Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 22nd November 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.

Tell investors the truth, HBOS rebels urge



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: 03 October 2008
REBEL HBOS shareholders are calling on the bank's non executive directors to ensure key figures are given to investors before any vote is taken on the Lloyds TSB take-over.
Alex von Sternberg, managing director of Euro-1B and former treasurer of Deutsche Bank, has written to the bank's eight non executive board members claiming that shareholders are being "kept in the dark on key funding information".

He wrote: "A question on many investors' minds is the extent of the HBOS funding requirement in wholesale markets over the next six months.

"There are reports of a figure exceeding £100 billion over the next year.

"In the interests of all shareholders HBOS management should publicise this number shortly if only to dispel any rumours leading to further market volatility."

It is the first time that the group's non executives have been brought into the controversy, on the premise that their responsibilities are to the shareholders and the group as a whole and not to the executive board.

Other than Sir Ronald Garrick, former chairman of Weir Group, and Tony Hobson, chairman of Northern Foods, they are not well known. They include Kate Nealon, a US lawyer, Karen Jones, formerly chief executive of Spirit Group, and Coline McConville, an Australian lawyer.

Mr Sternberg believes any assistance given to the combined group under the Bank of England's special liquidity scheme should also be made available to HBOS as a separate entity.

"Can you give an assurance", he writes, that "the market will be kept informed beyond the minimal regulatory requirements which have been shown to be insufficient in these turbulent times?"

Shares in HBOS continued to recover yesterday, gaining 22p or 14.8 per cent to 170.1p, while Lloyds TSB also gained 4.8 per cent to 262p. Under the paper-swap terms, the proposed bid would now value each HBOS share at 218p.

Meanwhile, Alex Salmond, the First Minister, has defended his call for the UK to follow Ireland's example by guaranteeing all savings held in British banks, despite the Irish government potentially falling foul of EU rules.

The move by the Irish has helped to propel money transferred across the Irish Sea from Scotland and the rest of the UK.

The European Commission may force the Irish government to withdraw its guarantee according to experts because of competition rules.

"It seems that the Irish government has given Ireland's biggest banks an unfair advantage over others, which is directly contrary to the European rules on state aid," said Anthony Woolich, partner at the business law firm LG.

The movement of money has also followed the decision by the nationalised bank Northern Rock to close many of its savings products. Products withdrawn to new customers from today include Silver Savings, Silver Savings 30, Business Reserve and a range of fixed-rate bonds. The changes followed the recent withdrawal of Northern Rock's fixed-rate access bond and its online e-saver product.

However, money has also come from other UK banks and among the Irish banks thought to be benefiting from UK savers' cash are Bank of Ireland, which also owns Bristol & West and backs the Post Office's financial products, Allied Irish Bank and Anglo Irish Bank.

Kevin Mountford, head of savings at moneysupermarket.com, said: "There is nervousness among consumers. They don't believe what the government is telling them. They are fearful and are looking for a flight to safety as opposed to rates."

However, Irish banks are not the only ones to be doing well. There have been reports of savers flocking to banks such as Lloyds TSB and Abbey, which is owned by Spanish giant Santander, as well as to the Treasury-backed National Savings and Investments. The British Bankers Association (BBA) called on people not to panic. A BBA spokeswoman said: "Consumers don't need to worry about the safety of their deposits as 96 per cent are covered under the current £35,000 deposit guarantee scheme."

US shares plunge on fears over bank bail-out

SHARES in the United States dropped sharply early last night amid nervousness that a $700 billion (£397 billion) rescue package to save American banks would be rejected in Congress.

The news came as European leaders, including Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, gathered in Paris to discuss the crisis.

After the Senate agreed the rescue package with some revisions, the House of Representatives began debating it last night, having ditched the previous scheme last week.

Wall Street appeared less than confident that the House of Representatives would vote for the package and the Dow Jones index dropped 263 points, 2.4 per cent in early trade.

Mr Brown joined the leaders of Germany and Italy, Angela Merkel and Silvio Berlusconi, at a European summit in Paris on the crisis called by the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy. Others at the meeting included Jean-Claude Trichet, the head of the European Central Bank, and Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission.

The aim of the meeting was to prepare the European Union members of the Group of Eight for broader talks on the financial crisis with leading industrialised nations.

Mr Brown is also reportedly planning to set up an emergency committee in the UK on similar lines to Cobra, the committee that deals with terrorist attacks and alerts. A spokesman for Mr Brown said: "It is right that the government looks at whether we have the right mechanisms in place to deal with global challenges."


The full article contains 917 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 02 October 2008 9:41 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Halifax Bank of Scotland
 
1

brusque,

03/10/2008 00:40:39
Catch yourself on bto.

Alex Salmond is not Bendy Wendy, whose left hand apparently didn't know that her right hand was fiddling her campaign donations!

How did you enjoy First Minister's Questions today? Iain Grey is apparently talking about taking a change of underwear in his briefcase from now on, but only if Andy Kerr tells him he can!
2

,

03/10/2008 01:38:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

A Better Way,

Scottish Republic 03/10/2008 06:34:08
The Greek banks have now guaranteed account holders money, and as a result the money is pouring in. The EU is going round in circles,chasing its own tail. The Dwarf Sarkozy is peeing against the wind, trying to get anyone to listen to a word he says.So much for the EU being good for Scotland. Impotent politicians without a backbone.

And exactly what can the EU do to the Irish and Greek Banks. Slap them on the wrist and tell them they arent staying on the programme. Just what benefit is there for an Independent Scotland to fully join the EU, when we pay lots of money to them, and when it comes down to it they abandon the economies of the members except for the Krauts and the Frogs.

