Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Friday, 5th December 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Bradford and Bingley nationalised in latest economic upheaval



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 29 September 2008
Crisis-hit mortgage lender Bradford & Bingley was today nationalised and a new savings giant created in the latest upheaval for the British banking sector.
The Government has taken B&B's £41 billion loan book on to the public balance sheet and guaranteed around £9 billion in other commitments related to the bank.

The move follows Northern Rock's nationalisation in February, which has added £87 billio
n in debt.

B&B's savings business and its branches – with 2.7 million customers and £20 billion in deposits – have been sold to Spanish bank Santander for £612 million.

Santander owns Abbey and recently agreed to buy Alliance & Leicester – so the deal will give it 1,286 branches and a 10% share of the UK retail savings market.

The deal comes just two weeks after a £12.2 billion rescue takeover of Halifax Bank of Scotland was announced.

Today's break-up will mark a dramatic end to a business which can trace its roots back more than 150 years.

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) decided on Saturday morning that B&B was not strong enough to continue as a deposit-taking bank after the recent financial turmoil undermined confidence in the firm.

Chancellor Alistair Darling told GMTV: "My priority was to protect savers and depositors but also to ensure we got a good deal for the taxpayer.

"We had to stabilise the situation in order to protect the banking system as a whole, just as we have done on previous occasions."

The Treasury said it would be "business as usual" for the firm's savers and borrowers.

B&B, which became a bank in 2000, has around 3,000 staff and 197 branches, and was the last former building society to retain its independence after the nationalisation of Northern Rock and July's announced takeover of Alliance & Leicester.

The Financial Services Compensation Scheme has paid out £14 billion – a loan funded by the Bank of England – to allow B&B's retail deposits to be transferred to Abbey.

The Treasury is paying a further £4 billion to cover those deposits not protected by the FSCS – those with savings of more than £35,000 – and will then take on the Bank of England loan.

The Government argues that the risk to the taxpayer is minimal because the loans will be paid back by mortgage redemptions as B&B's lending business is wound down. Virtually all of the lender's loans would have to default for the taxpayer to lose out.

The Treasury's £4 billion will be the first to be paid back, with wholesale deposits next in line and then the £14 billion paid out by the FSCS.

Banks will pay the interest payments on the FSCS loan, with the first £450 million instalment due next autumn.

Any remaining funds could mean some payout to B&B's legion of more than 900,000 shareholders. The lender's shares have been cancelled, with compensation to be paid in "due course", the Treasury said.

Legislation approving the deal is likely to be passed when Parliament returns next week.

Anto Horta-Oso, Abbey's chief executive, said: "This is good news for Bradford & Bingley's savings customers. They can be certain that their hard-earned savings are with a bank they can trust."

But the B&B brand will remain within Santander, which has a total of 60 million customers in more than 40 countries worldwide.

B&B has been squeezed by the credit crunch hiking its funding costs, and the housing market slowdown casting doubt over its main buy-to-let business.

The firm has seen bad debts and arrears soar, lost millions on complex mortgage-backed investments hit by the turmoil, and its investment status downgraded by ratings agencies – making it more expensive for the group to do business.

The lender has also taken an £18 million hit from organised fraudsters hitting the wider buy-to-let sector by gaining bigger mortgages than properties are worth.

The group will continue to be led by chief executive Richard Pym in the initial period of public ownership. Mr Pym succeeded Steven Crawshaw, who stepped down for health reasons in June.

SANTANDER CAPITALISES ON CREDIT CRUNCH

The nationalisation and break-up of cherished high street name Bradford & Bingley has underlined how some global players have spied opportunity amid the turmoil.

Spanish bank and Abbey owner Santander will pay £612 million for B&B's savings business, after agreeing to pay £1.3 billion for another struggler – Alliance & Leicester – less than three months ago.

The deals will leave it with an estimated 10% of the UK savings market, almost 1,300 branches and a total of around 24 million customers.

B&B's 2.7 million customers and 197 branches will also boost Santander distribution channels for mortgages and other products.

