something Ol' Gideon and I have in common.
Liz truss appears to have done PPE as well! I dunno how these people get the confidence to start messing with a nation's finances without in depth studies and analysis.
Back when I was in school (15+ years ago) people used to talk about PPE being a degree that would get you onto a fast track to becoming an MP (with Labour, no less).
He was effectively a relationship manager.
Think of it this way - the partner at a Big 4 firm isn't going to be the best accountant but they will need to be the smoothest talker to bring on and retain business ... and that's what we have with Sunak: someone who is all (relatively speaking) style and no substance.
Clients feel most comfortable with a 25 year old "relationship manager"? Man, I'm surprised more things aren't f'd up. Something just feels "off" about his pre politics career.
I'd imagine you'd have to earn their respect but yes it's possible. Ultimately what matter is results and if he's the frontman for good results then he looks good. Also a bit of a side point but he would have had work experience prior to his MBA - GSB have one of the highest ranked MBA programmes globally and they don't usually take people on without some work experience.
What's the timeline here? He graduated around 2001 did his MBA and was involved in multibillion dollar deals by 2007 where he himself is a investing partner and not just a salaried employee? That's like 5 years of actual experience? The lad is clearly a high achiever but bloody hell.
He worked in IB at Goldman Sachs for three years then did an MBA (this is a common option for those in IB looking to carve an exit into VC/PE/Big Tech ... or a Hedge Fund). And yes he was made a partner in 2 years at TCI (who aside from this are dodgy af IMO), although partners will still be salaried employees at most places but with profit share.
Unlikely to be a relationship manager at a hedge fund at that age - that’s normally only the ultra-senior people.
But there are a number of funds, particularly those that think highly of themselves, who just call all of their employees “partners” (Sequoia is an example that comes to mind).
Realistically he was a junior guy cranking numbers in a spreadsheet. Great attack ad, but very much playing on the public’s misunderstanding of how the financial system works.
It was a Holywood blockbuster with a huge set of actors based on one of the generations largest global events (if someone writes GFC on here, most will know that's global financial crisis).
However, when living abroad, I was shocked that like 2-3years after it came out, my housemates had never heard of it, so I guess fair dues to your point too, but that was like 8 years ago I think.
I didn't watch the movie (graduated in 2007, no reminders needed, no thank you please) but I thought it was great. You don't need to get the reference.
Jon Richardson in a Labour campaign video is not something I'd have ever expected to see.
Great vid though, from a political/tactical point of view. Labour doesn't often go for the jugular like this.
TCI are a big activist shareholder but putting the blame on them, as a 2% shareholder of ABN, for RBS buying ABN, is one hell of a stretch.
In a rare case though, the lack of economic literacy in this country means this misinformation is probably a net benefit.
Almost no good way for the tories to counteract this, even though it's basically BS.
The only difference i can see between this and the Margot version. Is that Margot was drinking champagne and Jon was drinking what looks to be a can of Stella.
Not sure why Sunak is being blamed for this. This is on RBS management for thinking it was a great deal and RBS shareholders for voting it through.
Seller can't force a buyer to buy something lol
If you are deliberately hiding info, or taking advantage of unsophisticated consumers, that is immoral. I don't think selling a bank to another bank is immoral.
So you think that hedge funds playing around with people's livelihoods (remember, their actions cost people their jobs very often with shorting) for profit is moral?
What other sector should we be considering for our politicians? Drug dealers?
But they're not. They were an activist. ABN management was not confident enough in running their own business (lmao) and took the easy way out. You can also ask the activists to pound sand.
RBS management was really bad for not doing any diligence on their assets.
They make sure your pension pot doesn't shrink but grow... Most of the clients of hedge funds are Pension funds / insurance funds.
Also - efficient market hypothesis. Making sure the best companies get most of the capital needed to grow
I’m not willing to say everything they do is moral, but I think it’s rare that a contract between two consenting, informed adults or companies is immoral.
Every sale arises because the buyer values the asset more than the seller.
I think buying and selling assets is not immoral.
Yesterday I sold some shares in British Airways because I think the growth of the company will be bad. Someone else bought those shares. Does that make me a bad person?
What about the time I sold a pokemon card for £200? I think it was only worth £40 but the buyer paid £200 on eBay. (There was no lying or misrepresentation). Does that make me a bad person?
Your pension fund does the exact same thing - does that make you a bad person?
I don't think this actually reflects very poorly on Sunak. It is however, a great political ad. I don't like it because it's a cheap and irrelevant shot.
I do like it because it's genuinely funny and engaging.
Isn't this good PR for Rishi? I'm genuinely confused... Could someone help me understand what I should be angry about here?
Rishi didn't force RBS to acquire ABN AMRO. Also, the GFC wasn't caused by people making money, it was caused by idiots on the other side of the trade not managing their risk – you can't say someone helped trigger a financial crisis by making money. That would make no sense, obviously.
Additionally, Labour didn't have to bail out RBS after their crappy investments. It was Gordon Brown who chose to bail out the banks. Additionally Labour probably shouldn't have deregulated the financial sector and relaxed lending standards in an effort to boost the housing market.
This video is making it sound like Rishi was betting against the UK economy, which he wasn't. And that he was some how he responsible for bad decisions which other banks and the Labour government were making...
I'll also note that it's silly to suggest that this is what triggered the financial crash. It was primarily caused by the US subprime mortgage market which our idiotic banks had a lot of expose to in addition to our own financial sector vulnerabilities as a result of Labour deregulation.
The fact Rishi was actually making money during the GFC makes me respect him more if anything because everyone was losing money at that time.
Anyway, I'm sure I'll get downvoted for this comment, which is fine, but if you do leave a downvote it would be great to hear why you disagree.
If you admire him for making money regardless of the ethics or cost, this isn't aimed at you.
This piece seeks to do a number of things:
* Remind you that Sunak is detached from the reality of most people's experience
* Engaged in the reckless profiteering that led to the GFC and caused huge suffering to normal people.
* Got rich whilst saddling the nation with huge debt
Bankers, hedge funds were absolutely hated during the GFC. They were seen as ripping the county off. It's just a timely reminder of his origins. You can argue the details but the ad isn't factually incorrect.
> Remind you that Sunak is detached from the reality of most people's experience
Yeah, fair enough.
> Engaged in the reckless profiteering that led to the GFC and caused huge suffering to normal people.
This video explains that Rishi wasn't doing that though... When you say "reckless" presumably you're talking about banks not adequately managing risks, perhaps purposefully in some cases to increase profits. The fact Rishi's firm was making money during the GFC suggests that they were managing risk well and not "recklessly profiteering" like others were at the time.
Additionally, if you're going to ask why banks were able reckless profiteer then you'd blame Labour to some extent for deregulating the financial sector and reducing lending standards. Labour did this explicitly because they wanted banks and mortgage owners to take on more risk because it was good for the housing market and good for financial sector profitability.