And have you noticed that even the right wing fascist Telegraph have stopped calling for Browns Resignation. Since when does the person guilty of the incompetence that brought all this on, suddenly change into someone who can fix it.

If Scotland was an Independant Nation we would have been in a position to do what the Australians did years ago. Their Banks were and are well regulated and no one has ever got a mortgage with no deposit and a financial history that was very good. Thats right Australia is in a very good state right at this moment. Their reaction to this crisis is to bring forward a substantial amount of Infrastructure Projects to stimulate the economy and maintain employment levels.

Good management of an economy isnt rocket science. Its the same as any budget that the average household follows. Save for a rainy day and only buy things that you need to have a comfortable life. DONT OVEREXTEND YOURSELVES LIKE BROWN HAS DONE TO THE REMNANTS OF THE UNITED KINGDOMS. IF YOU CANT AFFORD A WAR< THEN FIND A WAY TO STAY OUT OF IT. IF YOU HAVENT GOT A SOUND ECONOMY BUILT ON PRODUCING SOMETHING STOP PRINTING MONEY WITHOUT THE GOLD TO BACK IT UP.

SCOTLAND needs to get out of this union lark, and cast the rest of it to the storm.They have only stayed afloat because no one que
4

Pip10,

Not in Scotland I'm afraid 03/10/2008 07:15:46
So Financial Institutions are falling left right and centre. We look back at who has left and moved on from the firms concerned.
Lets just look at the Financial Services Authority shall we.
John Tiner, the predecessor of Hector Sants, leaves last year with a nice Golden handshake. Following the Northern Rock debacle, Clive Briualt falls on his sword of money. Both walk away with no liabilities and nice big final salary pension schemes. John Tiner lands a job consulting to the conservatives before moving on to an even better paid job. I din't know what Clive Briault is up to at the moment, but then he doesn't need to be up to anything as in his last year he would have earnt more than most IFAs did in ten years!
In the meantime HBOS sharehodlers find they have been stitched up, B&B share hodlers are told they'll get something back as the assets have been passed to Abbey and the liability to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme with an interest only loan from the BofE. In three years time capital has to start to be repaid, but this is not repaid by the directors of the companies concerned at the time, nor by FSA directors, nor by politicians and in fact not by all tax payers as Gordon Brown would lead you to believe, but by a levy which could fall on ALLfirms in the Financial Services Industry including IFAs who have never dealt with B&B, thought HBOS was rubbish along with Clerical Medical their insurer subsidiary.
Can the IFA say or do anything about this liability being offloaded on them? We can say a lot, but we can't do a lot as the FSA brought in a new rule which does not allow us to effectively leave the industry without having to pick up the tax for some of B&Bs potential debts.
That is financial slavery!
FSCS limits ARE £35k for a reason and whilst I supported an increase to 50K, effectively by guaranteeing B&B deposits and Northern Rock to an unlimited level with otehr peoples money (mine and my clients). This fraudulently prefers those with mor
5

Nevsky,

Moscow 03/10/2008 07:44:20
People seem to forget that Norther Rock was nationalised therebye a full guarantee has already been made by the UK Government, the Irish have merely extensed the guarantee to their banks without nationalising them.

Although Brown is raising the limit to £50k i notice than he has no said even when this is coming into effect as far as i am aware.

No wonder people are shifting their money!
6

Bring it Off,

UK 03/10/2008 07:49:44
Brown and Darling will be losing sleep.

Figures to be released. Truth to come out.

They are going to look pretty stupid now.

Brown's easy credit economic policy has led to the collapse of Northern Rock Bradford and Bingley and who knows what else is in the pipleline.

Brown the architect of the biggest bank failures in the UK history BROWN TO BLAME - EASY CREDIT AND MORTGAGES UNDER BROWN LED TO THE BUBBLES.

BROWN BOOM TO BUST BOOM TO BUST LABOUR ISNT WORKING

Think it would match his words more appropriately.
7

Nevsky,

Moscow 03/10/2008 07:54:23
1 Bring them On#

Perhaps you missed the article by Ian Blackford, former MD of Deutsche Bank on HBOS:

We must also consider where this leaves Scotland and ask: could HBOS have been saved as an independent entity?

But the rescue package for Fortis, where the Dutch, Belgian and Luxembourg governments injected capital into the bank, shows what has been done in other countries

The same has happened in the UK with Bradford & Bingley, where the government intervened directly. Why has it not taken similar action over HBOS?

If the Scottish Government had control over fiscal policy, I am sure that no stone would have been left unturned to save Bank of Scotland as an independent entity.


He seems to agree with salmond's and most other senior bankers view; they are all idiots of course and you know better regarding economics!
8

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 03/10/2008 08:00:09
A few days ago many critics were sneering at the government of Ireland for pledging 100K Euro guarantees (£74,500) to holders of bank deposits, mortgages and bonds. In some cases, the guarantees are unlimited.
It was claimed Ireland would regret taking this decision and could not possibly bear the economic cost?

Many claimed the EU would not accept this guarantee as it was anti-competitive?

Since then, Greece, Sweden, Denmark, and non-EU Norway and others worldwide, have followed suit! However, Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling will only guarantee deposits up to £50,000?

Yesterday the Allied Irish Banks, a subsidiary of the Royal Bank of Scotland with its HQ in Northern Ireland, along with numerous other UK and foreign banks lobbied the Irish Government to be included in their scheme!

As a result, unlike the US and UK stockmarkets, the Irish Stock Exchange rose 5 percent on the back of this measure!