Spain's largest bank was founded in 1857 and has around 60 million customers in 40 countries.

Its size and the strength of its funding base compared to faltering rivals has put it in a strong position to capitalise following the credit crunch.

Abbey relies on money markets for just 10% of its lending, has no exposure to sub-prime mortgages and funds the lion's share of its loans through customer deposits.

While rivals have been forced to cut back on lending, Abbey overtook Halifax Bank of Scotland as the biggest lender of new mortgages in the UK in the first half of this year, accounting for around 26% of the market.

Since buying Abbey in 2004, Santander has made no secret of the fact it wanted to increase its share of the UK banking market and the group's current acquisition trail is a fast and effective way to do this – particularly at a time when bargains are to be had.

But with the housing market in freefall, any further assault on Britain's mortgage market has been put on hold as Santander concentrates on bolstering its savings base.

Despite the effective merger of the three businesses, competition in the savings sector should still be healthy, analysts said.

Panmure Gordon analyst Sandy Chen said: "The read-across for the UK banking sector is that Santander is now on roughly the same level as the Big Four – Lloyds-HBOS, RBS, HSBC and Barclays.

"We'd expect the presence of five major competitors will keep competition – especially for customer deposits – lively."

Santander was one of a trio of banks which combined to buy Dutch bank ABN Amro last year but has fared much better than its two partners, Royal Bank of Scotland and Belgian bank Fortis.

Royal Bank of Scotland was forced to call on shareholders for £12 billion in the biggest rights issue to date earlier this year to strengthen its finances.

And Fortis was handed an 11.2 billion euros (£8.9bn) cash injection by the governments of Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands yesterday amid insolvency fears and must sell its share of the ABN business.





The full article contains 1152 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 29 September 2008 11:27 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Economic indicators
 
1

Stephen Cowley,

Edinburgh 29/09/2008 12:01:49
The "£41 billion loan book" - I take it that means it's the liabilities that are being nationalised. Does anyone know why they don't just put it into receivership?

Then the receiver can keep it trading day-to-day, the shareholders lose their money, the creditors get paid whatever can be recovered from the assets as and when possible (solving the liquidity problem), and whatever profitable business it does will cover its costs by putting up its prices.

Why does the taxpayer have to pay for share and debt investors' bad decisions?
2

Nevsky,

Moscow 29/09/2008 12:10:07
£100 billion total for B and B but not even the though of backing for HBOS. SOLD to the only bidder and a Scottish institution gone. Protect England..sell Scotland!
3

Nevsky,

Moscow 29/09/2008 12:10:50
Scottish taxpayers so far paying for 2 nationalised English banks!
4

Stephen Cowley,

Edinburgh 29/09/2008 12:14:04
No, I gather the $41 billion is mortgage assets. I think my point still stands though - why is the taxpayer getting involved when the apparent problem is that the market needs to realign itself as a result of overlending?
5

Stephen Cowley,

Edinburgh 29/09/2008 12:17:03
#2
The Belgian government has taken an interest in Belgian bank Fortis certainly,which is contrast to Scotland's performance.

Whether that is wise or not, I wonder... Isn't it just a financial version of British Leyland or Upper Clyde Shipbuilders in the 1970s?
6

danbob,

29/09/2008 12:22:12
3# Scottish taxpayers didn't pay for it. They put Scotlands taxpayers money to one side and just used english taxpayers money.
7

Arfur,

29/09/2008 12:39:18
Surprise Surprise

Northern Rock goes---westminster answer---nationalisation
HBOS goes---westminster answer---take over by english bank
Bradford & Bingley goes---westminster answer---nationalisation

One rule for them and another for us.

#6 - stop talking your nonsense. Not only does Scotland subsidise England with our north sea oil cash we now do it by paying some of their banks debt.
8

danbob,

29/09/2008 12:57:43
7#I am amazed Arfur how far Scotlands oil revenue goes. It pays for everything, Scotlands schools, health service, social services, transport structure, social security services, the whole lot. Not only that it pays for EVERYTHING spent in England as well. When are you going to stop talking bolloxs?
9

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

29/09/2008 13:37:07
So we've funneled in a total of 128 billion quid (call it 220 billion Dollars) to save two banks.