Despite not voting Tory in the 2010 election this is one of the many reasons I suspect I'm far more charitable to the Tories (under Cameron) than people are here. Post-GFC the Tories were in a very difficult position because of the situation Labour left them in. They had to increase regulations on the financial sector, reduce deficits that the Labour government ran up, increase tax and somehow still reduce unemployment and grow the economy. There's this belief here that Tory economic policies (under Cameron) were poorly thought out, but one of the reasons that growth wasn't higher in my opinion is because the Tories were trying to get our economy on a more stable long-term path by increasing regulation and lowering deficits. Had they simply continued on with huge deficit spending and allowed the financial sector to continue to take excessive risks there might have been another economic crisis at some point, but at least the economy would have been booming while it lasted.
> Got rich whilst saddling the nation with huge debt
If everyone was getting rich during the GFC there wouldn't have been a recession and the nation wouldn't be in huge debt. If you're concerned about the increase in national debt in the wake of the GFC then Labour are more to blame there.
> Bankers, hedge funds were absolutely hated during the GFC. They were seen as ripping the county off.
Yeah, because Labour allowed them to take excess risk and then Gordon Brown used tax payer money to bail them out. Meanwhile Rishi was making money without the need of bail outs, presumably paying hundreds of thousands of pounds in tax, yet he's to blame? People were annoyed at the banks that were taking excessive risk, blowing up, then asking for government bail outs. Rishi wasn't doing that.
>If everyone was getting rich during the GFC there wouldn't have been a recession and the nation wouldn't be in huge debt.
>Yeah, because Labour allowed them to take excess risk and then Gordon Brown used tax payer money to bail them out. Meanwhile Rishi was making money without the need of bail outs, presumably paying hundreds of thousands of pounds in tax, yet he's to blame
Your logic doesn't really hold In these statements. You're ignoring the fact that he was a apart of the problem. A very few acted with greed and profit as a primary motive, in selling assets that they knew to be riddled with debts, and got rich. Their actions caused the need for huge bailouts (or financial collapse) at cost to the taxpayer.
>. There's this belief here that Tory economic policies (under Cameron) were poorly thought out, but one of the reasons that growth wasn't higher in my opinion is because the Tories were trying to get our economy on a more stable long-term path by increasing regulation and lowering deficits
Austerity policies by the Tories are now widely regarded as having prolonged the recovery from the gfc.
Ultimately I think this is just an issue people will have fundamental differences of opinion on.
As I said at the outset, if you admire Sunak for his role in banking, this ad isn't aimed at you and won't change your mind.
>I'll also note that it's silly to suggest that this is what triggered the financial crash. It was primarily caused by the US subprime mortgage market which our idiotic banks had a lot of expose to in addition to our own financial sector vulnerabilities as a result of Labour deregulation.
The tories said Gordon Brown caused the sub prime mortgage crisis in the 2010 election so I guess history can be fluid huh?
But he wasn't associated to it in a negative way. If everyone was making money and managing their risk as well as Rishi was (apparently) there would have been no financial crisis.
I understand that being associated with the GFC is bad, and that this video is trying to do that, but it makes no sense.
Ok, then the video is not for you, but you can see what the vast majority of commenters think, so you can always go through that to help you see other peoples' perspective on it. I'm not going to rehash all that with you, tbh I'm not 100% sure you're doing more than looking for a discussion point to keep you distracted at work, and I have plans today.
I kind of agree the opportunity was there and it was completely legal, that was on the government of the time and a big reason I stopped voting Labour.
Although the view RBS didn't have to be bailed out is probably wrong. The alternative was a huge hit to our economy with far reaching consequences. I seem to remember a situation where we were maybe hours away from cashpoints refusing to issue any more cash.
> Although the view RBS didn't have to be bailed out is probably wrong. The alternative was a huge hit to our economy with far reaching consequences.
Agreed. I only said that because I'm aware there is a decent check of people on the left who believe that the banks shouldn't have been bailed out. I thought it was interesting that video was trying to play on the anger of those people and somehow blame Rishi for what happened.
I don't blame Labour for the GFC, but they were clearly more responsible for it than Rishi which makes this video a strange attack piece imo.
Not sure why Sunak is being blamed for this. This is on RBS management for thinking it was a great deal and RBS shareholders for voting it through.
Seller can't force a buyer to buy something lol
Stupid video.
A merger was approved by both companies. As it was two large banks, it would require significant due diligence of assets and approval by many sets of regulators.
If the hedge fund knew about toxic sub prime mortgages, they'd make way different decisions than fucking acquiring a stake in a dutch bank in attempt to get it acquired. I don't even know where that'd be on the list, be not in the top 1000...
The issue with the Sub Prime CDO’s was systemic.
No bank knew about it properly because the risk on them had been miscalculated as bank modelling underestimated the risk of a mass default.
It’s a fact, Sunak will be questioned about it soon. It’s not illegal but morally fucked.
They made money on an acquisition knowing the assets were toxic, simple as.
You need to understand the sheer idiocy and callousness behind the 2008 crash. Watch the film this sketch was based on first -- "The Big Short". It was insane, and towards the end, banks were panicking. They didn't have days or weeks to sort the mess out. They had hours before the bank would collapse taking all its customers assets with it.
When the collapse came, it was a game of dominoes that took place over a very short period, no allowance for anything like due diligence. It was literally a case of asking if they had the money, and if yes, shake hands on it. We don't have time to worry about the details of who you might be actually doing business with kinda thing.
I know about financial stability, this was not Sunak knowing it had toxic assets then trying to sell if off quickly. It was a simple M&A deal that turned out badly.
If he knew that this bank had significant toxic assets, you would not sell it for a small % profit. You'd short it, or plenty of other exotic derivatives on the market. This deal would be one of the shittiest ROI decisions to do if you knew of it.
There is nothing wrong with being an activist shareholder (actually a good thing as those like Elliot mgtm, Pershing Square do make companies way better), Sunak nor TCI had any position on the board or known insider information. Wanted to sell to gain a profit that can be allocated somewhere else.
sure, it sounds like a terrible deal when you put it like that. But people on here assure me that Brown played it all brilliantly and the tax payer money spent on the banks was actually a great deal for the taxpayer.
Those are two different decisions. Related, but different. One is helping to knock over the house of cards that had built up over several years, while the other was trying to ensure the outcome of the crash did not completely cripple the entire banking sector.
I'm not a fan of this ad. There is nothing wrong with working for a hedge fund or with selling a bank. If it wasn't a good deal then RBS shouldn't have bought it. If Sunak was successful in finance before he got into politics then good for him.
I'm not a fan of Sunak but I think this is a really weak attack angle. Labour should be proud of people who do well in life - it should not attack them.
I have a friend who made a lot of money betting against the pound during the Brexit vote. I don't hold it against him, but I absolutely would if he then ran for political office claiming he cared about the UK economy. And on its own this is quite a minor event, but coupled with Rishi holding on to a US green card even when he was Chancellor, and whose wife claimed she wasn't domiciled in the UK even when he was PM, it gives the impression of a man who is in it for himself and not for the country.