The Belfast Telegraph also reported hundreds of millions of pounds from depositers in Northern Ireland AND Great Britain was flowing into Irish banks!

You don't hear many Irish jokes nowadays, do you?
9

thinking,

Scotland 03/10/2008 08:41:34
'Alex Salmond, the First Minister, has defended his call for the UK to follow Ireland's example by guaranteeing all savings held in British banks, despite the Irish government potentially falling foul of EU rules.
The move by the Irish has helped to propel money transferred across the Irish Sea from Scotland and the rest of the UK.'

Let me get this straight.
1. If the UK government backs all savings then anyone, from any country, can deposit money here and we, the taxpayers, have to guarantee them. So, if the global economy doesn't improve, how high will taxes go?
2. The backup for Irish banks is only for two years, then what? A run on the banks to move money to other countries?
10

Dissector,

Stirling 03/10/2008 08:44:26
A bit of reality is needed. HBOS has to refinance £100Bn of its own borrowings over the next 6 - 9 months. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that, in to-day's market, that won't happen. The result would be HBOS goes bust and everything would be lost. This deal is the lesser of two evils.
11

Fairfax,

03/10/2008 08:44:42
Lachie Todd (9): "The Belfast Telegraph also reported hundreds of millions of pounds from depositers in Northern Ireland AND Great Britain was flowing into Irish banks!"

That seems to be true, but I suspect it will reverse quickly once the full import of Ireland's actions are more widely understood. Ireland has effectively nationalized its banks' deposits, but it has done so not to attract business, but in an admission that its financial system was near collapse. If one of its large banks did fail, then its national debt would immediate rise from 25% to some 65% of GDP; if they all failed, then it would become some 240% of GDP. Therefore it is not a safe haven.
12

Duncan in Edinburgh,

03/10/2008 08:48:41
#12 Exactly. It astonishes me that Salmond hasn't started his backtrack yet - the Irish move was one of desperation, not of cunning.
13

Fairfax,

03/10/2008 08:58:36
Nevsky (8): "But the rescue package for Fortis, where the Dutch, Belgian and Luxembourg governments injected capital into the bank, shows what has been done in other countries"

It does, although it's a partial nationalization, not merely an injection of capital. If HBOS failed, then the UK government would almost certainly partially or wholly nationalize HBOS. As you can see in this FT article, Belgium initially tried to attract BNP Paribas to avoid this partial nationalization :

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/03259278-8e5a-11dd-9b46-0000779fd18c,dwp_uuid=63bf2f6c-8e2e-11dd-8089-0000779fd18c.html

"The same has happened in the UK with Bradford & Bingley, where the government intervened directly. Why has it not taken similar action over HBOS?"

Because (i) HBOS, unlike B&B, is not a complete failure, and (ii) it's much larger. It is still sufficiently attractive to be subsumed by another bank, so this is better than partial or total nationalization. In this way, its shareholders do not see their wealth reduced to zero and the UK does not have to face the problems of a failed high-street bank.

There is another political problem that arises here: would it be in the interest of English taxpayers to nationalize a bank which is obviously viewed as Scottish in Scotland. What if an independent Scotland then nationalized HBOS in 2012, say? After all, some 90% of the tax used to buy HBOS would be taken in England. In brief, why should English taxpayers take a risk on HBOS?
14

Andra, Dundee,

03/10/2008 09:03:19
#12 & #13
I agree - the Irish situation could turn into a disaster. Their house prices are dropping faster than ours. Their banks are smaller so less able to attract deposits. All in all, this policy by the Irish government looks like desperation to avoid the collapse of one or all of their banks.
What if the Irish government goes bust?
15

Fairfax,

03/10/2008 09:10:24
Thinking (10): "If the UK government backs all savings then anyone, from any country, can deposit money here and we, the taxpayers, have to guarantee them. So, if the global economy doesn't improve, how high will taxes go?"

The extra guarantee would be via the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which is funded by those banks who take part in the scheme; see here

http://www.fscs.org.uk/industry/funding/

In other words, it's an insurance policy, so guaranteeing all funds would increase the levies on the financial industry, and presumably some government support. The current figure in the press is that some 98% of all deposits are already covered, so the extension is feasible. This would protect the UK taxpayer unless systemic collapse began (e.g. 2 or 3 high-street banks failing), in which case it would be extremely expensive, at least in the short term.

That said, Norway's financial system collapsed in the early 1990s, followed by nationalization of 3 of its largest banks. It did re-privatize them later, so the net cost over time was arguably not large.
16

Linda,

Edinburgh 03/10/2008 09:10:59
Duncan # 13

You and your unionist friends should apologise for mocking Alex Salmond over his assertion that an independent Scotland could have saved HBOS and certainly would have acted quicker than Brown and Darling.

Whether Irish government took the right action or not will unfold in due course but the point is it was able to act to prevent it's Banks collapsing and to the unfair advantage" (in EU terms) that the UK's nationalisation of Northern Rock caused which resulted in huge deposits moving to Northern Rock.

Also the crux of the Irish deal is that it also covers inter bank loans which have dried up due to lack of confidence.
17

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 03/10/2008 09:13:16
I think the Irish issue is interesting. The Government have not actually given them any cash, they have simply under-written their obligations. Does the latter constitute state aid?

