Govt bank investment improving?

Californication

Generali wrote: »

Not from me! Not overall.

The asset protection scheme is potentially a greater loss to the taxpayer, since we get very little upside and potentially all the downside. Also, the govt can effectively push up the share price of the banks by underwriting all of their risk, so it looks like we made a profit on the shares, but either lost on the insurance or at least took a risk and received no compensation for it.

Hey ho, at least I bought some junk bonds when the yields blew out past 20%; should cover some of the impending tax hike :mad:

--C

Thrugelmir

StevieJ wrote: »

The loss on bank shares has improved from £18.1bn to £10.9bn since February, some welcome good news.


http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/090713/140/ins99.html

and we as taxpayers willl shortly be insuring £600 billion of debt :eek:

Which equates to around £3,000 for each man , woman and child in this country.

I'm not sure how the Government could offload its investment though without the market collapsing. We are all in this mess for the long haul. There aren't any quick easy solutions.

Mr_Mumble

Thrugelmir wrote: »

and we as taxpayers willl shortly be insuring £600 billion of debt :eek:

Which equates to around £3,000 for each man , woman and child in this country. .

600bn / 0.06bn = £10,000 each (most of the Lloyds stuff is residential housing, as for RBS... oh boy!)

Note: to put this in context we each owe £20,000 to provide for public sector pensions, a figure that has quadrupled since 1997, and this liability is not backed up by real tangible assets

chopperharris

hmg has 70 percent stake in a company with 3.5 trillion dollars of assets , for what a cost of under 10 percent of worth?

technically you would want 100 percent then sell it off piece by piece then , no?

Generali

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

600bn / 0.06bn = £10,000 each (most of the Lloyds stuff is residential housing, as for RBS... oh boy!)

Note: to put this in context we each owe £20,000 to provide for public sector pensions, a figure that has quadrupled since 1997, and this liability is not backed up by real tangible assets

The liability isn't even recognised in the Government's accounts.

chopperharris wrote: »

hmg has 70 percent stake in a company with 3.5 trillion dollars of assets , for what a cost of under 10 percent of worth?

technically you would want 100 percent then sell it off piece by piece then , no?

You're ignoring the liabilities so the answer to your question is 'no'.

StevieJ

Chest_Rockwell wrote: »

Crikey, you still talking nonsense?

Not another one