We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Abu Dhabi Royal Family outmanoeuvres Gordon Brown (re Barclays)
beaujolais-nouveau
Posts: 651 Forumite
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article5563223.eceA clause inserted during the Abu Dhabi Royal Family’s investment in Barclays last October has made it practically impossible for the Government to take a meaningful stake in the bank, The Times has learnt. ... the small print in the deal, in which Barclays raised £7.3 billion from Abu Dhabi and Qatar, means that if the bank raises fresh capital before the end of June, the Middle Eastern investors would receive a greater number of shares for their original investment without paying more. If Barclays were to raise fresh capital at last night’s closing price, for example, it would automatically hand almost 50 per cent of the bank to the Middle Eastern investors. The only way to get around the anti-dilution clause, should Barclays need more money before the end of June, would be if new capital was raised at more than the 153p-a-share at which paper issued to Abu Dhabi and Qatar is due to convert into Barclays stock. This would mean that if the Government wanted to take a meaningful stake in the bank, it would have to do so by paying more than 153p for Barclays shares — which were trading at just 66.1p yesterday.
The clause was inserted at the request of Amanda Staveley, chief executive of PCP Capital, the private equity firm, who advised the Middle Eastern investors on taking the stake.
Why hasn't Gordon Brown made Amanda Staveley, chief executive of PCP Capital, his Business Secretary instead of Mandy Mandelson?
YouGov: £50 and £50 and £5 Amazon voucher received;
PPI successfully reclaimed: £7,575.32 (Lloyds TSB plc); £3,803.52 (Egg card); £3,109.88 (Egg loans)
PPI successfully reclaimed: £7,575.32 (Lloyds TSB plc); £3,803.52 (Egg card); £3,109.88 (Egg loans)
0
Comments
-
Probably due to the fact Amanda Staveley is clearly competent at her chosen vocation and is worth far more in the private sector than as a civil servant.
Would you employ Mandleson if you ran a company?0 -
Probably due to the fact Amanda Staveley is clearly competent at her chosen vocation and is worth far more in the private sector than as a civil servant.
Would you employ Mandleson if you ran a company?
It depends what I wanted. If was after someone with the ear of New Labour then I'd employ him like a shot.
As a complete outsider he seems to be a competent negotiator so I'd employ him for that too.
I definitely don't agree with his politics and he seems to have a weakness where his greed leads him astray or at least into deals which don't look great for a politician to enter.0 -
Not sure what this means, so if Barclays are in need of funds the Govt will allow it to go bust (sorry Gov no option). Does this mean that Barclays are totally secure or the opposite :eek: the market doesn't seem to keen.'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0
-
Not sure what this means, so if Barclays are in need of funds the Govt will allow it to go bust (sorry Gov no option). Does this mean that Barclays are totally secure or the opposite :eek: the market doesn't seem to keen.
AIUI, it means that if Barclays need bailing out, the Government will either have to tear up the contract Barclays has with the Abu Dhabi Royals (which it can do as the sovereign body in the UK) or pay well above the current market price for an equity stake.0 -
It depends what I wanted. If was after someone with the ear of New Labour then I'd employ him like a shot.... he seems to have a weakness where his greed leads him astray or at least into deals which don't look great for a politician to enter.
He is not a team-player, in my (first-hand) experience. Most employers need to engage team-players.YouGov: £50 and £50 and £5 Amazon voucher received;
PPI successfully reclaimed: £7,575.32 (Lloyds TSB plc); £3,803.52 (Egg card); £3,109.88 (Egg loans)0 -
beaujolais-nouveau wrote: »He is not a team-player, in my (first-hand) experience. Most employers need to engage team-players.
I have no idea. Never met the bloke. I would be quite interested to. IME, politicians are a pretty charismatic bunch - when you talk to them you end up agreeing with them somehow then you walk away and 2 days later think, "!!!!!!? You were talking rubbish".
It does take a couple of days for my brain to work out how a politico has bamboozled me though, in the flesh at least.0 -
I wouldn't employ Mandelscum to sweep the streets! Please show me an oilier, sleazier, dishonest self promoter and I'll eat my hat.0
-
AIUI, it means that if Barclays need bailing out, the Government will either have to tear up the contract Barclays has with the Abu Dhabi Royals (which it can do as the sovereign body in the UK) or pay well above the current market price for an equity stake.
It is more likely that Barclays have shafted their own previous existing shareholders even more than they first thought. It is difficult to think of many large companies that have treated shareholders with such utter contempt. So much for the management being the 'agent' of the shareholders.
I can well imagine the government dragging their heals until 30th June before they take a stake in Barclays - meanwhile the share price will probably go one way.
Probably saved the tax payer a few billion however.US housing: it's not a bubble
Moneyweek, December 20050 -
"!!!!!!? You were talking rubbish".
Yes.....we all know that !!!!!! :eek:'In nature, there are neither rewards nor punishments - there are Consequences.'0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards