Lloyds Bank Quaker Founders turning in their graves

Quakers and workers' groups are not much discussed in the UK these days.  They formed our banks, chocolate industry and established fixed priced, fair trading.  They based their dealings on ethics and integrity.  That was back in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Lloyds bank was one of these.


The bank suffered during the financial crisis and was bailed out by the government.  They were ordered to reduce the number of branches and split from TSB, which they'd acquired earlier.  Lloyds swapped bonds for ECNs or Enhanced Capital Notes:

'What are ECNs and CoCos?

ECNs stands for Enhanced Capital Notes. They are, somewhat confusingly also referred to as CoCos or Contingent Convertibles. ECNs are a new form of fixed income security which have arisen out of the need for banks to increase their capital ratios as a result of the banking crisis. The first UK issuer of ECN's has been Lloyds Banking Group plc. This was under an Exchange Offer announced on 3 November to exchange its existing Tier 1 and Upper Tier 2 securities into new ECN's.

The key feature of the Lloyds ECN's is that while they carry mandatory coupon rights they may also be mandatorily converted into ordinary shares if the Core Tier 1 capital ratio of the bank falls below the 5% level (known as the trigger).'

In December 2014 Lloyds Bank announced that they intended to redeem these ECNs for below face value, in order to raise money.  This affected elderly savers and investors, who did not understand what had happened, nor that Lloyds had the power to do this.  Here is one example of the effects of the move.

I have discussed the work of Mark Taber in previous posts about the Co-op Bank.  He has worked on behalf of bond and preference share holders of various banks, ensuring that they were fairly treated.  Mark worked on this voluntarily (although he accepts donations).

When Mark Taber takes up the fight, you know the situation is serious and that financial institutions have behaved badly.

In this case, it appears that government regulatory authorities did not include ECNs in financial instruments that were monitored, leaving customers unprotected.

Lloyds Bank made excuses and implied that investors were remiss when they didn't read about the move, rather than admitting that they kept quiet about the poor deal for ECN holders.

One serious allegation is that Lloyds Bank misdescribed the ECNs and their terms and conditions when they were first offered.  Lloyds also fudged the initial description and definition of ECNs with a simple omission and switch of terms.  Lloyds Bank are challenged on the legality of their action.

BBC's Money Box featured the news in this programme (13.30 minutes in).

Antonio Horta Osorio, Lloyds Bank CEO, has already had time off from the job through stress.  He and his team seem to be ignoring the real distress caused to investors in buying back ECNs at less than half the price.

I believe that the Quaker founders would not approve of this sleight of hand.

Experience from the Co-operative Bank's attempt to trash its core values was that all customers rejected it, not just the affected bondholders.  I still maintain that the only way is ethics.

Postscript:

The case is currently going through the courts.  Here is an interesting comment by one investor.

More Quakers are probably spinning in their graves at this news.

Opening umbrellas causes rain

Occasionally I work with a client who has had a major health crisis such as a heart attack.  They admit to poor diet, zero exercise, high intake of alcohol and heavy smoking.  They are terrified of dying and seem unable (unwilling) to make any changes.  This is someone who is praying for a magic bullet to cure their health problems

Fear won't help them and may trigger further health problems with raised cortisol levels and disrupted sleep.

I introduce them to research findings and the work of specialist doctors and surgeons, who recommend specific incremental changes to improve heart health.  Each idea is dismissed or discounted as unworkable.  

A common argument is counter-evidence from a someone specialising in research that concludes red meat is most likely to cause heart attacks.  (= man/woman in white coat tells The Truth).

What the client fails to notice is that this researcher is an epidemiologist.  That means they don't actually conduct randomised, controlled, double blind studies that demonstrate cause-effect relationships.  They take population studies and compare the numbers of those who do and don't eat red meat with figures for heart disease.  

