Rbs

Masomnia

Not sure what there is to discuss really... but !!!!!! is going on?

Almost ten years on from Lehmann's and no profit. Multi-billions in losses. Little prospect of it being returned to private ownership for years to come.

I was broadly supportive of the bailouts at the time, but I think it will go down in history as a huge missed opportunity to reform the system. The government should have nationalised it entirely, broken it up, brought in the administrators and sold it off in bits. It's ridiculous that this is still on going.

vivatifosi

It's a weird old day when all's said and done, if rescuing a single bank could cost more than leaving the EU.

Windofchange

Wait till the next bailout. It's capitalism for us, socialism for the 1%. If I go bankrupt I'll be thrown to the wolves. For the money men they thankfully have the British taxpayer to bail them out. Getting a return on our investment was never part of the deal. Slapped wrists all round and don't do it again. Except they are.

Conrad

Banking is all about pushing the envelope of what is possible. If Civil Servants and their apoointees are in charge, you wont get the right outcomes.

Conrad

Windofchange wrote: »

Wait till the next bailout. It's capitalism for us, socialism for the 1%. If I go bankrupt I'll be thrown to the wolves. For the money men they thankfully have the British taxpayer to bail them out. Getting a return on our investment was never part of the deal. Slapped wrists all round and don't do it again. Except they are.

I get this argument but I don't agree with it. If our Banks go to the wall, millions of us would be taken down with them - wages and bills not paid etc etc, chaos. Not the same as if yours or my business goes under.

[Deleted User]

£58 billion losses in 9 years and more to come, what Brown and Darling should have done with RBS is nationalised it, then sold it off bit by bit. Now we are stuck with it for god knows how long with no reward. Although it has to be said that the retail side of RBS is performing reasonably well, its all the compensation for PPI and such like that has dragged it down.

davomcdave

Conrad wrote: »

I get this argument but I don't agree with it. If our Banks go to the wall, millions of us would be taken down with them - wages and bills not paid etc etc, chaos. Not the same as if yours or my business goes under.

The problem with the bailouts is that everyone was bailed out regardless of how much they had.

Why should I pay if some plutocrat loses a couple of million of his billions in the bank? Why should I care that a counterparty of RBS has an in-the-money option expire unpaid? My money, and yours, has been taken to prop up a failing bank for 9 years and counting. The Chairman reckons that they're good to make it a decade when they report for 2017:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/24/rbs-earnings-q4-full-year-2016.html

I'm not sure why anyone still thinks bailing out RBS was a good idea. 9 years ago people were bullish about all the money the Government was going to make on the bailout. I notice that's gone quiet.

davomcdave

venison wrote: »

£58 billion losses in 9 years and more to come, what Brown and Darling should have done with RBS is nationalised it, then sold it off bit by bit. Now we are stuck with it for god knows how long with no reward. Although it has to be said that the retail side of RBS is performing reasonably well, its all the compensation for PPI and such like that has dragged it down.

What should have happened to RBS.

1. Put it into liquidation.
2. Make good customers up to the deposit limits
3. Discuss with individual clients why they are so systemically important to the economy that they need to be made whole on losses above the deposit limits. If the client is a large company that had all its working capital with RBS then imprison the CFO for impersonating an accountant.

I honestly can't believe people still believe bailouts were a good idea. You bailed out rich people. You took money off the poor and paid it directly to the rich. It's the most stupid policy since the 1970s nationalisations.

Thrugelmir

venison wrote: »

£58 billion losses in 9 years and more to come, what Brown and Darling should have done with RBS is nationalised it, then sold it off bit by bit. Now we are stuck with it for god knows how long with no reward.

Much easier to trade shares in a listed Company than sell off bits of a nationalised industry. Running down the trading and loan books of a complex organisation . While maintaining a day to day operational activity. Is far from easy. Northern Rock was far simpler as a business. Yet it took 7 months for the Treasury to get to the bottom of it's financial affairs and nationalise it. Even now the process of winding down and selling off is far from complete.

kabayiri

Why did we buy RBS though?

It's clear to see the taxpayer could have bought a share in any one of the better banks.

If we had let RBS go to the wall; the other banks would have been all over the assets worth anything, like hyenas on a carcass.

Was it just bad luck that the taxpayer bought into the biggest steaming pile of turd imaginable?

Pennywise

The bigger question is how RBS (which historically was a small minor bank) was allowed to borrow so much to expand beyond it's abilities to service it's debt. Nat west alone was huge, so how did a smaller bank manage to buy it? Not to mention the other acquisitions. The whole thing stinks but it goes back much further before the bailouts.