RBS has lost all of the taxpayer bailout

Bantex_2

wymondham wrote: »

In my simplistic mind its a simple decision. Is RBS a privately owned company - yes, then let it fail. I know I'm not informed as well as most on here and don't claim to have a grasp of this, but private companies are just that, private - they succeed if they are well run or they fail if poorly run... I'll keep my head below the firing line now!

Problem is that RBS would have taken 10s of thousands of other businesses with them.

Letting any single company get to the point where it's failure can virtually destroy a countries economy is where the blame lies.

will456

I say bail em out and hand bonuses to them ad infinitum no matter what.

When all said and done its only taxpayer money, its there to be creamed off by all and sundry.

We can always just print some more money if need be.

lvader

will456 wrote: »

I say bail em out and hand bonuses to them ad infinitum no matter what.

When all said and done its only taxpayer money, its there to be creamed off by all and sundry.

We can always just print some more money if need be.

What tax payers money?, no tax payers money has been used to bail out or prop up banks.

Thrugelmir

So we bailed out RBS and they lost it, now we are rewarding this failure by giving large bonuses.... its a different world these people live in, but we seem to always be the ones to pay...

.

The losses relate to pre crash activity , i.e. £.4.5 billion related to mortgage purchases in the USA between 2005 and 2007. So events of nearly 10 years ago. Nothing to do with current employees who are making profits for the business.

grizzly1911

lvader wrote: »

What tax payers money?, no tax payers money has been used to bail out or prop up banks.

Where did the money come from?

CLAPTON

Bantex wrote: »

Given the taxpayers of the country shares equal to the bailout. Thereby giving them rights at AGMs etc. And also a chance to see rewards if and when there is a return to profits. Think would have been around £2000 pounds worth per taxpayer.

so you would have bailed them out?
good.

CLAPTON

Bantex wrote: »

Problem is that RBS would have taken 10s of thousands of other businesses with them.

Letting any single company get to the point where it's failure can virtually destroy a countries economy is where the blame lies.

so you would have bailed them out?

CLAPTON

will456 wrote: »

I say bail em out and hand bonuses to them ad infinitum no matter what.

When all said and done its only taxpayer money, its there to be creamed off by all and sundry.

We can always just print some more money if need be.

so what would you have done then?

ERICS_MUM

1.Public debate on RBS has focused on customer deposits, overdrafts and mortgages - i.e. banking for the man in the street, sole traders etc. It's possible to make a case for letting the bank go under on this basis and allowing the state to cover the losses (i.e. the FSCS).

2. Very little has been made of the impact failure would have on the thousands of corporates in account with the RBS group, among which are several major airlines, mining, engineering, oil/gas, large retail chains. All of whom use a myriad of high volume, high value and some complex products and services to support their businesses.

RBS failure would have triggered the failure of many of these companies too.

3. RBS is a major "contributor" to the daily CHAPS business (as at 2002 it had 35% by value and 40% by volume). Take them out of the equation and you cripple the other CHAPS members' ability to move money around, thus jeopardising customer payments and settlement of sterling moneymarket deposits & loans. Foreign exchange deals with a sterling leg would not be settled in either currency. Global impact not just UK.

4. Fred Goodwin and the Board should have been prosecuted. When RBS acquired Nat West both banks were fairly cautious companies, but risky and unnecessarily (dangerous) complex derivative products mushroomed very shortly after the take over. It's clear now that FG was a megalomaniac.

5. The bulk of the losses reflected in today's figures were set up years ago as long term deals. Those responsible have mainly left the bank now, it is not they who are being paid bonuses.

6. The bank has an excellent core range of products and services for all market sectors from personal to public/gov to multi-national corporates and makes a good profit. This where the bank should concentrate it's long term future.

7. This profitability is being eroded by the losses from deals set up years ago and are still being unravelled/realised - they are casting long shadows but nobody seems to know how long.

8. To a great extent the people being paid the big bonuses now have shown a "realised" profit in terms of interest margins, fees & commissions, active new business etc, not "promised pie-in-the-sky, Friday- afternoon- euphoria, 10 years down the road profit projections).

These are people the bank needs to drive it forward, reduced bonuses could cause them to leave.

JencParker

will456 wrote: »

I say bail em out and hand bonuses to them ad infinitum no matter what.

When all said and done its only taxpayer money, its there to be creamed off by all and sundry.

We can always just print some more money if need be.

Unless you're unemployed, poor or in need.