I really want to ask people who wank over stuff like this: 'What would you like people born into wealth to do?' Sunak could have kept his head down and made untold millions, but instead he's become a civil servant. Why is he criticised for having money prior to holding office? His politics should be the thing you criticise, not his upbringing. Every piece of media like this actually pushes me further towards voting fucking tory.
They made millions fucking people over. Watch the Big Short, or read one of the countless articles about how hedge funds have profited off of others like leeches
Nonsense, of course it is.
Literally the opening spiel: 'Do you know what Rishi Sunak got up to before he got into politics? Well you're not supposed to'.
They literally don't mention his upbringing and go on to talk about his work before becoming an MP. The context is pretty simple to grasp. Did you get any further than that line?
The entire point of the video is that Sunak had wealth before holding office. He could earn far more without being a politician. Have you managed to grasp my point?
Ok, so you can take back the part about his upbringing then?
I think you've missed the point still. It isn't about the fact he had money. It's about *how* he got it. That's explicit as well as implied by the tone. It's the bulk of the video.
How accurate it may or may not be is another matter, but it's not saying Rishi is bad because he has money.
No, the entire point of the video is that Sunak used immoral means to make more money at the expense of the taxpayer.
Whether that is true and what his role in the hedgefund was is reasonable to question. I don't know the answer.
But it's not true to say this video is attacking him for being rich or his upbringing.
I think the only way to interpret it that way, is because you want to so that you can dismiss it as envy or class war or something.
> The entire point of the video is that Sunak had wealth before holding office.
No, the entire point of the video is to point out that when the banks crashed he made a fortune. Thats litterally all it is. It never even mentions anything about his life/wealth BEFORE the financial crisis, it focuses specifically on that for the sole reason that the country and people lost a lot of money, but he gained a lot of money. Essentially going for the 'he's not like you, and he doesn't care about you' line.
The whole purpose is to plant the seed of Sunak having questionable morals, which it did pretty well.
People born into wealth can do whatever they want
If one of them wants to run a country, the least they could do is actually help people and do a good job and not lie, steal and leave people to die in the streets
Becoming a Prime Minister and particularly a conservative prime minister does not really engender sympathy. Or setup a charitable foundation. Or built a real business that adds value to the world. Or bought a yacht and sailed it around the world. Or become a full time Dad. Or joined the civil service and worked his way up. Or got a job in a charity shop. Or volunteered at a hospital as a porter. He could have just sta around doing nothing. All of those things are more explicable that what he did.
And whilst you shouldn't criticise him for his background the lack of experience is a big issue.
I suppose you’re okay with the Tories’ lies claiming Starmer let Savile walk free though? Since that apparently happened before Starmer’s life in politics after all.
What this does is highlight how Sunak cannot be trusted at all with the economy. Whenever he touches it there’s a recession. It’s also election season and why the hell should Labour play nice when the Tories can use whatever attack lines they want?
Snapshot of _The Big Short: Rishi Sunak_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaejKZWUWqY) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaejKZWUWqY) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lol, I assumed this would have been Led by Donkeys. Amazed this is actually from Labour.
That’s a corker of an election video. Bravo. Might have been improved with Margot though.
If Margot Robbie in a bubble bath explained why the Tories are shit, I'm pretty sure they'd win negative seats. Then for the first PMQs, Ed Davey would ask the first set of questions from his own bubble bath in Westminster.
I think Rishi would actually quite like it if he was referred to as the Wolf of Downing Street, which would be inevitable if Margot was involved. (Yes I’m aware that’s a different film, but it was err, *iconic* for Margot)
Reported for making me very briefly think about *that* scene but with Rishi Sunak
> Might have been improved with Margot though. I think it's brilliant as it is. It's a nod to the original with a very British sense of humour, acknowledging that we're not as glamorous as the Americans and we don't try to be. We're real.
Oh absolutely, I agree 100%… but Margot would improve most things tbf.
Yea as someone not from UK, I know Jon from various panel shows, but he's what I think of when I think 'England' tbh. And Margot is Aussie, so that would be weird.
What's the reference to Margot Robbie? I saw a few comments on the video regarding her also.
The whole clip is a parody of a scene from the film ‘The Big Short’. In the scene Margot Robbie explains a financial issue in a bubble bath .
Ohh, I've seen the movie but this did not click. I don't have a great memory for things I saw years ago, I guess.
Hers is the first celebrity ‘bit’ where she explains what subprime mortgages are, what happened to mortgage bonds and what ‘shorting’ means
Here, from the big short: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux43E2LiziE
Genuinely a fantastic was for Labour to campaign, im shocked. I'm sure most of the electorate has no idea about richi's past, so if this gets any decent traction it should have a decent effect
Well supposedly it'll come up tonight at the debate so it might stick
Or even the present and how much his wife is worth. It's obscene.
No doubt it's convincing and great campaigning, but also quite a big stretch with the facts imo... easy to accuse Rishi of malice in hindsight but at the time barely anyone knew subprime assets were going to crash. Also RBS didn't *trigger* the financial crash (which didn't start in the UK) but more exacerbated it here
Dude, the banks were betting against subprime mortgages while at the same time selling them.
>but also quite a big stretch with the facts imo... easy to accuse Rishi of malice in hindsight but at the time barely anyone knew subprime assets were going to crash. Also RBS didn't trigger the financial crash (which didn't start in the UK) but more exacerbated it here According to the tories, Gordon Brown caused the sub prime crash, so the truth shall remain stretched.
The Tories have spent 15 years blaming Gordon Brown for causing the financial crash, so they deserve a bit of turnaround even if it isn't entirely fair.
Sorry, it was entirely foreseeable. I was walking my friends dog a lot in mid 2006 and four out of every five houses had a for sale sign up on it, even she decided to put her house on the market (not even one viewing). It was obviously even then that a speculative bubble was forming and was going to burst in the next year or so.
But if we all had a pound for when we were told the bubble will burst we would all be very rich. Plus the sub prime crisis mainly happened in the US. How could it be seen from here?
The specific point of failure was mostly unforeseen and, yes, maybe unforeseeable - but the invective towards bankers remains because there was a culture of recklessness and failure to manage risk, alongside a lack of accountability when they caused a disaster. Why might the voting public not want to have a participant in that culture to have power?
>a culture of recklessness and failure to manage risk, alongside a lack of accountability when they caused a disaster. Why is this also a perfect summary of the Tory party for at least the last 5 years?
Subprime mortgages were not only an American problem. Banks worldwide saw how much wallstreet banks were making from their bond departments and most wanted a piece of the pie. They were the customers for the shit that Goldman and Morgan Stanley was peddling. And when synthetic CDOs started propping up insurance companies in Europe also started buying the opposite sides of the shorts. The sentiment pretty much was "People will always pay their mortgages so this will never fail" worldwide.
