Breaking News: Ing

poppy10_2

Bloomberg have just stated that ING will get a €10billion injection from the dutch government - that's significant by any standards, especially as the dutch are investing €20billion in total to their whole financial sector.

The Dutch government will take an ownership stake in the company, buying non-voting preferred shares at paying out 8.5% per annum.

Not looking good....

Estrela

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7679021.stm

The move follows a weekend of meetings with Dutch finance officials, after ING revealed it expects to make a 500m euro ($670m; £387m) third quarter loss. (not billion! as mentioned by an earlier poster)
Details of the deal would be released later on Sunday, officials said.
The Dutch government has pledged to make 20bn euros available to protect the financial sector from the effects of the global credit crisis.
The ING rescue deal was agreed with the Dutch finance ministry and the country's central bank and was due to be confirmed at a news conference on Sunday evening. ING is one of the world's largest banks, with more than 75 million customers worldwide, Reuters news agency says.

----
Let's pass on the correct information, please!!!

poppy10_2

FT are confirming the €10billion stock injection story. Full details to be announced tomorrow at 6pm. Looking very bad.....

jingle68

cwcw wrote: »

Surprised to hear that it is people on internet forums and the naming of their thread titles that has brought about the global economic crisis. Have you let Robert Peston know? :rotfl:

As for ING being in the passport scheme, please see:

http://www.fscs.org.uk/consumer/how_to_claim/deposits/eea_firms_that_have_topped_up/

from the fscs website..
A bank established in another EEA state should be a member of that state's compensation scheme, which is designed to protect depositors in that EEA country, and those with accounts at branches in other EEA countries. Where the bank's home state scheme provides a lower limit of compensation than FSCS (i.e. less than 100% of £50,000), or the scope of protection is less than FSCS's, the bank may choose to join FSCS to 'top up' the level of protection offered by the home state scheme.

the dutch protection scheme protects up to £77k, so the 'top up passport' scheme is not required as the protection is higher than £50k.

Joe65_2

baby_boomer wrote: »

There was no "emergency" story about ING before this weekend from the financial journalist bloodhounds or from the markets, so I can't see why it's warrants being described as an emergency.

Their position only seems to have become apparent last thing Friday:-
http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idUKTRE49G6UL20081017?symbol=0EYF.L

cwcw

jingle68 wrote: »

from the fscs website..
A bank established in another EEA state should be a member of that state's compensation scheme, which is designed to protect depositors in that EEA country, and those with accounts at branches in other EEA countries. Where the bank's home state scheme provides a lower limit of compensation than FSCS (i.e. less than 100% of £50,000), or the scope of protection is less than FSCS's, the bank may choose to join FSCS to 'top up' the level of protection offered by the home state scheme.

the dutch protection scheme protects up to £77k, so the 'top up passport' scheme is not required as the protection is higher than £50k.

But it's in the passport scheme because the FSCS does not guarantee the first £50k - it's guaranteed by the Dutch scheme, which has recently moved to above the FSCS level anyway. It's the same as with Icesave, except it's more than the first £16k to be provided by the foreign country. If anything, the fact that the new European protection moves it beyond FSCS protection is actually a bad thing because it means being entirely reliant on a foreign country for compensation.

"Passport" just means the country's own protection scheme "travels" with the bank.

opinions4u

cwcw wrote: »

If the bank would collapse without the loan, then it's very responsible indeed, since it's the truth.

Do you not understand that panic mongering could actually bring down a decent bank?

The truth is that wholesale funding has ceased up. This on its own could bring banks down, so governments around the world are ensuring that they are well capitalised (to deal with potential losses, look more appealing to wholesale funders and also deal with significant levels of withdrawals, should that occur).

The problems are across the sector and across the world.

Singling out one bank individually as "in trouble", when the truth is that they are being strengthened, could be precisely what tips a solid bank over the edge as people panic and withdraw their savings beyond the tolerance of their reserves.

Highlight the ING story by all accounts. But your initial headline was scaremongering, unneccessary and, while perhaps not deliberately so, irresponsible.

baby_boomer

At least if the Dutch government refuse to cough up there is somewhere to go - The European Court of Justice - unlike in the case of Iceland.

poppy10_2

baby_boomer wrote: »

There was no "emergency" story about ING before this weekend from the financial journalist bloodhounds or from the markets, so I can't see why it's warrants being described as an emergency.

Their share price dropped 28% on Friday - the markets knew something was up, as always it is us mug punters who are the last to know.

I bet you were the one of the ones screaming that Icesave was safe right to the end.

Rules of panicking
1. Don't panic
2. If you must panic, make sure you do so before everyone else.

JayTee99_2

this is how Bloomberg are reporting it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=apGW7B3WsEJo
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aU.QvC1gK.hI

CALM DOWN, EVERYONE,
i would be FAR more worried if the Dutch govt weren't stepping in to assist..