RBS has lost all of the taxpayer bailout

grizzly1911

Bantex wrote: »

The new CEO was on R4 this morning. Rather unimpressive when pushed.

He was on the BBC TV News too.

Didn't seem a polished act at all. Reading from notes, head down, no eye contact. Didn't seem to have a front, maybe he has a strong back, he will need it when the ineviatble knives come out. Don't think Diamond or Dimon would have been so down (not recommending/supporting either BTW).

wymondham

wotsthat wrote: »

Fine if it's a shoe shop - what if it's a business considered vital to the well-being of the economy - or one you've entrusted your money to.

I see your point but its a dangerous game when you have private businesses that are deemed not to be allowed to fail....

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Would it have been cheaper to secure the deposits alone @ £85K max for private investors?

A failed company couldn't be "sued" for all the negligent or reckless stuff it had done in the past that currently seems to have no end.

OT:- When was the last PPI policy sold? Surely we must be coming up against the Statute of Limitations cut off sometime soon?

Of course if the government had only guaranteed 85k of personal customers deposits then the bill would have been much less.

Whilst I don't know how many business customers the RBS had, but everyone of them would have had their deposits frozen and so they would have no access to money and so would defaulted on their own suppliers and failed to pay any salaries. They would have gone bankrupt.
If applied to Lloyds as well it would be reasonable to assume half of UK business would have failed with literally 10s of million unemployed.

In additon, if this had happened I would have expected that HSBC and Barclays would have had a run on them and so driven to bankruptcy.

wotsthat

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Would it have been cheaper to secure the deposits alone @ £85K max for private investors?

I have a view that something like that might have been a partial solution for Northern Rock and HBOS but would have meant the government would have to sit by and wait for the consequences - instead they took the problem by the scruff of the neck and took control.

RBS were far far too big to take this approach - money might have been saved in the short term but the effects on the economy would have been devastating. I don't want my government to take wild leaps into the dark.

Bantex_2

wymondham wrote: »

I see your point but its a dangerous game when you have private businesses that are deemed not to be allowed to fail....

Shareholders caught a cold, directors walked away with fortunes though.

purch

Bantex wrote: »

Shareholders caught a cold, directors walked away with fortunes though.

As apparently do many of the morons who have lost the further £ 40 Billys.

They still need to be paid large bonuses to stop them walking away, wheras in the real world they would have been sacked !!!

vivatifosi

Those of you who work in finance. What is your opinion of Hester? I know he was sacked by George. I also heard he did a pretty good job. What's the inside view on him (aside from his being Jonah that is)?

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

Of course if the government had only guaranteed 85k of personal customers deposits then the bill would have been much less.

Whilst I don't know how many business customers the RBS had, but everyone of them would have had their deposits frozen and so they would have no access to money and so would defaulted on their own suppliers and failed to pay any salaries. They would have gone bankrupt.
If applied to Lloyds as well it would be reasonable to assume half of UK business would have failed with literally 10s of million unemployed.

In additon, if this had happened I would have expected that HSBC and Barclays would have had a run on them and so driven to bankruptcy.

I don't dispute the scenarios you paint but isn't that what free markets are all about?

The strong would have survived and and taken over the weak. New opportunities would have arisen and fresh shoots would have grown in the manure flying around.

Perhaps the most powerful would have stood to lose the most?

Thrugelmir

Hesters a good guy. During his 5 years at RBS the balance sheet was shrunk by £700 billion. Given the business he inherited must have been tough on him personally. As would have been a continual firefight. £15 billion of the losses to date relate to Ulster Bank and the Irish property market. Ulster Bank is actually one of RBS's toxic assets. Must be difficult to do your job when politics is as much about it as turning round a basically screwed up business.



RSA problems (fraud) was already known when he took the job. Appears he has the reputation of being a troubleshooter now. Much like Red Adir who become famous for capping fires at oil well heads.

purch

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Must be difficult to do your job when politics is as much about it as turning round a basically screwed up business.

I felt sorry for the guy as it was an impossible job.

The best he could hope for was to fail slightly.