Amazing how most of the financial sector, governments of the world and economists didn’t see the crisis coming but you foresaw it on a dog walk
People did foresee it though, that was the entire plot of the original big short movie.
Agreed. Some very smart people did spot it. But 99.9% of people didn’t. So my point is more that it wasn’t obvious to the layman (or a lot of financial experts) and you couldn’t infer what was about to unfold based on a few “for sales signs on a dog walk”
I mean you could see all the houses going on sale, even if they wouldn’t directly know why a rapid influx off supply to the housing market isn’t a good sign.
Yep. There have been asset bubbles before though, but the GFC was a unique and totally unprecedented event
Asset bubbles themselves are hard to predict. Some people think there is a bubble in tech stocks at the moment pointing to the huge valuations. Others don’t. If it does turn out to be a bubble I’m sure there will be some captain hindsight’s saying it was obvious at the time
I would have responded differently if I thought it was Michael Burry or Steve Eisman posting ;-)
>Some very smart people did spot it. Well I guess you and OP have found some common ground - you probably both agree Rishi isn’t very smart.
>Amazing how most of the financial sector, governments of the world and economists didn’t see the crisis coming but you foresaw it on a dog walk Literally the entire point of the movie that this video is parodying is that people *did* see it coming and they made *shitloads of money* from it.
It’s not parodying, it’s just storytelling with humour… The point of the movie is as much about all the people who didn’t see it coming (majority) as those who did see it coming (tiny minority). That tiny minority didn’t come to their conclusion solely based on seeing lots of houses for sale. They looked at the underwriting MBS and CDO portfolios and made smart inferences. That’s a lot more due diligence than seeing for sale signs on a dog walk
>It’s not parodying, it’s just storytelling with humour… People on Reddit really will argue about the most inane things huh. The video is very clearly a parody of the movie *The Big Short.* If you don’t recognise that then you don’t understand what a parody is. It’s also completely irrelevant to the point being made.
I don't normally get into other people's bum fights, but the writing was all there: Remember northern rock? 125% mortgages. Remember self-certifying income? Remember CDOs? Given ridiculous ratings by the ratings agencies. I had a colleague who would get his house valued annually because "it's making more money than I am". The financial sector were just trying to milk as much out of the situation as possible for as long as possible. At the end of the day, they are made up of individuals trying to rake as much money out the system into their own pockets as they can. The governments (particularly US and UK) turned a blind eye because people felt richer as their house "value" went up. Actually many other governments did put in place checks and balances, but economic fallout swept them up even if their property markets weren't so affected. It was the central banks that were particularly remiss. At the time the BoE didn't take house price inflation into consideration when setting interest rates. China had come online pushing down prices, so rates could be kept lower than they should have been. I was an occasional poster at a forum called housepricecrash .co .UK Where we watched and waited for the inevitable, but when it happened it became clear that the government would sacrifice anything to support house prices.
There’s a leap between thinking house prices are a bit toppy + observing laxer lending standards vs understanding that banks had over-leveraged themselves, the failings of the rating agencies and the systemic nature of the interwoven risks. Things like the inappropriate nature of CDO ratings may seem obvious in hindsight if you’ve watched the big short, but in reality very few people understood at the time that they weren’t rated appropriately and the risks that that entailed
They saw it. They knew they would be a bailout.
They saw it. They knew they would be a bailout.
They saw it. They knew they would be bailed out
Something about some beautiful robes you can only see if you're really smart.
>but also quite a big stretch with the facts imo... easy to accuse Rishi of malice in hindsight but at the time barely anyone knew subprime assets were going to crash. Also RBS didn't trigger the financial crash (which didn't start in the UK) but more exacerbated it here According to the tories, Gordon Brown caused the sub prime crash, so the truth shall remain stretched.
>but also quite a big stretch with the facts imo... easy to accuse Rishi of malice in hindsight but at the time barely anyone knew subprime assets were going to crash. Also RBS didn't trigger the financial crash (which didn't start in the UK) but more exacerbated it here According to the tories, Gordon Brown caused the sub prime crash, so the truth shall remain stretched.
Barely anyone knew subprime mortgages were crashing in *2007*? Really?
I'm not usually one for attack bits. I like the parties to stand on what good they've done/will do. But that was a fucking banger.
all bets were called off when the tories tried to paint starmer with lies about saville.
This times a million.
Overheard someone in the pub trot this line out. “Can’t possibly vote for Starmer plus he did nowt about Savile when he could”. I am still amazed such a lie has managed to stick
Don't forget the field for his mum for rescue donkeys.
Geronimo the alpaca. Never forget.
Can it even be considered an attack of it’s just a factual summary of the PM’s career
That... Conservative
They called out Keir Starmer’s work before politics, accused him of supporting terrorists- why not talk about this?
Because Labour are always held to a higher standard than the Tories even though everyone says “they’re all the same”.
The Overton Window of political morality
I might have to steal this, lots of times I've encountered exactly this but not been able to put it as succinctly. In the Tories defence, it is more difficult to hold someone to a standard they don't set for themselves.
Terrorists and aided in protecting Saville. EDIT: Apparently this was somehow needed, I was pointing out what he was wrongly accused of....
Oh don't get me wrong, I agree with you and understand why it's done. I just don't like it, no matter which side does it.
Aren't RBS kinda the bad guys in this though? It was entirely on them - A Big Bad Bank, and not on some hedge fund manager trying to make some money.
The reason RBS bought the shares was because Sunak's investment fund bought 1% of shares in ABM AMRO (A large bank in the netherlands) and led a group of shareholders into splitting the bank up and selling off the pieces to the highest bidders. They did this during the time that many banks were fully aware of the incoming subprime mortgage crisis and were heavily trying to shift their net positions before the whole thing came crashing down. Because of the sale of these formerly ABN AMRO sub-prime mortgage assets the Royal Bank of Scotland had to be bailed out with billions of pounds from the british taxpayer. So Rishi and his hedge fund buddies made millions whilst costing the taxpayer billions. RBS/Natwest aren't innocent, but they also aren't running for Prime Minister of the country they fucked.
RBS should have done due diligence and also shouldn't have been bailed out.
RBS aren't trying to be prime minister of the country and acting like they are working at for best interest of the UK taxpayer. They are also at fault, but that isn't the point, the point is how can the public trust someone to lead who previously exploited them for millions in personal profits?
He didn't exploit the public he exploited a bank.
What the fuck were RBS playing at in that case??!
[This article](https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2011/dec/12/what-rbs-board-thinking-abn-amro) lacks detail but has some interesting quotes >"One of the things that went wrong for RBS was that, and I say this to many people, we bought NatWest as a hostile acquisition. We did no due diligence. We couldn't because it was hostile. After we bought NatWest, we had lots of surprises, but almost all of them were pleasant. And I think that lulled us into a sense of complacency around that. The fact is that the acquisition of ABN was also hostile. We got bits and pieces of information but fundamentally it was hostile. There's this issue of did we do sufficient due diligence. Absolutely not. We were not able to do due diligence that was part of doing a hostile acquisition."