The yank taxpayers are having their pockets picked for 700 billion Dollars. However, their economy is ten times the size of ours, give or take. Thus, per taxpayer, we're each being hit for three times as much as the yank taxpayers. yet they at least had a discussion about it.

Conversely, the retards who are running our economy spend gigantic amounts of our money without so much as a by-your-leave. The problem is Brown and his cronies were too much in bed with the City speculators, letting them pay less taxes than their cleaners in exchange for party donations.

Let these incompetent banks go to the wall. Not a penny of our money should go to bailing out fat cats who failed to put aside money for bad times. Their business will soon be taken over by the banks who weren't so reckless.
10

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

29/09/2008 13:45:26
Why are we shelling out for deposits over 35,000 Pounds? The rules say that anything over that isn't guaranteed, so why make an exception here? It's not like folks haven't had enough time to sort out their finances after Northern Crock went under.

Meanwhile another suspicion has been raised in my cynical little head. How much did B&B avail itself of the Treasury "Cash for your Dodgy Mortgages" scheme? They've been keeping all this secret, but perhaps taxpayers are really bailing out the Treasury here as they were left with a pile of rotting mortgages and no way to recoup our cash.

It's time the government listened to its own lectures about transparency and told us exactly how much of our cash has been given away for ld rope, and who precisely has taken it.
11

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 29/09/2008 14:31:11
I hate to sound scaremongering, but these banks falling like flies, needing propping up with taxpayers money seems very reminiscent of the 1930s Great Depression. I think governements know it is worse than we are being told and worse than what we find credible to believe.

As finance grinds to halt, employment rises, people struggle to make ends meet even for basics and homes get repossessed, those affected are going to be blaming goverenments and those "not of their own race" competing for shrinking resources.

Such a scenario led to the rise of extreme right wing parties. We already see the results of the Austrian elections today. I fear that we are returning to the circumstances that gave rise to Hitler in Germany. I hope I am wrong, but whatever happens in the coming years I feel sure we are all going to have to experience a period of extreme austerity, with shortages and rationing.
12

Nevsky,

Moscow 29/09/2008 17:04:15
11 Huntly#

Aye just like the east coasters to spread happiness and joy to the world.

Hardly think we will be rationing shortly. What does annoy me is the amount of land around you neck of the woods that has been removed from agricultural production and planted with trees.

Not so long ago, Europe was closing it all down saying there was over-production and farmers believed them or took the cash.

Once that land goes under treees (from what i understand) you can never return it to agricultural, the prime land in Europe..what a bunch of fu***ng monkeys the European commissioners are.
13

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

29/09/2008 17:57:51
Huntly Loon is worried:

"I hate to sound scaremongering, but these banks falling like flies, needing propping up with taxpayers money seems very reminiscent of the 1930s Great Depression"

The yank authorities have been reasonably plain that what they're trying to prevent here is a global depression.
14

,

29/09/2008 18:43:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
15

Duncan McAlister,

Ayr 29/09/2008 19:06:53
Where was your mock indignation when Royal Bank took over NatWest, or when Alliance & Leicester and Abbey National were taken over by Santander? Another thing all the Nats forget is that HBOS was half-English.
16

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 29/09/2008 19:21:03
The House of Representatives have rejected the Bail-out bill. I think the credit crisis is far greater than we at present being told. There is going to be a massive realignment of financial structures. Trust in the system has gone and a major recesssion is the most likely result. There is no more money in the system for people to maintain livestyles beyond their true incomes.
17

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

29/09/2008 19:23:48
Read the small print of this deal - tha taxpayer are picking up those parts of B & B that no-one wants - unlike HBOS where there is bid - no-one wants B&B - full stop.

But that won't stop the eejit Scotnuts proclaiming their usual conspiracy bullsh**.
18

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

29/09/2008 19:37:57
Huntly: looks to me like the rump of free-market Republicans showed some stones and strangled this communist bailout at birth. I'll raise a pint to them later.