Why is Northern Rock any different?
18

Fairfax,

03/10/2008 09:17:36
Linda (17): "You and your unionist friends should apologise for mocking Alex Salmond over his assertion that an independent Scotland could have saved HBOS"

I'm not a unionist, but how do you believe an independent Scotland should have acted? Are you suggesting partial nationalization?
19

Nevsky,

Moscow 03/10/2008 09:20:55
Fairfax#

Sorry i forgot to put quotes. The points being made were by the former MD of Deutsche Bank and not me. As you seem to have all the answers to his questions you should send them to him.
20

Fairfax,

03/10/2008 09:26:16
connaughtboy (18): "The Government have not actually given them any cash, they have simply under-written their obligations. Does the latter constitute state aid?"

It does. In normal times, this would be direct contravention of EU regulations. However, EU law also accepts that member states have to act to ensure financial stability, which is really carte blanche at present.

"Why is Northern Rock any different?"

It isn't, except in size. Britain has nationalized two small players to avoid problems -- a market distortion, certainly. Ireland has almost nationalized its entire banking system. We are probably seeing the beginning of a process which will rapidly spread to all the EU economies, with Britain, France, Germany and Italy hopefully deciding to act in concert: it would be better for the 4 primary economies to act together in this, to avoid further distortion.
21

Fairfax,

03/10/2008 09:36:18
Nevsky (20): "Sorry i forgot to put quotes."

I see.

"The points being made were by the former MD of Deutsche Bank and not me. As you seem to have all the answers to his questions you should send them to him."

How surprising. Several Deutsche staff have attended my lectures over the years, but none has been as dense as Mr Blackford. Do you think it's merely rhetoric?

22

Alan B,

03/10/2008 09:37:03
What we have seen with Ireland is the reason the Irish economy was seen as the european economic miracle. And all the reason the small noth western european contries have done better than the bigger one. They are nibble and can take strong decisive action.
23

Fairfax,

03/10/2008 09:40:41
Alan B (24): "And all the reason the small noth western european contries have done better than the bigger one. They are nibble and can take strong decisive action."

It's true that they have more freedom because of their relatively small size. For Britain, France, Germany and Italy, such an action would have greater consequences. It is to their that they have not been the first to resort to economic nationalism.
24

Alan B,

03/10/2008 09:41:52
#Fairfax

If the Irish situation is anti competitive as you say then why can countries within the EU all choose different levels by which to guarantee deposit accounts.

ie the uk can seeminly just move from 2,000 to 35G and then possibly to 50G. What would stop the uk making it 500G?

The fact is banking guarantees was not thought of as anti competitive as nonone serious thought abouot banks failing.

Finally if it is anti competitive for a government to guarantee a bank as you suggest why can you have nationalised banks? While i presume you are against nationalised banking etc that is not the point. The EU within the single market allows them.

Personally i think there is a strong argument that nationalised industry eg the french energy company is anti competitive within the EU. However as we all know it is allowed within EU law.
25

Alan B,

03/10/2008 09:46:05
#25 Fairfax

Yes much better to have runs on the banks like in the UK. Much better to have 2 going bust and the other in such a mess that it has to be taken over waiving anti competitive law incase it does go to the wall.

You call it economic nationalisation. But in truth it is just an extention of the guarantees which all countries do for their banks to different degrees.

We have had full scale nationalisation with both NR and B&B. Having done it for 2 can we really not do it for the next. If we can fully guarantee savers from the first 2 are the government seriously going to let the next one go the wall and let depositors lose.
26

Fairfax,

03/10/2008 09:53:12
Alan B (26): "If the Irish situation is anti competitive as you say then why can countries within the EU all choose different levels by which to guarantee deposit accounts."

The EU just isn't particularly integrated in this sense. As I recall, there have been discussions in the past, but no agreement was met.

"The fact is banking guarantees was not thought of as anti competitive as nonone serious thought abouot banks failing."

I don't think that's true at all -- after all, recall that the Scandinavian nations' banking systems came close to collapse in the early 1990s. These differences in failure provision have arisen in the EU before, but nothing has come of them -- we're reaching the limit of EU integration here.

"Finally if it is anti competitive for a government to guarantee a bank as you suggest why can you have nationalised banks?"

EU law has always accepted that it acceptable for a bank to be nationalized if the member state believes it to be necessary for stability, and Ireland has specifically invoked that reason, as has Britain. Otherwise, it's clearly a market distortion, since government-backed funds are more secure than those of non-nationalized banks.

"Personally i think there is a strong argument that nationalised industry eg the french energy company is anti competitive within the EU. However as we all know it is allowed within EU law."

I agree. Here we are seeing the EU's impotence when faced with a member state willing to distort EU law at its whim. There are many other examples, of course.
27

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 03/10/2008 09:54:41
18 Connaughtboy
The nationalisation of Northern Rock was agreed and cleared by the EU. The actions of the Irish govt were not. That is the crucial difference. I am fairly sure that the EU has the power to fine countries who break competition regulations. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Also, if funds are withdrawn from another European bank in panic and deposited in an Irish bank leading to the collapse of the that European bank there might be an interesting legal situation. I do not know enough about these legal aspects to state with confidence, but if the Irish govt has been seen to have broken regulations, there might be possible grounds for litigation by the shareholders of that European bank. It would be interesting to hear the opinion of a lawyer who specialises in international finance.
28

Fairfax,

03/10/2008 10:03:25
Alan B (27): "Yes much better to have runs on the banks like in the UK. Much better to have 2 going bust and the other in such a mess that it has to be taken over waiving anti competitive law incase it does go to the wall."

We have also nationalized those banks, so I don't see that we have acted differently from the Irish, except for scale: they have applied their action to all six Irish banks. I accept that nationalization may indeed be necessary at present.