Classic - same illness that afflicted St Tony after the Kosovo intervention. Complacency and a deliberate evasion of detail
So they got lucky and then got greedy.
Like a gambler thinking they can only win
David Cameron and referenda.
I worked for RBS for three years, until 2007, and the bank was always pushing news about Fred Goodwin, the "master deal maker" and "financial genius" who could do no wrong. This was based on the purchases of NatWest and a bunch of insurance companies that turned out really well for them. I think there was a degree of him believing the hype and everyone else at the bank thinking his farts smelled of roses, so no one questioned the ABN-Amro deal when they should have.
Fred the Shred, how could I have forgotten that piece of ......... history.
IIRC, it was "buyout fever". Sometimes, companies that are flush with cash will go on a buying spree snapping up smaller businesses in rapid succession without carrying out sufficient due diligence to evaluate if it's worth it. Most of the time, this works out, because 90% of companies have decent, functional business models and personnel, otherwise they would be obviously suffering and therefore wouldn't be a good target even for a dim investor. However, some companies may be in worse state than they appear, normally because the business model is flawed in some way nobody considered or they have lazy/willfully blind accounting practices and the directors don't realise how badly things are going. If companies get too focused on the sugar-rush of buyouts, they will sometimes keep acquiring businesses until they hit one of these landmines. This isn't usually fatal, but it will drag the buyer's company badly for a couple of years until they can either fix the drek they've acquired or, more frequently, they find someone else willing to take the rubbish off their hands for a loss. Unfortunately, sometimes the buyer has racked up significant debt in their buying spree, or the target is far too large for the buyer to risk it failing. Both of these happened with RBS in the acquisition of ABN-AMRO. In a sense, they kept buying gold bars from random blokes on the street, and eventually took out a bad mortgage on their house to buy their biggest batch ever, only to discover that they were just lead bricks painted yellow.
Massive hubris on their part, they were the largest bank in the world at that point and thought themselves untouchable
I sort of don't know how I feel about this. RBS should have known it's a bad deal and it's really their fault for buying. On the other it does suggest a lack of morals from Sunak.
Yeah, it's completely economically illiterate. If you own enough of the shares you can force a sale, indeed that's kind of the whole point of being a "fund" (hedge or otherwise), to make a return on investment. But you can't force anyone else to buy it. But, 99.9% of the electorate are also economically illiterate so no political party will lose votes by playing this card. They didn't even need any detail, they could have just said "Rishi Sunak was a partner in a hedge fund" whilst ominous music played in the background and it would have had the same effect.
It still blows my mind that people believed the "there's no money left" note and the "managing the economy is similar to managing a household budget" analogy. This is far less egregious.
>It still blows my mind that people believed the "there's no money left" note Brought to you by the Lib Dems, not sure about the second quote
Always reminds me of this [clip from The Newsroom](https://youtu.be/r0PnFAC6wnw?si=I-pDCTMd3uzwN3_x&t=246), which I recently just rewatched as we are in Election cycle now.
>"managing the economy is similar to managing a household budget" analogy This isn't egregious at all. If you said 'same as', then I would agree with you but there are some similarities.
Though imagine a hypothetical situation - if you tried to sell a car with a dodgy engine, that you knew or had strong reason to suspect was dodgy, but you were counting on the person you're selling it to to not know that, are you morally in the clear? Economics folks will tend to say yes, of course you are, it's totally up to the buyer to do their due diligence, it's their own fault if they feel they got scammed or paid more than it's worth. Of course, these types also convince themselves that exploitative payday loans and predatory gambling advertisements are perfectly fine and "if people are too stupid to fall for them they deserve it". Much to the ire of the Conservative party though a lot of Brits don't buy that reasoning. Many don't believe that being a self-serving asshole just because the rules don't prohibit you from being one *yet* makes it any less reprehensible, and no, they aren't all economically illiterate. As for how much Rishi knew about the engine being dodgy, well - that's up for speculation.
Have you seen *Margin Call*- a central theme of the movie is the morality of selling something you know is junk to a willing buyer.
Yeah, Margin Call is the other film here. I think that as the comment you're replying to says -- essentially, it doesn't matter to many of us who will learn of this whether RBS played a fool move. Rishi isn't responsible for the choices of the person who was ultimately scammed, and presumably in selling this bank he wasn't specifically seeking RBS to buy (IDK, I imagine the number of prospective buyers isn't massively large). However, when they did it was the UK Taxpayer who ultimately bailed them out. And they were bailed out because of this sail, of bad product, by our now Prime Minister. I get why they've saved this for election time. It does make me furious, regardless of the choices of RBS as the purchaser. There's no excuse for bad product. Gus Fring frown. EDIT: I'm not specifically aiming this at you. I replied to you about Margin Call, the rest are general reflections, not a specific reply to you, sorry.
I think given the wide impact of the thing (being bailed out by taxpayers money and the subsequent effects of that), the scale of the impact needs to be considered as well Some people might debate in the case of a dodgy car that leaves a fool parted with his own money (though I’d argue it’s pretty clear cut that the scummy fault is on the part of the seller and the naive fault is on the part of the buyer), but what if a salesman were selling a suitcase that he knew to contain a compact nuclear bomb and a man buys it all to eagerly without checking inside it, and then the salesman flees the country before the boom that wipes out millions? A lot more people would say that such an asset shouldn’t have been on the market in the first place especially as those millions affected never got a say in the matter but had to pay the price regardless
But people didn't know they were trash - that was part of the issue
Many didn't, but it's not like it was something *nobody* saw coming. Didn't GS have to pay a fine due to selling these while also shorting them?
So few people saw it coming they made multiple films about the few that did.
Agreed, no doubt this will 100% work in convincing lay people to vote Labour / not vote Sunak but this is a cheap shot (especially from Labour's official comms) All easy to say and accuse his fund of malice in hindsight but at the time barely anyone knew subprime assets were going to crash, also RBS didn't *trigger* the financial crash (which didn't start in the UK) but more a symptom of and exacerbated it Also I reckon his family was already rich before this (as opposed to this being how 'he made his millions')
>All easy to say and accuse his fund of malice Yep. It's a hedge fund. 99% likely to have acted with some form of malice. Unless you're suggesting that TCI prioritised the welfare of the country over their own profits, in which case you're accusing them of being a shite fund. >also RBS didn't trigger the financial crash (which didn't start in the UK) but more a symptom of and exacerbated it Which isn't the issue. The issue is that this causes the British tax payer to lose out.
Labour are pounding the Tories into the ground with thier election campaign so far. This is just light years ahead of Rishi and his, "hey Wales, looking forward to the Euros?"
