Merlin targets met

pqrdef

So banks are lending enough to SMEs. So who's to blame now then?

Generali

pqrdef wrote: »

So banks are lending enough to SMEs. So who's to blame now then?

The 1% obviously. Do try to keep up.

IronWolf

Merlin was just targetting SMEs really though, I mean they are important in the economy, but you wont get growth if the corporate giants are holding off investment and expansion.

I find there are three types of company out there at the moment. The first already has high/medium debt and is breaking its back trying to pay it down, thankful interest rates are low. The second has low debt, but the general climate makes it wary to invest because it doesn't think a market will be there to justify it. The third have low debt currently and are taking advantage of the low interest rates to get more loans and expand, companies such as Tesco.

We wont see anything from the first group for a few years, until their debt is down to managable levels, then their earnings will start to go towards expansion rather than debt repayment.

The second group just need to see more positive news and improved consumer demand before they take the plunge and expand, could be this year or next, who knows.

purch

Merlin targets met

As if by Magic :eek:

abaxas

Hang on a second, they said 'almost hit' on this morning's today programme.

Which is it? Hit or almost?

Masomnia

Almost for SMEs, hit overall.

RUN_RABBIT_RUN

pqrdef wrote: »

So banks are lending enough to SMEs. So who's to blame now then?

i think 'target (almost) met' is a lot differnet than 'lending enough'

some would argue that the merlin target wasn't anywhere near high enough but was a political compromise set at a realistic level for our troubled banks

IronWolf

The whole lending target was a bit ridiculous imo anyway. If the demand for loans isn't there then they wont meet it, and even if demand is there, we shouldn't be forcing banks to take on risky loans that they would otherwise refuse.

Thrugelmir

RUN_RABBIT_RUN wrote: »

some would argue that the merlin target wasn't anywhere near high enough but was a political compromise set at a realistic level for our troubled banks

Why force a nationalise bank (RBS) that's trying to deleverage its balance sheet to take place unnecessary risk on the taxpayer ?

CLAPTON

only one celled creatures really believe that useless government ministers should decide the 'right' level of lending

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

only one celled creatures really believe that useless government ministers should decide the 'right' level of lending

...and Socialists. They seem to think that the Government can set the price, supply and demand for goods and services at will.

FWIW, the target was for 'the banks' (HSBC, RBS, Lloyds et al, Barclays and Santander) to lend £76,000,000,000 to SMEs in 2011. According to the BoE's measure (which is the one that matters as they were charged with tracking this) those banks lent £74,900,000,000 between them which as far as I am concerned is a rounding error of difference between the meaningless target and what actually happened.

If you take a rather more meaningful and realistic measure of funding to business, net lending according to the BoE's Trends in Lending report shows a fall in outstanding loans to non-financial businesses (i.e. this doesn't include inter-bank lending) in 2011 of £9,600,000,000. LINK

Of course, this outcome is consistent with 'deleveraging' (ugly non-word) that is clearly what is going on across the Western World.