"You call it economic nationalisation. But in truth it is just an extention of the guarantees which all countries do for their banks to different degrees."

It does merely extend banking system guarantees and, as you state, these have always been provided by governments. In other words, no banking system is entirely private, since it requires a lender of last resort at state level. However, there is a difference of scale here: Ireland has applied it to all of its 6 banks.

"If we can fully guarantee savers from the first 2 are the government seriously going to let the next one go the wall and let depositors lose."

They're not: in nationalizing NR and B&B, our government have sent a signal that no depositor will lose. In that sense, we are also on the edge of nationalizing our financial industry.

29

Alan B,

03/10/2008 10:06:43
#Fairfax

I think what you want to be seen as anti competitive and what is actually seen as anti competitive within the EU are 2 different things. When talking about whether the Irish move is anti competitive we are talking about whether within the rules it is seen by the EU as being anti competitive not whether in its pure for it should be.

Any comment directly on my point "ie the uk can seeminly just move from 2,000 to 35G and then possibly to 50G. What would stop the uk making it 500G?"

If a country can choose its own level of guarantee what with all eu countries different what serious would be the argument for not allowing all or as I say a fgure like 500g which would effectively amount to the same thing.

The anti competitive argument is abit of a red herring. Many just would like to be so they can argue that Ireland is wrong to do it.

The serious question we have to ask is what should the uk do to stop the runs its banks.

Was hearing last night on tv that the uk has already committed £350 billion to try to keep the banking sector and financial markets afloat. So we have already put in the 700billion dollars the US is still arguing about.
30

Alan B,

03/10/2008 10:11:14
#Fairfax

" in nationalizing NR and B&B, our government have sent a signal that no depositor will lose. In that sense, we are also on the edge of nationalizing our financial industry."

As such the uk government are effectively doing what the Irish have done but through a stightly different means. ie a case by case basis of failure.

If the UK government was to uplift the limit to 100G then they would help stop any runs on the banks. They are just dragging their feet.(and also clarify the rules which sees different banks giving out different advice and in some areas it is as clear as mud).

The Irish situation only gives them a competitive advantage from the uk the government does not match it. Or if people are not willing to separate out their cash into batches of 35G.
31

Fairfax,

03/10/2008 10:17:39
Alan B (31): "When talking about whether the Irish move is anti competitive we are talking about whether within the rules it is seen by the EU as being anti competitive not whether in its pure for it should be."

I've already stated that I suspect the Irish action is acceptable within the EU on the grounds of ensuring systemic stability.

"Any comment directly on my point "ie the uk can seeminly just move from 2,000 to 35G and then possibly to 50G. What would stop the uk making it 500G?""

Nothing would stop the UK doing this on the grounds of ensuring financial stability.

"The anti competitive argument is abit of a red herring. Many just would like to be so they can argue that Ireland is wrong to do it."

In my view, Ireland was not wrong to do this: it has clearly decided that it is near financial collapse, and has acted accordingly. However, I disagree that the anti-competitive part is a red herring: avoiding such state actions is a vital part of ensuring an approximately level playing field for our banks -- it's part of our aspiration towards free trade, and therefore at the heart of the EU ethos. Although such nationalizations will only become more common, and are probably needed, we are seeing a potentially dangerous revival of economic nationalism.
32

Embra Don,

03/10/2008 11:04:34
#11 Dissector
If this is correct, each and every member of the board should resign forthwith as they are clearly incompetent. No payoff, no parachute, just a DCM and a job stacking shelves.
33

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 03/10/2008 11:05:16
32 Alan B
I read a feature in the Oracle publication that said that if the UK were to follow the example of Ireland there would be potential liabilities of 4.5 trillion.
It then went on to say that, if the financial markets went into meltdown as in the Wall St Crash of 1929, the UK might have to meet these liabilities with the result that sterling would become worthless and we would be in a situation similar to that of the Weimar Repblic in the twenties (5,000,000 marks for a postage stamp)

This, I feel, illustates why the Irish move is not a sound move. They have committed themselves in a very risky manner. I do not know if they were prompted by desperation or by selfishness but I don't think it is a responsible action.

As I pointed out in post 29, the nationalisation of Northern Rock was agreed by the EU. The Irish action could lead to money being transferred from other European banks possibly causing a run on them and making matters worse.

A couple of weeks ago, the central banks of the US, UK, Japan, Canada, Switzerland and the ECB acted in a coordinated manner to pump money into the stock markets. These are global problems and need global solutions. What they do not need is cavalier, destabilising acts by one country.


34

Embra Don,

03/10/2008 11:08:36
Any Tories available to defend Big Bang, demutualisation or deregulation yet. Come out and defend Thatcherism apparently still beloved of "character Cameron"?
35

Fairfax,

03/10/2008 11:13:25
Embra Don (36): "Any Tories available to defend Big Bang, demutualisation or deregulation yet."

The credit crunch is also affecting nations with governments far to the left of Britain. Precisely the same problems affected the Scandinavian economies in the 1990s, when their financial systems all but collapsed. Why then do you lay the primary blame on Tory policies in the 1980s?
36

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 03/10/2008 11:20:34
36 Embra Don
As a journalist said in Tuesday's Telegraph:
"saying that capitalism is flawed because some people abuse it is like saying that democracy is flawed beacuse Hitler abused it"
37

bluehead,

edinburgh 03/10/2008 11:23:04
the European commission should be told to ''gang awa in bile yir heed,!!!every country must do what they can for survival,and they should be reminded that they
are there to represent their own people first then everyone else second, the joining the euro has, and will, remain a curse on us all,
What A Tragic mistake!!!!!!!!
38

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 03/10/2008 11:32:16
39 bluehead
Definitely not - this is a very insular view. It is obvious that the financial markets are global. If they go into meltdown trade and business all over the world will suffer and all countries will go into recession with nobody benefiting.

