FSA warns on levels of UK mortgage debt

ukcarper

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Except the difference is, I know what I am doing, where as the previous owner didnt. Dont castigate all DIYers as bodgers, certainly those with relevant professional qualifications that exceed requirements but for beurocratic sakes, are not recognised by the LABCs.

I suppose the problem is trying to stop the people who are not up to job doing it mind you they probably don’t know they shouldn’t be doing it anyway.

chucky

Thrugelmir wrote: »

RBS lost £5.5 billion on its non core assets in 2010.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Meltdown is an emotive expression. The reality is that RBS is still in intensive care. With its share price currently around 41p reflects investor sentiment too. Recovery could still be blown off course by events outside of its control.

that's all a very well placed red herring you've put in there - the RBS issues had little to do with their toxic debt but more to do with over-leveraging to buy ABN Amro.

Thrugelmir

chucky wrote: »

that's all a very well placed red herring you've put in there - the RBS issues had little to do with their toxic debt but more to do with over-leveraging to buy ABN Amro.

Really?

Traders received multi-million pound bonuses after acquiring more than £30 billion of sub-prime assets during early 2007. Following these purchases the bank “didn’t stand a chance” of surviving unaided, one board director told this newspaper.
The sub-prime assets are being blamed for causing the bank’s near collapse last year. Last month RBS posted a loss of £28 billion – the largest in British corporate history.
Sir Fred Goodwin, the former chief executive of RBS, is this weekend under pressure to disclose what he knew of the sub-prime trading.
He repeatedly put out statements to the City saying that RBS “don’t do sub-prime” even though traders were buying the sub-prime assets. RBS board directors suspect he may have acted negligently.
British taxpayers are being forced to underwrite the toxic loans bought undisclosed by executives working for RBS subsidiaries in America

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/recession/5025115/RBS-traders-hid-toxic-debt.html

mbga9pgf

Feasting on too many option arms.

chucky

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Really?



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/recession/5025115/RBS-traders-hid-toxic-debt.html

yes, really.

if they didn't use up all their cash buffer to buy ABN Amro they would have dealt with the credit crisis and sailed though it probably not needing any government intervention.

the same goes for Lloyds if they hadn't taken over HBOS.

StevieJ

chucky wrote: »

yes, really.

if they didn't use up all their cash buffer to buy ABN Amro they would have dealt with the credit crisis and sailed though it probably not needing any government intervention.

the same goes for Lloyds if they hadn't taken over HBOS.

True, but were they not arm twisted?

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

True, but were they not arm twisted?

The fact they had little choice is neither here nor there, remember.

geneer

My responses to your random selections of ancillary topics in a nice shade of ginger below.

RenovationMan wrote: »

Sorry, this sentance doesnt make sense. Are you saying that the housing market didnt get loopy?

Typo. Should have said "not gotten loopy".
I'd have thought that was obvious, if you'd applied a modicum of thought, rather than pull out the pedantic-o-meter.

My friend stated that he gambled and failed and I was at pains to point out in my post that it was HIS view, not MINE.

Ah Your "friend" stated this. Apparently.
And you being so sad for your poor friend though you'd relay his self flaggelation about it on a forum to people you've never met.
Doubtful. Funny, doesn't come across that way. Comes across more like you gloating about some random anecdotal (allegedly).
Haven't we been through this?


What is my 'victory'? Seeing a friend upset at his own decisions? Whether he 'followed the herd' as you put it earlier or decided to 'buck the trend' makes no difference to me either financially or personally, I was just pointing out to someone other than yourself that it sometimes doesnt pay to gamble with your house.

Yet you and your pals did gamble RenovationVan, and "won". Apparently.
So like I already said, how much credit do you think you deserve for dumb luck?
Makes no difference to you yeah?
That will be why you we're compelled to put your big long parable to screen then!


Thats funny. So was I. A scenario you don't appear to have much to say about.

Again, I have no idea what your talking about here.

Gosh. Couldn't be the alternative scenario I laid out in the post directly responding to your original gloating.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=42145014&postcount=45
Nah. Couldn't possible be referring to that one.

chucky

StevieJ wrote: »

True, but were they not arm twisted?

yes, i'm sure there were incentives for them to take them over.

my point was which some people are trying to twist is that toxic debt wasn't the biggest blow to the UK banks like it was for the US banks.

for the US banks it was a cause of their issues, for the UK banks it wasn't the cause. (there were some exceptions to that of course)

JonnyBravo

RenovationMan wrote: »

Mate, you really need to drop the chip on your shoulder, stop blaming other people for your own problems and basically get out there, work hard, save hard, invest well and make a life for yourself.

Eh?
He has a life.
Waiting for Hamish to post and then responding with lots of hilarious :rotfl:'s in a show of mastery of wit and eloquence.