If I take population studies for those who open umbrellas and the incidence of rainfall in particular areas, I might wish to claim that opening umbrellas causes rain.  My readers would conclude that I'd lost my marbles or basic common sense.  They may NOT challenge big claims by researchers which fail to offer concrete proof.

Robb Wolf and Chris Kresser discuss this particular assertion that red meat causes heat disease.  Chris unpicks the research and demonstrates that early studies failed to distinguish between processed and unprocessed meats, nor did they consider the rest of the subjects' diet and lifestyles.  Later studies that did include these aspects were unable to conclude that red meat causes heart disease.

There is NO evidence that unprocessed red meat causes heart disease or any other disorder.  

If we eat too much protein, we may gain weight, because excess protein is converted to sugar.  We may also have problems with fat on red meat, if it comes from animals fed on grains rather than put out to grass.  That is NOT an argument to avoid fat, but to be wary about what the animal you eat was eating during its life.

I may not be able to help this particular client to change, particularly if it becomes clear that they are unable and unwilling to make any effort to improve their own health.  I regret that some researchers and journalists are so willing to spread misinformation and bad science.  

USA diet extremes

My story begins during a first visit to the USA.  Walking through a restaurant, I saw a woman pour bright orange gloop on her salad.  My English friend told me it was French dressing.  Now in Europe, french dressing is a light golden liquid made of oil and vinegar, sometimes with mustard and garlic added.

Kent Altena's video demonstrated what I'm talking about:

In recent years I've been surprised to see how much sweetener is included in low carb recipes from the USA.  This includes mayonnaise and whipped cream, which are generally unsweetened when homemade in the UK.  I made a cake from a recipe by Kent Altena and halved the quantity of Splenda sweetener.  It was still very sweet.

When I've commented on this on blog posts by prominent low carbers, they respond with incomprehension or get defensive.

This indicated that the SAD (Standard American Diet) was already pretty extreme with high levels of sugar.

I read Jimmy Moore's account of consuming a crate of sodas (carbonated soft drinks) in the days when he was morbidly obese.  In his efforts to lose and maintain lower weight, he seemed to resort to extremes.  In one period he ate steak 3-4 times a day (sometimes more) until he finally absorbed what guest interviewees such as Dr Steven Gundry had told him about reducing protein intake.  Jimmy is now permanently on a ketogenic diet, where he sometimes consumes a block of butter with one meal.  He claims this is the only way for him to maintain a lower weight and stay healthy.

I can believe that someone who has been 'metabolically broken' by past consumption habits may require extreme measures to bring health back into balance.

This is NOT an attack on Jimmy Moore or any other health blogger.  Jimmy does a great job spreading the word about health and nutrition around the world.

My concern is that health bloggers generalise from their particular age/gender/genetics/weath/family status/situation/health problem and suggest approaches that may not be appropriate for others.  I've heard the paleo fitness end of the community dismissing some approaches that are probably very effective for those with athritis or for menopausal women, for example.  I've heard childless low carbers dismiss concerns from parents with children who are conservative in their eating habits.  Some are obsessively focussed on food quality and ignored those on the poverty line, for whom such choices may not be available.  I also hear strident calls for very low carb eating, when this may not suit everyone, particularly those who suffer higher cortisol levels, when ketogenic states stress the body.

Many authors and podcasters in the field (including clinicians) make blanket recommendations without caveats or health warnings.

I've heard a young intelligent former vegan recommend that anaemic vegetarians eat a lot of spinach with fat to boost iron levels.  They do not mention high oxalic acid levels in spinach that bind with metals and make the iron inaccessible.

Vitamin K2 is widely recommended.  I hear no mention of how this supplement may trigger heart palpitations.  High vitamin K2 levels are found in spirulina also.  If someone has pre-existing heart arrhythmia problems, these supplements can trigger an episode (which may be life threatening.)

I consume few cereal grains, though sometimes eat Georgian cheese bread.  I've seen relatives die at an advanced age (90s to 100s) with all their marbles intact, despite consuming some bread in their diet on a regular basis.  I am not arguing that grains are good for everyone.  I'm challenging the notion that diets developed for people with extreme metabolic disorders may be beneficial for all.