Ireland is a prime example- their economy depends on operations of US companies who are based there and trade with the rest of the EU. If countries in the EU go into severe recession, the market for their goods will dry up and many of the US companies will be losing money on their operations in Ireland and may well close them. Then where will they be?
39

AllyFraeEmbra,

Edinburgh 03/10/2008 11:35:04
Fairfax #16 - Your comments on the Financial Sevices Compensation Scheme don't tell the whole story. The FSCS is funded by all firms authorised by the FSA and not just the banks. The next three paragraphs come from one of yesterday's professional financial papers.

The FSCS was forced to borrow £14bn from the Bank of England in order to transfer B&B’s retail deposits to Abbey in the wake of the bank’s nationalisation. It says deposit-taking firms will have to stump up £450m in 2009 to pay for the rescue deal, compared with just £5m this year.

The loan will be repaid on an interest only basis for the first three years, with the first repayment, due in September 2009, estimated to cost £450m. However, the £450m only covers six months of repayments, with total annual costs expected to reach £900m for the first three years.

“The FSCS can raise up to £1.8bn from deposit-taking firms each year, which more than covers the interest payments,” say an FSCS spokeswoman. However, the amount the FSCS will need to repay after its interest-only period expires in 2011 is yet to be decided with the Bank of England, and the scheme could not rule out having to raise money from elsewhere in the future, including adviser firms.

So to comment - the cost borne by the 'deposit takers' i.e. the banks and building socieities will simply be passed on to their customers, so the public will end up paying for the banking sector's share (caused 100% by banking mis-folly).

The other contributors to the FSCS may yet see their levies raised, despite the fact that it had nothing to do with them. And I've never yet seen any 'Government support' contribution to the FSCS.
40

Embra Don,

03/10/2008 11:41:23
#37 Fairfax
Does that represent a defence of de-mutualisation? Had they released the Plague, it would hardly be a justification to say "the Scandanavians caught it too"
41

Embra Don,

03/10/2008 11:45:33
#38 Ugly George,
My case is that it was Raygunomics and Thatcherism who opened capitalism to abuse.
42

Embra Don,

03/10/2008 11:50:33
#39 bluehead
I see that a prominent commissioner has been brought back into the cabinet. The second (or is it third) coming of Mandy. Europe's gain is our loss. It does offer endless opportunities for amusement though. I wonder if he will be sent to go on the stump in Glenrothes. Or will Rory Bremner come in his place?
43

AllyFraeEmbra,

Edinburgh 03/10/2008 11:58:16
#44 Embra Don - The thought on Mandy on anyone's stump is not a particularly pleasant image, especially not just before lunch. :(
44

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 03/10/2008 11:59:29
43 Embra Don
It has always been open to abuse. The trick is to get the degree of regulation right. How do you put in controls which do not hinder and end up stifling economic activity.

As events over the years have unfolded regulations have been eased or tightened at various times. The worry I have now is that, through some form of knee-jerk panic, new regulations may be imposed which do hinder genuine economic activity.
45

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

03/10/2008 12:00:19
There are no real easy choices at the moment - any decision made is between one evil and another.

Some have made the point that NR and B & B were treated differently from HBOS - but that is a flawed argument. Each bank has to be treated as an individual case, with each having its own individual unique circumstances. A blanket policy is not the answer.

In the case of NR merger/takeover was on the table but the buyer (Virgin Money) wanted additional government monies to sweeten the deal not to mention not give any real commitment ot repaying monies already lent. Nationalisation was the only feasible option to keeping NR going - the alternative was to let it go under.

For B & B the situation was slightly different - here only a part nationalisation was required because an acceptable buyer was available for part of the business. The only option for that part of the business not sold off was nationalisation.

For the present, HBOS is a different situation. There is an acceptable buyer for the bank. It is the option that will save most jobs without a major long-term cost to the taxpayer. That is of course assuming the deal goes through. If it fails then I see option but another nationalisation.

The truth is that nationalisation is the last option for any governemnt - when all other options have been exhausted. It is economically the least preferable option because of the long-term implications for borrowing and taxes. But it is an option that is still more preferable than bank failure.
46

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 03/10/2008 12:00:54
44 Embra Don
Who was it that was accused of "making more comebacks than Frank Sinatra"?
47

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

03/10/2008 12:06:10
I have serious doubts that the Irish have taken the most appropriate action - it is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It may solve the problem in the short-run but could be building up problems in the long term.
48

Embra Don,

03/10/2008 12:09:12
#48 Ugly George

Great fun isn't it! You couldn't make this up. I believe he's returning via the back door - meet Lord Mandy. I'm sure he'll be at home there - like a fox in a hen house.
Apologies in advance for the innuendo - I'm really not homophobic - just despise that particular one.
49

Publius,

London 03/10/2008 12:12:12
#35 Ugly George

According to the article "A BBA spokeswoman said: "Consumers don't need to worry about the safety of their deposits as 96 per cent are covered under the current £35,000 deposit guarantee scheme".

Extending the scheme to cover the remaining 4 per cent won't add much to the risk, but it would give enormous reassurance to all savers and depositors. For once Alex Salmond is right. In this instance we should copy !reland.

[And it could be Brown and Darling will do a U-turn on this. It wouldn't be the first time!]
50

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

03/10/2008 12:14:26
#36 We have seen many try to use the issue as an argument for and against independence - my own view is that it proves nothing except that HBOS management and Labour politicians were incompetent.