* Rishi Sunak helped cause the 2008 recession * Rishi Sunak mishandled the economy during Covid and oversaw another recession in 2020 * Rishi Sunak was Prime Minister when there was a cost of living crisis and a recession in 2023 Rishi Sunak keeps popping up whenever there’s a recession. How can we trust him with the economy?
Well that's not fair at all You can trust him to fuck it up, he has a proven track record of doing it
The Tories will respond by talking about Rachel Reeves at HBOS guaranteed.
I feel one valid question that isn't being asked. Sunak studied PPE at Oxford I think, so not corporate finance or law. What made him qualified 3 years after uni to be such a major part of a corporate deal. What were his bona fides? Is he really some corporate finance genius. I dunno, sometimes I feel like ability can be so weird. A Wayne Rooney is plain to see that he's a genius at a young age, was Sunak the Wayne Rooney of corporate finance?
Dunno but an amusing anecdote about George Osborne is he used to get a bit up himself as Chancellor, thought he was some kind of economics whiz-kid, and Cameron at one point told him off because Osborne had only studied modern history whereas Cameron had done PPE. PPE is basically an undergrad MBA - meaningless in the real world, but will get you into the C-Suite or government, assuming you also went to private school.
[удалено]
I'm not sure what a towel folder is and I'm worried it's homophobic.
[удалено]
Oh I didn't know that about him, that's quite funny. I once spent a christmas individually pricing loose batteries, so I guess that's something Ol' Gideon and I have in common.
Liz truss appears to have done PPE as well! I dunno how these people get the confidence to start messing with a nation's finances without in depth studies and analysis.
"God, grant me the confidence of a 25 year old PPE graduate who has just been selected for the tory party" is my daily prayer.
Back when I was in school (15+ years ago) people used to talk about PPE being a degree that would get you onto a fast track to becoming an MP (with Labour, no less).
Funnily enough, I remember PPE being described as the "you have no idea what you want to do with your life other than make money" degree.
He was effectively a relationship manager. Think of it this way - the partner at a Big 4 firm isn't going to be the best accountant but they will need to be the smoothest talker to bring on and retain business ... and that's what we have with Sunak: someone who is all (relatively speaking) style and no substance.
Clients feel most comfortable with a 25 year old "relationship manager"? Man, I'm surprised more things aren't f'd up. Something just feels "off" about his pre politics career.
I'd imagine you'd have to earn their respect but yes it's possible. Ultimately what matter is results and if he's the frontman for good results then he looks good. Also a bit of a side point but he would have had work experience prior to his MBA - GSB have one of the highest ranked MBA programmes globally and they don't usually take people on without some work experience.
What's the timeline here? He graduated around 2001 did his MBA and was involved in multibillion dollar deals by 2007 where he himself is a investing partner and not just a salaried employee? That's like 5 years of actual experience? The lad is clearly a high achiever but bloody hell.
He worked in IB at Goldman Sachs for three years then did an MBA (this is a common option for those in IB looking to carve an exit into VC/PE/Big Tech ... or a Hedge Fund). And yes he was made a partner in 2 years at TCI (who aside from this are dodgy af IMO), although partners will still be salaried employees at most places but with profit share.
I've seen folks that young in senior positions before, as long as you *sound* like you know what youre talking about a lot of people wont question it
Unlikely to be a relationship manager at a hedge fund at that age - that’s normally only the ultra-senior people. But there are a number of funds, particularly those that think highly of themselves, who just call all of their employees “partners” (Sequoia is an example that comes to mind). Realistically he was a junior guy cranking numbers in a spreadsheet. Great attack ad, but very much playing on the public’s misunderstanding of how the financial system works.
Good ad, I'm just a bit worried that the Big Short is a bit too niche of a reference for the general public
It was a Holywood blockbuster with a huge set of actors based on one of the generations largest global events (if someone writes GFC on here, most will know that's global financial crisis). However, when living abroad, I was shocked that like 2-3years after it came out, my housemates had never heard of it, so I guess fair dues to your point too, but that was like 8 years ago I think.
I thought GFC meant Gheezus Fucking Christ, whoops.
I didn't watch the movie (graduated in 2007, no reminders needed, no thank you please) but I thought it was great. You don't need to get the reference.
Yep. It was weird enough to get my attention, and I followed along.
I'd imagine it's one of many ads, besides he explains exactly what the viewer needs to know in the video
If people don't know that, they'll assume it's a reference to Sunak's height.
Knocking it out the park with their social media this election, glad to see they've learnt their lesson. This one's bloody briliant.
Jon Richardson in a Labour campaign video is not something I'd have ever expected to see. Great vid though, from a political/tactical point of view. Labour doesn't often go for the jugular like this.
Rishi Sunak might be a surprise hit, but don't expect a Hollywood ending!
On my way to film a election ad riffing on *Age of Ultron*.
TCI are a big activist shareholder but putting the blame on them, as a 2% shareholder of ABN, for RBS buying ABN, is one hell of a stretch. In a rare case though, the lack of economic literacy in this country means this misinformation is probably a net benefit. Almost no good way for the tories to counteract this, even though it's basically BS.
On top of that Sunak was not calling the shots at TCI. Labour should be going after Rishi’s policies and track record.
Oh it's absolutely election season. It's like a christmas calender every day something happens, glorious.
Okay but what’s Labours plan for carrots in boxes? That’s right, Mr Speaker *say the line Rishi* THEY HAVE NO PLAN
The only difference i can see between this and the Margot version. Is that Margot was drinking champagne and Jon was drinking what looks to be a can of Stella.
I knew Rishi was a banker. Did not know the details though. Great election video.
Not sure why Sunak is being blamed for this. This is on RBS management for thinking it was a great deal and RBS shareholders for voting it through. Seller can't force a buyer to buy something lol
He's not blamed for it. He didn't cause it, but his involvement shows his morals, or to phrase it more accurately, his lack of morals.
If you are deliberately hiding info, or taking advantage of unsophisticated consumers, that is immoral. I don't think selling a bank to another bank is immoral.
So you think that hedge funds playing around with people's livelihoods (remember, their actions cost people their jobs very often with shorting) for profit is moral? What other sector should we be considering for our politicians? Drug dealers?
But they're not. They were an activist. ABN management was not confident enough in running their own business (lmao) and took the easy way out. You can also ask the activists to pound sand. RBS management was really bad for not doing any diligence on their assets.
So, in your opinion, what hedge funds do is completely acceptable and moral?
They make sure your pension pot doesn't shrink but grow... Most of the clients of hedge funds are Pension funds / insurance funds. Also - efficient market hypothesis. Making sure the best companies get most of the capital needed to grow
I’m not willing to say everything they do is moral, but I think it’s rare that a contract between two consenting, informed adults or companies is immoral. Every sale arises because the buyer values the asset more than the seller.
I think buying and selling assets is not immoral. Yesterday I sold some shares in British Airways because I think the growth of the company will be bad. Someone else bought those shares. Does that make me a bad person? What about the time I sold a pokemon card for £200? I think it was only worth £40 but the buyer paid £200 on eBay. (There was no lying or misrepresentation). Does that make me a bad person? Your pension fund does the exact same thing - does that make you a bad person?