EU bows to agribusiness pressure

Yes that's right, the European Parliament in Strasbourg has quietly passed a new food law to allow cultivation of GMO crops in member states.

I heard a tiny pieces about it on radio news, but found little on the internet.  Well Charlie Hebdo killings made a 'nice day to bury bad news'.  All heads were turned to focus on Islamic extremism.

As the article tells us:  'This comes in the midst of Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) talks aimed at securing multilateral growth through commerce between the EU and the US. Many environmentalists were afraid that such an agreement would ease GM crop laws since cultivation of GM crops is widely spread around the US.'

USA lawyers are currently suing the Uruguayan government in court (for sums exceeding the national budget) under a similar agreement signed between North and South America.

I'm willing to bet that, when TTIP is signed here, companies such as Monsanto will be bullying our government to allow widespread growth of GMO crops in the UK.

GM maize is likely to be authorised in the UK very soon.

Nature surveyed the pros and cons for GM crops and came down in the middle.

It seems that the European Parliament rushed this law through in a shoddy piece of legislation:

Two contributors to the field achieve a better balance when discussing diet and health, in my opinion. 

Dr Larry Mccleary, a neurosurgeon, gives considered responses to questions and attempts to put himself in the shoes of parents and carers of people with neurological disorders wanting to introduce dietary changes.  

Chris Masterjohn, a lipidologist, is also unwilling to make definitive statements without strong supportive evidence.

Celebrity chefs make poor scientists

I was listening to an interview with celebrity chef, Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall.  He has made his name in tv series showing how he grows fruit and veg and rears (and slaughters) animals on his farm, before cooking the produce.

He admitted that he'd had a shocking health scare.  His blood cholesterol levels were high and he was bordering on levels 'requiring statins'.  He went on to say that this was because of the amount of butter and cream he used to consume.

HFW is a high profile media celebrity and the story was widely reported.  Unfortunately Hugh is no scientist and has swallowed the NHS line on the cholesterol hypothesis hook, line and sinker.

The illustration above indicates another reason why his blood lipids and blood glucose levels may have soared:  sugars and starches.

Here are some other views:  Dr Malcolm Kendrick (on reasons to AVOID statins), Dr William Davis (on ways to become heart healthy through eliminating cereals) and Dr Stephen Gundry (on ways to improve heart and general health through diet and lifestyle).

Why do doctors get angry when diabetics lower their blood sugars?

I've talked to some people who feel browbeaten by their doctors.  They lower blood sugar levels by changing diet and lifestyle, but don't get the response they expect.  Lower blood sugar reduces blood pressure and endothelial damage in the circulatory system, I thought.  So lower blood sugar should reduce the risk of heart attacks, I believed.

Their doctor may then turn their attention to cholesterol levels and berate the patient for 'very high levels'.  If the patient takes the trouble to note down the numbers to check against NHS guidelines, they may find most numbers within the normal range, but triglycerides are a little higher.  'One swallow doesn't make a Summer' and it's not great scientific practice to take action based on a single reading for trigs (much the same as writing a prescription based on one blood pressure reading.)  You need to know if it's a one-off event based on some temporary trigger or a general trend.

Back to the blood sugar.

I'm a fan of Jenny Ruhl and her easy to read guidelines on diabetes and optimum blood glucose levels.

She helped solved the mystery of these doctors' reactions:

It turns out that some doctors have come to believe a good study that reached some poor conclusions based on shoddy analysis of data.  In short:  the research took 2 groups of people with type 2 diabetes - one lot had no intervention and the other took steps to reduce their blood sugar levels.  Some of the intervention group had heart attacks and died (more than in the non-intervention group).  The conclusion reached was that lowering blood sugar levels was DANGEROUS.