If Scotland were independent and it happened to have been a Labour government in power then the same thing would have happened. Even with the Nats in power I'm not sure that it would have been much different - regulation may have been tighter for HBOS Scottish-based operations but its English-based (and elsewhere for that matter) operations would have not been regulated by the Scottish Government. In any case it would not have taken a financial genius to manipulate the figures so that any Scottish part of HBOS met tighter regulatory rules.

Whilst the UK government may have had more power through its regulatory control of the LSE and LIFFE I am not sure that tighter regulation (not just to deal with short selling) would have avoided this crisis. If the UK government had tightened up credit controls what was to prevent a UK-based bank setting up offshore (or having a subsidiary offshore) to circumvent regulation?

The real issue is the varying standards in regulation throughout the world - there is effectively no real co-ordination between the regulatory regimes meaning that many businesses can set up part of their business offshore to avoid the more restrictive regulations.

One has to say that the regulatory regimes of this country and others were designed for an era when transactions were done face-to-face and not by the internet and other new technologies. Apart from the Distance Selling Regulations 2000 bodies like the FSA seem to still be in a technological timewarp.
51

Publius,

London 03/10/2008 12:18:13
#36 Embra Don

I'm not a Tory but I do defend deregulation. It's not rules that are needed. It's supervision. When Brown ended supervision by the Bank of England and turned to regulations by the Financial Services Authority, he made a fundamental mistake.
Clever people will always find a way round rules. A supervising central bank is needed to wave a finger at them before they create mayhem. Decent supervision might have limited the enormous expansion of credit to people who are unlikely to repay loans. And it might have prevented British banks from getting too many dodgy US securities.
52

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 03/10/2008 12:19:42
51 Publius
I don't know if that is the case. 96% of depositors can be hugely different to 96% of deposits.

A sinple crude example:

96 deposits of £1000 = 96,000
4 deposits of £1m = £4m
53

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 03/10/2008 12:23:33
50 Embra Don

As I asked on another thread. Do we yet know if it is a case of "Move Over,Darling"

PS - a Doris Day song from the early sixties for those too young to remember.
54

Embra Don,

03/10/2008 12:24:08
#46 Ugly George

Sorry for previous digressions from thread!
It seems obvious that unfettered capitalism will always resist regulation of any kind. While the carpet baggers, spivs and speculators have the ear of governments they will prevail. Meantime, as a result, capitalism appears however to have brought itself to complete collapse and requires a "socialist" style safety net. In more optimistic moments I hope that a new generation of banks and particularly Building Societies might emerge from the debris in the form of nationalised banks and the remaining mutual Building Societies.
55

Publius,

London 03/10/2008 12:25:19
Back to the article. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the takeover shareholders are right to ask for full information about HBOS liabilities before they vote one way or the other.
My guess is that most HBOS shares are held by institutions that also hold shares in LloydsTSB. These institutions will likely vote yes. They will figure that, although a LloydsTSB takeover may well reduce the value of their existing LloydsTSB, they won't lose all their investment in HBOS.
56

Embra Don,

03/10/2008 12:27:53
#55 Ugly George
Sadly I AM old enough to remember it. I haven't yet heard who is to replace Des Browne's role in Scotland - or has it gone?
57

Publius,

London 03/10/2008 12:29:36
#54 Ugly George

Good point. I've been wondering this myself. But from the context I think it probably means 96 per cent all deposits.
58

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 03/10/2008 12:42:24
56 Embra Don
Whenever there is a crisis in the markets some people tend to say that this is the end of capitalism. Many thought that the 1929 Wall St crash was a defining moment in history that spelt the demise of capitalism and that the whole world would embrace the then Soviet form of sociaism but, as we now know, that turned out not to be the case.

PS I might be old enough to remeber Doris Day but I am not old enough to have lived through the Wall St crash - I am merely referring to others' analysis.
59

AllyFraeEmbra,

Edinburgh 03/10/2008 12:47:14
Publius & Ugly George
The 96% refers to the number of consumers i.e. depositors and not 96% of deposits. To guarantee 100% of all deposits would potentially cost billions (if not trillions) which is why Daphne Broon and Sopay Souter won't do it.
60

Fairfax,

03/10/2008 12:58:21
Ally (41): "Fairfax #16 - Your comments on the Financial Sevices Compensation Scheme don't tell the whole story. "

Agreed. My aim was only to point out that, in normal times, compensation doesn't fall on the taxpayer directly. Obviously we don not live in normal times . . .
61

Embra Don,

03/10/2008 13:02:37
#53 Publius
I am neither Tory nor Labour either. Confession/denial over, I accept that the relaxation of supervision has been a contributing factor, but fail to see how you can have effective supervision without rule. Granted they have to be ever evolving to cope with the "clever people" who would seek to circumvent them.

One improvement I would suggest is that the rate of inflation, which the BoE were charged with controlling, should include housing costs. That it currently does not, implies that inflation in house prices is acceptable - in fact it is as dangerous as inflation in any other field.
Successive governments have deliberately ignored this in order to promote a feel good factor based on illusion. When allowed to run out of control, it has led to collapse.

62

Fairfax,

03/10/2008 13:06:44
Embra Don (42): "Does that represent a defence of de-mutualisation?"