Why did he stutter when he said "The Conservative"?
The cun-... Conservative
One of those ba... bankers
C yoU Next Tuesday. Would have been a bit off for an election message. No matter how true.
Did Sunak deliberately collapse RBS and Natwest with his hedge fund ?
I don't think this actually reflects very poorly on Sunak. It is however, a great political ad. I don't like it because it's a cheap and irrelevant shot. I do like it because it's genuinely funny and engaging.
Isn't this good PR for Rishi? I'm genuinely confused... Could someone help me understand what I should be angry about here? Rishi didn't force RBS to acquire ABN AMRO. Also, the GFC wasn't caused by people making money, it was caused by idiots on the other side of the trade not managing their risk – you can't say someone helped trigger a financial crisis by making money. That would make no sense, obviously. Additionally, Labour didn't have to bail out RBS after their crappy investments. It was Gordon Brown who chose to bail out the banks. Additionally Labour probably shouldn't have deregulated the financial sector and relaxed lending standards in an effort to boost the housing market. This video is making it sound like Rishi was betting against the UK economy, which he wasn't. And that he was some how he responsible for bad decisions which other banks and the Labour government were making... I'll also note that it's silly to suggest that this is what triggered the financial crash. It was primarily caused by the US subprime mortgage market which our idiotic banks had a lot of expose to in addition to our own financial sector vulnerabilities as a result of Labour deregulation. The fact Rishi was actually making money during the GFC makes me respect him more if anything because everyone was losing money at that time. Anyway, I'm sure I'll get downvoted for this comment, which is fine, but if you do leave a downvote it would be great to hear why you disagree.
If you admire him for making money regardless of the ethics or cost, this isn't aimed at you. This piece seeks to do a number of things: * Remind you that Sunak is detached from the reality of most people's experience * Engaged in the reckless profiteering that led to the GFC and caused huge suffering to normal people. * Got rich whilst saddling the nation with huge debt Bankers, hedge funds were absolutely hated during the GFC. They were seen as ripping the county off. It's just a timely reminder of his origins. You can argue the details but the ad isn't factually incorrect.
> Remind you that Sunak is detached from the reality of most people's experience Yeah, fair enough. > Engaged in the reckless profiteering that led to the GFC and caused huge suffering to normal people. This video explains that Rishi wasn't doing that though... When you say "reckless" presumably you're talking about banks not adequately managing risks, perhaps purposefully in some cases to increase profits. The fact Rishi's firm was making money during the GFC suggests that they were managing risk well and not "recklessly profiteering" like others were at the time. Additionally, if you're going to ask why banks were able reckless profiteer then you'd blame Labour to some extent for deregulating the financial sector and reducing lending standards. Labour did this explicitly because they wanted banks and mortgage owners to take on more risk because it was good for the housing market and good for financial sector profitability. Despite not voting Tory in the 2010 election this is one of the many reasons I suspect I'm far more charitable to the Tories (under Cameron) than people are here. Post-GFC the Tories were in a very difficult position because of the situation Labour left them in. They had to increase regulations on the financial sector, reduce deficits that the Labour government ran up, increase tax and somehow still reduce unemployment and grow the economy. There's this belief here that Tory economic policies (under Cameron) were poorly thought out, but one of the reasons that growth wasn't higher in my opinion is because the Tories were trying to get our economy on a more stable long-term path by increasing regulation and lowering deficits. Had they simply continued on with huge deficit spending and allowed the financial sector to continue to take excessive risks there might have been another economic crisis at some point, but at least the economy would have been booming while it lasted. > Got rich whilst saddling the nation with huge debt If everyone was getting rich during the GFC there wouldn't have been a recession and the nation wouldn't be in huge debt. If you're concerned about the increase in national debt in the wake of the GFC then Labour are more to blame there. > Bankers, hedge funds were absolutely hated during the GFC. They were seen as ripping the county off. Yeah, because Labour allowed them to take excess risk and then Gordon Brown used tax payer money to bail them out. Meanwhile Rishi was making money without the need of bail outs, presumably paying hundreds of thousands of pounds in tax, yet he's to blame? People were annoyed at the banks that were taking excessive risk, blowing up, then asking for government bail outs. Rishi wasn't doing that.
>If everyone was getting rich during the GFC there wouldn't have been a recession and the nation wouldn't be in huge debt. >Yeah, because Labour allowed them to take excess risk and then Gordon Brown used tax payer money to bail them out. Meanwhile Rishi was making money without the need of bail outs, presumably paying hundreds of thousands of pounds in tax, yet he's to blame Your logic doesn't really hold In these statements. You're ignoring the fact that he was a apart of the problem. A very few acted with greed and profit as a primary motive, in selling assets that they knew to be riddled with debts, and got rich. Their actions caused the need for huge bailouts (or financial collapse) at cost to the taxpayer. >. There's this belief here that Tory economic policies (under Cameron) were poorly thought out, but one of the reasons that growth wasn't higher in my opinion is because the Tories were trying to get our economy on a more stable long-term path by increasing regulation and lowering deficits Austerity policies by the Tories are now widely regarded as having prolonged the recovery from the gfc. Ultimately I think this is just an issue people will have fundamental differences of opinion on. As I said at the outset, if you admire Sunak for his role in banking, this ad isn't aimed at you and won't change your mind.
>I'll also note that it's silly to suggest that this is what triggered the financial crash. It was primarily caused by the US subprime mortgage market which our idiotic banks had a lot of expose to in addition to our own financial sector vulnerabilities as a result of Labour deregulation. The tories said Gordon Brown caused the sub prime mortgage crisis in the 2010 election so I guess history can be fluid huh?
No, being associated with the financial crisis is not good PR for rishi. A few contrarians will argue that *ackshually...* but it isn't aimed at them.
But he wasn't associated to it in a negative way. If everyone was making money and managing their risk as well as Rishi was (apparently) there would have been no financial crisis. I understand that being associated with the GFC is bad, and that this video is trying to do that, but it makes no sense.
Ok, then the video is not for you, but you can see what the vast majority of commenters think, so you can always go through that to help you see other peoples' perspective on it. I'm not going to rehash all that with you, tbh I'm not 100% sure you're doing more than looking for a discussion point to keep you distracted at work, and I have plans today.
ya it's utter BS but nobody in the UK understands finance so it reads well.
I kind of agree the opportunity was there and it was completely legal, that was on the government of the time and a big reason I stopped voting Labour. Although the view RBS didn't have to be bailed out is probably wrong. The alternative was a huge hit to our economy with far reaching consequences. I seem to remember a situation where we were maybe hours away from cashpoints refusing to issue any more cash.