Another look at the data showed that some of the intervention group cheated and DID NOT lower their blood sugar levels.  Those that did had no heart attacks and became healthier.

Always view tabloid headline reports of medical research with scepticism.  It might also be an idea to treat doctors' negative statements about sensible diet and lifestyle changes with some detachment.  They may not have read the original research or treated it with the critical rigour it deserves.

It's your health and life.

NHS and the Mansion Tax diversion

Michael Gove, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Chief Whip, appeared on Radio 4's Question Time recently.  He said he was outraged and insulted at allegations by another panellist that the Coalition Government is privatising the National Health Service.

Who is he kidding?

Some of my work is in the NHS is in primary care.  The NHS is being privatised by stealth.  Here's how it works:  a particular service, such as Physiotherapy, is put out to tender.  The chosen provider is a private company.  As the NHS physiotherapy service loses market share, it withers on the vine.  When the contract comes up for renewal, there is no longer any NHS physiotherapy to make a bid for it.  True to form, the contracted out service proves to be more expensive than the NHS equivalent.  In the county I work, mental health services were under pressure.  The area health authority contracted a private company to provide low level Cognititive Behavioural Therapy paid for centrally.  As financial pressure mounted on GP surgeries, they looked around for cuts to make.  Locally funded counselling services were an easy target.  Patients now have CBT or nothing (a service which costs the NHS more than the locally funded counselling.)

Salaries have been flatlining for several years and many services typically provided by GPs have been contracted out, reducing income.  GP surgeries run as businesses, a legacy of arrangements made when the NHS was first founded.  The more that income shrinks, the greater the pressure.

The ambulance service is in crisis as the population has increased massively in the last 2 decades, but funding has not kept pace.  Trivial and prank calls contribute to expansion of demand, but not completely.  Paramedics report that they get no breaks on shifts, because the pressure is constant.  Staff are leaving.  People are dying because ambulances take too long to reach high risk cases.

What does this have to do with the Mansion Tax?

The Liberal Democrats promoted this idea, but failed to get it through the Coalition.  Labour are now advocating this policy and promising that funds raised will be spent on the NHS.  This plays well with many regions outside of London and the South East.

If you live in Pontefract, an impoverished part of West Yorkshire, you can buy a 5 bedroom, detached 5 bedroom house built in 1894 (with attic and cellar rooms and extensive grounds) for £595,000.

In Clapham, South London, you can buy a small 3 bedroom terraced house for the same price.

These are neither the cheapest regional area or the most expensive zone of London and the South East.

The Mansion Tax will hit lots of ordinary people, who will pay a premium on top of inflated housing prices.  It will not hit the non-domiciled Russians, Chinese or Middle Eastern multi-millionaires who are buying up properties all over the South East.  These are for investment, a bolt hole insurance in case the regime changes and many are left empty and crumbling over time.  These people tend to buy through companies and are often not subject to Stamp Duty and other taxes.  Nothing has been suggested to deal with this development that skews the property market.  Properties that are bought to let will have rental prices increased to absorb the Mansion Tax.  There are no rent controls, so accommodation costs are pushing people to the margins.

Why is this a diversion from the state of the NHS?

The biggest single threat to our state run National Health Service is the current move to join the TTIP.

The Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership is a bi-lateral tade agreement quietly being negotiated with the USA.  This has already been agreed between North and South America to devastating effect.  Private Eye describes it as a deal which opens the door for US corporate lawyers to challenge any service that is state run in the UK, demanding access for private companies.

If you watch/listen to BBC news and analysis you might imagine this does not exist, as TTIP is so rarely reported.  Negotiations are held in secret and nothing is being reported to the public.  TTIP did not feature in any of the political party conferences in the past month.  It is left to charities and pressure groups to gather support to block the deal.

Political parties are all careful to say that the NHS will remain free at the point of use under their stewardship.  They do NOT guarantee that it will be state run.

The mansion tax is a diversion from wholesale corporate sell off of the NHS.