RBS to be Sold at a £13bn loss

Marktheshark

It should have got nothing, if it was going bust, then it goes bust.
That is called democracy and free market.
The state propping up a private corporation that gambled on making a fast buck on American sub prime bonds and lost is not a free market, it is a tilted, fixed market.

CLAPTON

Marktheshark wrote: »

It should have got nothing, if it was going bust, then it goes bust.
That is called democracy and free market.
The state propping up a private corporation that gambled on making a fast buck on American sub prime bonds and lost is not a free market, it is a tilted, fixed market.

well yes

so you think the bank should have gone bust?

so all the savers (small people like you and me) would have lost their money?

and all the companies that held their deposits, working capital, salaries etc there would have had no money and gone bankrupt ...


maybe think a little before posting......

the depositors were bailed out, not the banks

Marktheshark

When you save you invest in a bank, if you invest unwisely then like any other investor, you lose your money.
Yes the bank should have gone bust.

If they wanted to bail out savers, then start a government bank and use the "bail out money" to dole out to the investors who lost when the bank went bust.
But the bank, it goes bust.
They should have got nothing and vanished in to the !!!! they created for themselves.

CLAPTON

Marktheshark wrote: »

When you save you invest in a bank, if you invest unwisely then like any other investor, you lose your money.
Yes the bank should have gone bust.

If they wanted to bail out savers, then start a government bank and use the "bail out money" to dole out to the investors who lost when the bank went bust.
But the bank, it goes bust.
They should have got nothing and vanished in to the !!!! they created for themselves.

You may be correct that the state should have an absolute monopoly of saving and lending

but that wasn't the case at the time

at the time about 25% of Uk businesses would have gone bankrupt and all their employees would have been make unemployed.

the UK would be in a worse state than Greece with unemployment to match

house price would have been lower

Generali

cells wrote: »

I think you are being too negative on the deal
What it would cost the banks to borrow is not really relevant.

The £107B (is that correct?) injected was financed by gov debt but that price would not be 4% but a good deal lower. even 30 year gilts are below 3% yeild.

Using the 2 year rate of ~0.7% might be more fair

In which case £107B injected 7 years ago would be worth ~£112B today minus any dividends and sale proceeds

also looking at it in isolation is also silly. had they let the banks go bust we would almost certainly had a bigger deeper longer recession and we may have even have lost forever a chunk of the city of London


also finally as you note, it was not really a bankers bailout it was a depositors bailout

The Government certainly wasn't borrowing two year money at 0.7% in 2008.

I'd say that it would be just as reasonable to use the 10% that Goldmans had to pay to Mr Buffett. If, as many claim, Lloyds and RBS were solvent then presumably they could have borrowed at the prevailing market rate.

Thrugelmir

Generali wrote: »

If, as many claim, Lloyds and RBS were solvent then presumably they could have borrowed at the prevailing market rate.

HBOS not Lloyds. Lloyds was lent £25 billion by the Treasury to keep HBOS afloat.

Marktheshark

CLAPTON wrote: »

You may be correct that the state should have an absolute monopoly of saving and lending

but that wasn't the case at the time

at the time about 25% of Uk businesses would have gone bankrupt and all their employees would have been make unemployed.

the UK would be in a worse state than Greece with unemployment to match

house price would have been lower

Speculation at best.
Again even if true, that is the free market.
Plenty of business go bust because a client goes bust.
Why should banks be any different to any other business.

Because they are mates and chums of politicians thats why.
They are businesses, investment houses and money lenders.
If they screw up then they screw up, same as anyone else.
The Government should have not intervened.

Thrugelmir

Marktheshark wrote: »

Speculation at best.
Again even if true, that is the free market.
Plenty of business go bust because a client goes bust.
Why should banks be any different to any other business.

Because they are mates and chums of politicians thats why.
They are businesses, investment houses and money lenders.
If they screw up then they screw up, same as anyone else.
The Government should have not intervened.

As an international operation. RBS would have screwed up many other economies as well.

CLAPTON

Marktheshark wrote: »

Speculation at best.
Again even if true, that is the free market.
Plenty of business go bust because a client goes bust.
Why should banks be any different to any other business.

Because they are mates and chums of politicians thats why.
They are businesses, investment houses and money lenders.
If they screw up then they screw up, same as anyone else.
The Government should have not intervened.

what's this 'free market'?

yes, plenty of businesses do go bankrupt because of a client failure;
but banks going bankrupt make 30-40% of the country bankrupt and unemployed

obviously, you work for the tax payer and have no concern for the real world.

the future is, indeed, speculation.

purch

Marktheshark wrote: »

When you save you invest in a bank,

Not sure you fully understand this.