I don't think it's fair to blame de-mutualisation per se. The wholesale credit market is not, in itself, the problem; the problem is the dependence and over-expansion built on the wholesale market. It's certainly true that deregulation has made financial innovation possible, and that innovation can be used wisely or abused. It's also true that Reagan and Thatcher were pioneers of that deregulation. However, the possibility for instability is a function of our capitalism, and one that brings great benefits, as well as our current problems.
63

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 03/10/2008 13:08:54
61 AllyfraeEmbra
Yes, that's what I thought. As I said in post 35, somebdy has put a figure of $4.5 trillion on the potential liability.
64

Fairfax,

03/10/2008 13:10:12
Embra Don (63): "One improvement I would suggest is that the rate of inflation, which the BoE were charged with controlling, should include housing costs."

Agreed. The CPI was chosen to harmonize with other EU members, but no agreement was made on property's component in the index, hence its absence.

"Successive governments have deliberately ignored this"

It was Gordon Brown who took the decision to adopt the CPI as the Bank of England's measure of inflation. In my view, this is the single most damning indictment of his decade as chancellor.
65

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 03/10/2008 13:15:15
66 Fairfax
Do you mean the cost of buying a house or the cost of house maintenance.
66

Fairfax,

03/10/2008 13:18:41
Ugly George (67): "Do you mean the cost of buying a house or the cost of house maintenance."

I mean that we should have been using the RPI rather than the CPI. Ironically, given the property price decline, these are now nearly identical! See

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=19
67

Embra Don,

03/10/2008 13:20:26
#60 Ugly George
God (presupposing him to exist?) knows I'm not advocating Soviet Socialism. My point is that capitalism, being based on natural greed can work if kept under reasonable control for the greater good. Otherwise regular total collapses are inevitable. This one will get much worse before recovery. The notion that any government can bail out the system is absolutely nebulous. How can Governments offer a realistic guarantee when one individual building society, playing at being a bank, allegedly has a shortfall in excess of its host nation's GDP.
Its not "taxpayers" money that is being used, it is nebulous, non existant and ultimately worthless printed paper.
68

Fairfax,

03/10/2008 13:22:04
Ally (65): "Yes, that's what I thought. As I said in post 35, somebdy has put a figure of $4.5 trillion on the potential liability."

I.e. roughly twice UK GDP -- at least we would be in a slightly superior mess to the Irish, at more than twice their GDP.

69

Embra Don,

03/10/2008 13:24:25
#66 Fairfax

The previous conservative government also disregarded mortgage interest from their measure of inflation with exactly the same effect.
70

Weegiewarbler,

Afloat 03/10/2008 13:25:42
#14 Fairfax.

Interesting aspect - English money being used to fund an HBOS takeover - nationalization.
What then.?

Simple solution - assess the values of the seperate entities H & BOS at present, as Scotland really cares nothing for the H part, let it remain in England, Nationalise them as TWO seperate entities (Just in case - 2010 - you know).

The BOS structure moves it's HQ and ALL support functions (bringing more jobs) back into Scotland.

BOS just becomes another line item to be resolved in the naturtal process of events.

Meantime the Scottish government has it's own bank (with new management) operated as a profit or loss center for the Scottish people.

Now - making close to (by memory) 6 billion a year, that effectively negates any potential "defecit" some unionists are continually screaming about.

Like a perpetual windfall - the benefits just accrue.
71

Embra Don,

03/10/2008 13:30:21

Fairfax; Ugly George

Thank you once again for entertaining and enlightening debate.
Must go and try to earn some money while it lasts ;-)
72

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 03/10/2008 13:31:44
69 Embra Don
Sorry - I did not mean to imply that you were advocating Soviet Socialism. I was merely referring to this as an example of how some may react when markets run into trouble.

I don't think that many would disagree that control over markets etc. is necessary. My point is that it would be a mistake to overreact to the extent of stifling the economy.
73

Fairfax,

03/10/2008 13:32:24
Weegiewarbler (72): "Nationalise them as TWO seperate entities (Just in case - 2010 - you know)."

Possible. However, that still implies 90% of the money comes from England.

"BOS just becomes another line item to be resolved in the naturtal process of events."

The natural process of events then includes England owning 90% of the Bank of Scotland, which Scotland might then nationalize. Given our decade of experience with Scottish government management of English funds, I hope you'll understand my scepticism.
74

Fairfax,

03/10/2008 13:35:59
Embra Don (71): "The previous conservative government also disregarded mortgage interest from their measure of inflation with exactly the same effect."

And they were also wrong to do so. However, I would view Brown's adoption as more damning: economic advice advocating the RPI (or similar), and not the CPI, was unified, citing the example from the 1980s you mention.
75

Gerry,

Galway Ireland 03/10/2008 14:14:59
The only people talking about a supposed EU order to Ireland to wthdraw the now enacted Credit Insitutions (Financial Support) Act 2008 are a coterie of mostly English commentators who bleat about "economic nationalism" etc. They plead about breaches of competition rules while conveniently forgetting that their own chancellor set aside competition rules to save HBOS by allowing the creation of an anti- competitive superbank. Does any Scot believe that if the situation was reversed that the UK Gov. would have worried about the possible consequences for Irish banks if the British Chancellor had to take similar measures? As for talk of hundreds of billions of Euro liability I suspect none of the more hysterical anti- Irish commentators have actually read the Act. If all six insitutions covered were to fail the maximum liability is around €14billion.In this doomsday situation the liabilities would be covered but the assets would become goverment owned. This would raise the Irish national debt to GDP ratio by 8% to 32%. The EU average is now 60% ( the UK is 43%). The Act is now a fact - deal with it. I notice that Bank of Scotland (Ireland) and the Irish subsidiary of RBS have petitioned the Irish Government to be included in the scheme.