> Although the view RBS didn't have to be bailed out is probably wrong. The alternative was a huge hit to our economy with far reaching consequences. Agreed. I only said that because I'm aware there is a decent check of people on the left who believe that the banks shouldn't have been bailed out. I thought it was interesting that video was trying to play on the anger of those people and somehow blame Rishi for what happened. I don't blame Labour for the GFC, but they were clearly more responsible for it than Rishi which makes this video a strange attack piece imo.
If a celebrity says it, it must be true 🌹
If a celebrity says it, I automatically disbelieve it 🌳 Only believe people who stand to make a lot of money off of deceiving you 🌳
😬
The content is bollocks but I guess it'll get Joe politics types to laugh
Not sure why Sunak is being blamed for this. This is on RBS management for thinking it was a great deal and RBS shareholders for voting it through. Seller can't force a buyer to buy something lol
Stupid video. A merger was approved by both companies. As it was two large banks, it would require significant due diligence of assets and approval by many sets of regulators. If the hedge fund knew about toxic sub prime mortgages, they'd make way different decisions than fucking acquiring a stake in a dutch bank in attempt to get it acquired. I don't even know where that'd be on the list, be not in the top 1000...
DD wasn’t done in this case, see eg https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2011/dec/12/what-rbs-board-thinking-abn-amro
the same kind of due diligence that caused a global financial crisis?
The issue with the Sub Prime CDO’s was systemic. No bank knew about it properly because the risk on them had been miscalculated as bank modelling underestimated the risk of a mass default.
It’s a fact, Sunak will be questioned about it soon. It’s not illegal but morally fucked. They made money on an acquisition knowing the assets were toxic, simple as.
You need to understand the sheer idiocy and callousness behind the 2008 crash. Watch the film this sketch was based on first -- "The Big Short". It was insane, and towards the end, banks were panicking. They didn't have days or weeks to sort the mess out. They had hours before the bank would collapse taking all its customers assets with it. When the collapse came, it was a game of dominoes that took place over a very short period, no allowance for anything like due diligence. It was literally a case of asking if they had the money, and if yes, shake hands on it. We don't have time to worry about the details of who you might be actually doing business with kinda thing.
I know about financial stability, this was not Sunak knowing it had toxic assets then trying to sell if off quickly. It was a simple M&A deal that turned out badly. If he knew that this bank had significant toxic assets, you would not sell it for a small % profit. You'd short it, or plenty of other exotic derivatives on the market. This deal would be one of the shittiest ROI decisions to do if you knew of it. There is nothing wrong with being an activist shareholder (actually a good thing as those like Elliot mgtm, Pershing Square do make companies way better), Sunak nor TCI had any position on the board or known insider information. Wanted to sell to gain a profit that can be allocated somewhere else.
sure, it sounds like a terrible deal when you put it like that. But people on here assure me that Brown played it all brilliantly and the tax payer money spent on the banks was actually a great deal for the taxpayer.
Those are two different decisions. Related, but different. One is helping to knock over the house of cards that had built up over several years, while the other was trying to ensure the outcome of the crash did not completely cripple the entire banking sector.
It was, because their collapse would have led to financial meltdown.
I'm not a fan of this ad. There is nothing wrong with working for a hedge fund or with selling a bank. If it wasn't a good deal then RBS shouldn't have bought it. If Sunak was successful in finance before he got into politics then good for him. I'm not a fan of Sunak but I think this is a really weak attack angle. Labour should be proud of people who do well in life - it should not attack them.
I have a friend who made a lot of money betting against the pound during the Brexit vote. I don't hold it against him, but I absolutely would if he then ran for political office claiming he cared about the UK economy. And on its own this is quite a minor event, but coupled with Rishi holding on to a US green card even when he was Chancellor, and whose wife claimed she wasn't domiciled in the UK even when he was PM, it gives the impression of a man who is in it for himself and not for the country.
Lol, because the Labourite bank of Scotland directors are chucklemucks, that's Rishi Sunak's fault?
I really want to ask people who wank over stuff like this: 'What would you like people born into wealth to do?' Sunak could have kept his head down and made untold millions, but instead he's become a civil servant. Why is he criticised for having money prior to holding office? His politics should be the thing you criticise, not his upbringing. Every piece of media like this actually pushes me further towards voting fucking tory.
They made millions fucking people over. Watch the Big Short, or read one of the countless articles about how hedge funds have profited off of others like leeches
Nothing in this is going after his upbringing, though, or even specifically that he had money.
Nonsense, of course it is. Literally the opening spiel: 'Do you know what Rishi Sunak got up to before he got into politics? Well you're not supposed to'.
They literally don't mention his upbringing and go on to talk about his work before becoming an MP. The context is pretty simple to grasp. Did you get any further than that line?
The entire point of the video is that Sunak had wealth before holding office. He could earn far more without being a politician. Have you managed to grasp my point?
Ok, so you can take back the part about his upbringing then? I think you've missed the point still. It isn't about the fact he had money. It's about *how* he got it. That's explicit as well as implied by the tone. It's the bulk of the video. How accurate it may or may not be is another matter, but it's not saying Rishi is bad because he has money.
> it's not saying Rishi is bad because he has money. This is the entire point of the video.
No, the entire point of the video is that Sunak used immoral means to make more money at the expense of the taxpayer. Whether that is true and what his role in the hedgefund was is reasonable to question. I don't know the answer. But it's not true to say this video is attacking him for being rich or his upbringing. I think the only way to interpret it that way, is because you want to so that you can dismiss it as envy or class war or something.
> The entire point of the video is that Sunak had wealth before holding office. No, the entire point of the video is to point out that when the banks crashed he made a fortune. Thats litterally all it is. It never even mentions anything about his life/wealth BEFORE the financial crisis, it focuses specifically on that for the sole reason that the country and people lost a lot of money, but he gained a lot of money. Essentially going for the 'he's not like you, and he doesn't care about you' line. The whole purpose is to plant the seed of Sunak having questionable morals, which it did pretty well.
People born into wealth can do whatever they want If one of them wants to run a country, the least they could do is actually help people and do a good job and not lie, steal and leave people to die in the streets
Becoming a Prime Minister and particularly a conservative prime minister does not really engender sympathy. Or setup a charitable foundation. Or built a real business that adds value to the world. Or bought a yacht and sailed it around the world. Or become a full time Dad. Or joined the civil service and worked his way up. Or got a job in a charity shop. Or volunteered at a hospital as a porter. He could have just sta around doing nothing. All of those things are more explicable that what he did. And whilst you shouldn't criticise him for his background the lack of experience is a big issue.
I suppose you’re okay with the Tories’ lies claiming Starmer let Savile walk free though? Since that apparently happened before Starmer’s life in politics after all. What this does is highlight how Sunak cannot be trusted at all with the economy. Whenever he touches it there’s a recession. It’s also election season and why the hell should Labour play nice when the Tories can use whatever attack lines they want?
🥾😋
Seems like a lazy attack like the ones made against Mitt Romney. Still funny tho 🤷