RBS has lost all of the taxpayer bailout

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

There was a compensation limit in place. That should have been recognised.

at that time compensation was 80% up to 30,000 (ish) and zero thereafter plus all business deposits would have been wiped out.

do you not think that the businesses whose depositors were wiped out would have gone bankrupt without taxpayer bailout?

lvader

No bail out money would have otherwise been spent on other government spending.

Thrugelmir

Generali wrote: »

There was a compensation limit in place. That should have been recognised.

The Icelandic bail out is still being paid for by existing borrowers. That was peanuts compared to the train wreckage of letting all the UK's major banks go under.

Generali

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The Icelandic bail out is still being paid for by existing borrowers. That was peanuts compared to the train wreckage of letting all the UK's major banks go under.

Maybe.

There's a fair bit of assumption in there.

Generali

lvader wrote: »

No bail out money would have otherwise been spent on other government spending.

You seem very certain about that. Gotta link?

lvader

Generali wrote: »

You seem very certain about that. Gotta link?

I'm am certain about that, were does the bailout show in the spending budget?

vivatifosi

CLAPTON wrote: »

at that time compensation was 80% up to 30,000 (ish) and zero thereafter plus all business deposits would have been wiped out.

do you not think that the businesses whose depositors were wiped out would have gone bankrupt without taxpayer bailout?

That's my thought too. I had a business bank account with Nat West when they went under. My personal money would have been fine but it would have wiped out my business, as well as meaning I couldn't pay the tax man (in other words they've had money back in taxes that wouldn't factor into the equations under bank valuations).

A couple of things still amaze me though. The first is that Fred et al have not been prosecuted, as Eric's Mum said. The second is that the government didn't 100% take over the banks. There's no way they would still exist without government intervention, so how come I've still got a small clutch of shares? I appreciate coming out of the other end with my money intact as a depositor, but as a shareholder?

antrobus

Thrugelmir wrote: »

At June there was still £75 billion of debt on the balance sheet. With some 550,000 mortgages. ...

I'm not sure what you mean by "£75 billion of debt". UKAR had "loans to customers" of £68.7 bn at Dec 2012 and £64.3 bn at Sep 2013. The loans are being repaid. Arrears are down. Cash flow is positive. Etc.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

...A larger mortgage book than entire RBS operation combined....

How big is the RBS residential mortgage book then?

Thrugelmir wrote: »

... RBS has lost £42 billion since nationalisation...

Not on residential mortgages it hasn't. (Especially if you don't take Ulster Bank into account.:))

Thrugelmir wrote: »

...So let's watch events unfold.

Events are unfolding. UKAR is profitable. It doesn't really look like a "huge black hole", now does it?

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

my reference to NR was that it was split into two: not that it was a black hole....

Correction accepted.

CLAPTON wrote: »

....in reality it never was truly insolvent ; it just needed time to resolve it's cash flow problems due to the shortage of inter bank lending.

That would depend on your defintion of 'insolvent'.

I would argue that as far as any bank is concerned, an act of default renders said bank insolvent, no matter what circumstances prompted the default.

Besides, (1) it was the effective closure of the securitisation market that was the immediate cause of NR's problems, and (2) as subsequent events showed, the impairment losses incurred by NR were sufficient to wipe out it's capital base, thereby rendering it 'insolvent' by any measure.

CLAPTON

antrobus wrote: »

Correction accepted.



That would depend on your defintion of 'insolvent'.

I would argue that as far as any bank is concerned, an act of default renders said bank insolvent, no matter what circumstances prompted the default.

Besides, (1) it was the effective closure of the securitisation market that was the immediate cause of NR's problems, and (2) as subsequent events showed, the impairment losses incurred by NR were sufficient to wipe out it's capital base, thereby rendering it 'insolvent' by any measure.

I've not heard much about the NR bad bank recently : what are the loses to date ?
I seem to recall them paying considerable sums back to the government.