The quarter-century credit bubble is dead and rotting. What the reflationists have yet to understand is that once psychology changes from greed to fear, it can't be resurrected. The other aspect that's still not widely understood is that current markets aren't the problem, they're the cure. it was the bubble itself, with all its debt-fuelled craziness, that was the problem.

The banks, the estate agents, the housing markets, and all the other folks responsible for the bubble are being taken down by markets, which is precisely what needs to happen for us to get where we're going.

That's an economy where people eschew debt and save for what they want. Where people don't have to use a quarter of their income to rent or buy a property. Where they do have to put a quarter to a half of the price down as a deposit if they're serious about buying and prove that they can pay the necessary mortgae rather than lie about their income. Where banks will make the necessary checks and will keep the debt on their own books. Where savers will be rewarded by higher interest rates.

It's going to be painful getting there, and there will yet be siren calls to waste more of our money trying to go back to the bubble. In the end though, there's a far more sane society waiting for us at the other side of this.

The real threat is those trying to shore up deadbeat banks. The Japanese did this from 1989 and they're still waiting (with house prices already down by between 60% ad 90%). Far better to take our medicine and get back to solid and sensible economic growth sometime before we're all retired.
19

Marga,

Fife 29/09/2008 19:38:06
What's that about the RBS going under now - the Guardian has a headline but no information. Anyone know any more?
20

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 29/09/2008 19:48:16
I agree with you FOFPo.It is those who have made the killing in the past who are squealing loudest for the bail-out. It would be like putting a junkie on methodone when the economy needs a period of cold turkey. Those who were cautious with their finances will survive. The profligate will go to the wall.
21

Scotish Exile,

29/09/2008 20:15:39
A huge thank you to the Republicans and the Democrats that had the balls to vote against the rescue package in America, god bless you. I wish we had politicians that had your determination.
22

Evan Owen,

Snowdonia 29/09/2008 21:28:38
We need to draw a line in the sand, put stakes in the ground, stop this madness.
23

Active Sassenach,

Luton, England 29/09/2008 22:10:42
Fortis was bailed out of the Euro Zone. So the cost was shared between three different ECB governments who each took a 49% share in the representation of Fortis in their own country. A problem shared is a problem halved. In the Euro they had a directive on cross border banks. None, except Santander, wanted to cross our border because Gordon Brown devised five weasel worded tests to avoid joining the Euro. So the currency risk put them off. So now we are on our own except for our American parent, which can't help because it too is bust.

It was all because of our resplendent housing market and Brown's notorious pro-Americanism. The nasty Euro would upset the virtuous circle in the way we pay for our houses. And if we were in the Euro we would be constrained from starting and financing illegal wars. Besides who would want to be in the same currency as the Italians (formerly of the Lire)? As it happens the Italians haven't yet lost a bank, despite Uni Credit, although they have turned over a few Prime Ministers. Perhaps we should change ours. Who's laughing now?

We have spent the last 11 years living in la la land on borrowed time and borrowed money whilst handbagging all our friends. All of a sudden our head office in Wall Street is up the spout. Now we haven't got any friends and we haven't got any money. Does this surprise anyone? Yes it seems to surprise Gordon Brown but nobody else.
24

Active Sassenach,

Luton, England 29/09/2008 22:17:55
Heard the one about Bradford and Bingley? What did it do before it went broke? It demutualised. I just love it when dreams get the sack.

Now the building societies have got to share in financing the deposit protection loan for the bail out and Nationwide will be the second largest contributor. The Building Societies should demand their revenge out of the compensation scheme for demutualisation mis-selling.
25

Darien,

Panama 30/09/2008 00:36:07
#1 Stephen Cowley is bang on. Let the banks go bust, just like any norwal business, be it shipyard, mine, football club or bank. There is no reason for the taxpayer to bail these 'banks' out. The USA congressmen have twigged to this scam. Brown & Darling are idiots, but so are the Tories. Just as well we Scots have another option, eh!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.