Propery fund colapses owing lloyds £700m

Really2

http://www.citywire.co.uk/personal/-/news/money-property-and-tax/content.aspx?ID=367750

Kenmore Property Group, the Edinburgh-based developer, has collapsed owing Lloyds bank £700 million in debts and investments, according to The Times.
Accountants Grant Thornton told the Daily Telegraph that Kenmore had placed 21 of its companies into administration and a further two into receivership.
Kenmore, which has £1.8 billion assets under management, was founded by John Kennedy, one of Scotland's wealthiest men according to the Sunday Times Rich List last year.

But there is hope of finding buyers by the sound of it.

Rob Caven, partner at Grant Thornton's recovery and reorganisation practice, told the Telegraph: 'While there will undoubtedly be some uncertainty at this time our plans for the continued trading of the group should avoid any immediate disruption to the funds that are owned or managed by the group. Our immediate objective is business as usual.'

If not it looks like assets should easy cover the debt but not the best time to be selling that amount of assets.

Generali

Really2 wrote: »

If not it looks like assets should easy cover the debt but not the best time to be selling that amount of assets.

If it doesn't, who cares. The Government's got it covered, right? They're guaranteeing the assets of Lloyds so if Lloyds makes a loss it's their loss.

tomterm8

Generali wrote: »

If it doesn't, who cares. The Government's got it covered, right? They're guaranteeing the assets of Lloyds so if Lloyds makes a loss it's their loss.

I thought lloyds paid a couple of billions to get out of the asset protection scheme?

chucknorris

Generali wrote: »

If it doesn't, who cares. The Government's got it covered, right? They're guaranteeing the assets of Lloyds so if Lloyds makes a loss it's their loss.

Shouldn't we as tax payers care? If the Gov makes a loss surely it's our money they are losing.

Really2

I presume it is highly likely they should get the money back, but if the tax payer got hit for £700m that would be a mare.

But it looks unlikely there will be much of a loss or any for Lloyds to take (It looks like they could not sell assets fast enough to cover cashflow. Looks like the day to day funding could not be met despite the size of the asset book)
But saying that it could be a long time before Lloyds see any money also.

lemonjelly

Really2 wrote: »

I presume it is highly likely they should get the money back, but if the tax payer got hit for £700m that would be a mare.

But it looks unlikely there will be much of a loss or any for Lloyds to take (It looks like they could not sell assets fast enough to cover cashflow. Looks like the day to day funding could not be met despite the size of the asset book)
But saying that it could be a long time before Lloyds see any money also.

Hmmm.

Reckon I should close me vantage account?;)

Generali

tomterm8 wrote: »

I thought lloyds paid a couple of billions to get out of the asset protection scheme?

They aren't in the asset protection scheme but the fact that the UK Government owns 43% of Lloyds shows that the Government is prepared to cover the cost of falling values of Lloyds assets with your money.

chucknorris wrote: »

Shouldn't we as tax payers care? If the Gov makes a loss surely it's our money they are losing.

I don't pay tax in the UK any more as I am resident in Australia for the purposes of tax so it's not really my problem.

People who are tax resident in the UK keep telling me I'm an idiot for saying the banks shouldn't be bailed out. That leads me to assume that these bailouts are popular with the people that will ultimately pay for them. I think that the final bill will be very high. Apparently that makes me an idiot.

kennyboy66_2

Generali wrote: »

I don't pay tax in the UK any more as I am resident in Australia for the purposes of tax so it's not really my problem.

People who are tax resident in the UK keep telling me I'm an idiot for saying the banks shouldn't be bailed out. That leads me to assume that these bailouts are popular with the people that will ultimately pay for them. I think that the final bill will be very high. Apparently that makes me an idiot.

Nice one - but I think most people who agree with the bank bailouts take the view that it was the least worst option. I'd hardly think it was either popular or a vote winner. I think if RBS and BOS had failed, then Lloyds and probably Barclays would have followed such was the general panic and uncertainty at the time.

In such circumstances I would imagine we would be looking at a GDP fall of 20% over a 3 year period. It would have at least addressed the "moral hazard" issue that exists & has arguably got worse.

kabayiri

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Nice one - but I think most people who agree with the bank bailouts take the view that it was the least worst option. I'd hardly think it was either popular or a vote winner. I think if RBS and BOS had failed, then Lloyds and probably Barclays would have followed such was the general panic and uncertainty at the time.

In such circumstances I would imagine we would be looking at a GDP fall of 20% over a 3 year period. It would have at least addressed the "moral hazard" issue that exists & has arguably got worse.

We just don't know what would have happened, but noone can argue with the fact that everyone has pretty much bought the "we couldn't allow the banks to fail" line.

Whether true or not, it might go down as the best spin-line ever uttered by government.

Really2

kabayiri wrote: »

We just don't know what would have happened,

There would have been a run on every bank and the £ would be toast.

kabayiri

Really, when you put it like that, eeks lol

Interestingly, Lehmans being let go started the whole panic, so why didn't the US worry about that causing the problem?