RBS about to implode?

dopester

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Indeed - full nationalisation of this turd can't be far off at which point the shareholders risk losing everything. Not surprising that they are choosing to dump their shares before that happens.

Cmonnnn.

Many a shareholder have already been hammered.

I doubt many a pensioner who still have RBS shares, and have seen them crash from 700-ish to 50p-ish in such a short time, will be crying any further tears today.

Kez100

Kenny we had a fall in house prices of 30% in the 90's and then there was none of this carp going on and they went up but not by such stupid amounts as this time. Is plenty of bubble there to lose. Having said that, there are a lot of people who want to buy a house for their future home (as renting can be so dire for ones mental state in this country) and they will buy if affordable - by that I mean 3x income (and assuming they have a job)

However it pans out we have to have a bank which doesn't get involved in this !!!!!. Just does domestic stuff and small business and full guarantees. Perhaps it pays less in interest, so be it. Let other banks offer more risk if they want and greater return if they want (with no guarantees) but ensure they are not so intertwined they bring the world and us modest income earners down with them if they fail.

Conflict

tmm_aka_tracy wrote: »

Hi Guys,

I have an offset Mortgage with the One Account (RBS). My facility is only £62k, but I am 43K ahead as I have been working hard to get close to being mortgage free, with the option of being able to draw on money in the case of any emergency.

Would it make sense for me to move say £40K into another non RBS account, essentially, using my full mortgage facility, but ensuring that I still have significant savings in case I need them.

If they were to go under, I assume my mortgage (debt) of £17K would be passed on, but that I would have no access or option to withdraw any of my savings?

I'm feeling quite worried, but wouldnt know where to transfer the 'cash' to as the banks are all much of a muchness and subiduaries of each other (aren't they?).

Any wise words?

Thanks

If RBS goes under then it wont matter which bank you have your money in as they will all collapse. RBS is colossal - almost $2 Trillion in Assets and Debts, its just to big and with the way all the banks are intertwined RBS going will start a chain reaction that will take every other major bank in the west with it. The words too big to fail are banded around a lot but in RBS's case it might be too big to fail but it also is probably too big to save as well.

The only real hope would be to find a bank or building society that has zero exposure to any other part of the financial markets and is completely self sufficient, question is does one exist?

swiss69

Buying these shares at £2.50 wasn't one of my better decisions:rolleyes: Thank god it was only £1500.

I feel for the shop floor staff who have no input whatsover into these ludicrous decisions that have ultimately cost them thousands of pounds. Having worked for a bank I know that there are staff at all levels who own thousands of shares and were relying (albeit naively) on these shares to help fund their retirement. It was seen as the main perk of working in a high pressure enviroment (together with pension) which when sat on the counter pays no more than a checkout operator at tesco.

No doubt the sales managers will still be waiting for their end of day text messages from the salesforce......and the staff will have to be in 15 minutes before they get paid for the morning huddle!

Anyone at Director level upwards should have been sacked for this shambles. Its the equivalent of Chelsea going from top of the premier league to relegation to the vauxhall conference in 4 seasons! Would the Chelsea manager still be in a job??

Cleaver

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Agreed - but why are the banks shares trading on stock markets as if they were just like any other company?

I agree with that.

A bit off topic, but we were in New York last week and I don't know if it's always been this way, or whether it's since their own banking crisis, but you simply don't see their banks advertising on TV, posters or really anywhere in the general media. It made me think how odd it is that our banks how such a high profile in terms of advertising. You name a bank based here and I could probably tell you about their advertising campains, the products they have on offer, their brand etc. I'm not really sure what point I'm making (there probably isn't one), but it just made me think how strange it is that banks here have become 'brands' like all other companies. Not really that necessary methinks.

Kenny4315

swiss69 wrote: »

Anyone at Director level upwards should have been sacked for this shambles. Its the equivalent of Chelsea going from top of the premier league to relegation to the vauxhall conference in 4 seasons! Would the Chelsea manager still be in a job??

