UK banks may need more capital, Bank of England says

Thrugelmir

For those that thought that current lending was being rationed by banks. Seems we're even further from establishing the status quo.

The bad news keeps on coming............

Major UK banks may need to raise more capital as protection against possible future losses, the Bank of England's Financial Policy Committee has said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20540693

grizzly1911

Thrugelmir wrote: »

For those that thought that current lending was being rationed by banks. Seems we're even further from establishing the status quo.

The bad news keeps on coming............



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20540693

I do wonder if a line needs to be drawn under PPI in some way. Some form of cut off point after which no new claims will be accepted. On the basis that if a claim hasn't been made so far tough. It won't have been through lack of trying by the claim companies and awareness forums.

Once the new regulators are in place we won't need to worry going forward - will we?;)

How long till BASELIV?

purch

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I do wonder if a line needs to be drawn under PPI in some way. Some form of cut off point after which no new claims will be accepted. On the basis that if a claim hasn't been made so far tough. It won't have been through lack of trying by the claim companies and awareness forums.

Most of the Satellite TV Channels would go bust without Claim PPI advertisements :eek:

CLAPTON

Nearly all serious commentators on believe that all the banks still have masses of toxic debts on their books.
The BoE obviously knows the broad scale of things but colludes with tha banks to keep them technically solvent by letting them write off a chunk each year.

And long with it be so.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

Nearly all serious commentators on believe that all the banks still have masses of toxic debts on their books.
The BoE obviously knows the broad scale of things but colludes with tha banks to keep them technically solvent by letting them write off a chunk each year.

And long with it be so.

No point in writing off more than you generate. No different to previous bad debt runs IME.

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

Nearly all serious commentators on believe that all the banks still have masses of toxic debts on their books.
The BoE obviously knows the broad scale of things but colludes with tha banks to keep them technically solvent by letting them write off a chunk each year.

And long with it be so.

So auditors are colluding as well?

PaulF81

yep. if the banks go bust, they will be out of a job. what if the auditors had been given the nod by the fsa for no other reason than to keep the wheels on the tracks?

CLAPTON

Thrugelmir wrote: »

So auditors are colluding as well?

I'm not sure of your point but yes of course with the full blessing of the BoE and the government, as the alternative is another total banking meltdown.

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm not sure of your point but yes of course with the full blessing of the BoE and the government, as the alternative is another total banking meltdown.

Well my point is. That's some accusation.......

Professional Indemnity Insurance rates are going to rocket!

The other day you said Total debt = Total savings. So there shouldn't be any issues. Why the change of tack?

CLAPTON

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Well my point is. That's some accusation.......

Professional Indemnity Insurance rates are going to rocket!

The other day you said Total debt = Total savings. So there shouldn't be any issues. Why the change of tack?

Your opening post clearly tells us that the BoE knows that the banks still have toxic debts... what do you think King means ?

I've merely rephased what they said a little more colourfully.

As for debts = savings don't you accept that e.g. if you take 1,000 and put it into a bank; you have created 1,000 of saving and the bank now has 1,000 of debt.

Surely nothing contentious here (although the people who go on about debt based fractional banking seem to be reluctant to see that one could just as easily talk about saving based fractional banking.)

grizzly1911

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Well my point is. That's some accusation.......

Professional Indemnity Insurance rates are going to rocket!

The other day you said Total debt = Total savings. So there shouldn't be any issues. Why the change of tack?

It really depends on when the banks decide they will classify it as bad or how long they want to keep it non performing and simply take the interest hit.

They may simply want to just monitor it as doubtful for a period.

Kinda fuzzy, grey areas really.