Morinho (or whatever he's called) was a penalty kick away from winning the European cup )won league couple of times, etc and he got fired.

Ranieri (got to semi's EC, etc) he got the boot.

Yet these W8nkers are virtually all still their ... UNBELIEVABLE. :mad: :mad:

tmm_aka_tracy

Kenny4315 wrote: »

http://www.fscs.org.uk/consumer/FAQs/Deposit_claims_FAQs/

see point 5 about off-set

Thanks Kenny,

I've read it but I'm no clearer. Does it mean that as I owe them the £17k against the mortgage of 62, I would lose my 'savings' and still end up owing £17K?

If that is the case then it makes sense to protect the savings by shifting them to another bank (or under the mattress).

TMM

Pobby

So did Gordie and all these bankers really, really think that house prices would just keep going up forever? I remember some cocky kid telling that high house prices were the sign of a good economy. He then went on to tell me how he and his Mum had invested in a house in Florida, that would have been a few years back. Bet that was a good investment !

Mr_Matey

Kenny4315 wrote: »

:mad: :mad: WHAT A GNIKCUF SHAMBLES ? :mad: :mad: :mad:

They should haul the board and senior managers to court :mad: , and have them pay back all the monies that they have been paid to run this sorry PILE OF SH*TE :mad: , if that does not clear the debts (which it won't they should sieze their assets and sell them :mad: , this will send a message that we won't accept these F*CK ups any longer :mad: ), because clearly they have been just PiZZing around for many years :mad: , and now the burden is coming to haunt the general public :mad: , it's an ABSOLUTE GNIKCUF disgrace :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: , and I'm getting more annoyed everyday with these useless high paid W*ankers :mad: :mad: who couldn't get laid in a brothel let alone run multi-billion pound companies. :mad: :mad:

Mr Clowns & Hs Darlings solution of bailing these T*ATS out isn't working because it's a total mess. :mad:

Where have the auditors been, asleep, or kissing up for more contracts ? :mad: Why where there no government controls ? :mad:
Why was this situation not brought to light 3 years ago ?

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

LET THEM GO UNDER, YOU MAY AS WELL JUST OPEN A NEW BANK UNDER GOVERNMENT CONTROL FROM THE START, AS THEY ARE NOT PASSING ON THE CREDIT ANYWAY, THIS IS A DISASTER MOVIE GONE WRONG. :mad: :mad: :mad:

You are one angry, angry man. Stop reading the news, take a chill pill and go to Spain for a week.

Unless your holiday money was locked up in RBS shares, in which case get angry. Really angry!

Cleaver

louiser123 wrote: »

then the government should have come in with a total different tatic, because i can see that all will happen is the gov will be the bank, and the fat cats ect who played a huge part in the fall will be still up there advising the bl@@dy govt!!!

Well I partially agree with you that this tactic won't work, I just disagree that we should put it to an X-Factor stylee public vote. However, at the present time they can't let RBS fail so what other tactic is there than pumping a load of money in? Like most people, I would like to see them have a greater say in the way the banks operate and be a bit bolder etc.

louiser123 wrote: »

if and i say if i had a big amount of savings in a bank( i dont by the way thankfully) i would be there every day getting it out cos quite frankly its safer under my matress than it is in the bank!!! and yes i know that would cause mayhem, but why not i wouldnt trust a peodo to look after my kids even if the govt gave me a cast iron guarantee they were safe same goes for money if you cant trust the people taking care of it you simply take care of it yourselfs dont we?/

If everyone went out tomorrow and withdrew their money and put it under their matress it would be pretty much be worthless. I can't tell you fully why this is, but I'm sure someone more intelligent will be along in a minute to tell you why.

As for everyone 'taking care of their own money', it simply can't happen. If we have no banks under our current societal way of working then everything just stops.