Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


'No timetable, no guarantee of success…but no option'

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: 19 February 2008
NORTHERN Rock will be in public ownership for years to come, its new boss has warned, leaving Gordon Brown saddled with the beleaguered bank well into the next general election campaign.
Ron Sandler, the former Lloyd's troubleshooter who saved the insurance firm from collapse, said Northern Rock would not be in private-sector hands any time soon and there were no guarantees that nationalisation would work.

"I do think it's clearly unrealistic to be talking about months; we are clearly talking about a period of some years," he said.

He insisted that it was the right decision, however, and that no plan came with a guarantee.

The warning about the time frame from the new executive chairman, who is paid £90,000 a month, came as the Prime Minister admitted liabilities of some £110 billion would stay on the public balance sheet for some time. "We can't have a timetable when we are talking about the return of better market conditions as a first step to resolving the issue," Mr Brown told a Downing Street news conference.

Standing next to Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, he was forced to fend off suggestions that he was taking on too much risk.

He insisted the government had had to act, or there would have been knock-on effects on the rest of the economy.

"We did the right thing, at the right time, for the right reasons," Mr Brown said. "We have contained the problem. It has not spread across to the rest of the economy."

He added that no developed economy had been immune from the global economic turbulence that had started with the crisis in the United States subprime mortgage market.

The Prime Minister said that the nationalisation of Northern Rock had been the only way to protect the public purse. "We will, and always have, put the interests of taxpayers first," he said.

The drawn-out decision to nationalise the bank, first proposed when it was hit by the credit crunch last summer, has raised questions about Mr Brown's economic stewardship and his decision-making ability.

He appeared agitated when asked whether speculation about last autumn's general election that never transpired had distracted him from the looming financial crisis in the credit markets.

He replied, with sarcasm, that perhaps he should have been keeping an eye on the subprime mortgage market in the US.

Ministers are keen to wait for the housing market to recover before putting Britain's fifth-biggest mortgage bank up for sale. But with analysts warning of a downturn, the prospects of a quick sale are slim.

Taxpayer liabilities for bailing out the bank through loans stood at £55 billion, even before nationalisation.

It has also emerged that Northern Rock will have to pay Olivant and Virgin – the two failed private-sector bidders for the bank – for the fees they incurred.

As emergency legislation to nationalise Northern Rock was introduced in parliament last night, the Conservatives called for the Chancellor to be sacked.

David Cameron, the Conservative leader, said Mr Darling should go after the bank had been nationalised. He said: "What will have to happen is the Prime Minister will have to reconstruct this government, he will have to move his Chancellor and he will have to do it within days or possibly weeks…because I don't think this Chancellor has any credibility left.

Mr Cameron said Tory MPs would vote against a bill on nationalisation, while George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, described Mr Darling as "politically, a dead man walking".

The Northern Rock nationalisation follows policy decisions on capital gains tax, inheritance tax and the rules on non-domiciles that have opened the Chancellor to criticism.

But Mr Darling hit back yesterday, saying the Tories were playing politics with a serious issue. "We could have let the bank go under. But the risks to the wider financial system, for savers and the general public were not acceptable," he said.

Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrats' Treasury spokesman who has called for Northern Rock to be nationalised since its problems first erupted, said the priority had to be an independent audit of the bank to assess the seriousness of its financial problems. "The bank must stop irresponsible lending at more than the value of property, and aggressive deposit-taking," he said.

"There will be difficult times ahead, especially for the employees, as the bank is downsized. However, there is now hope for the long-term future of the bank when it is eventually sold in more satisfactory conditions."

Nationalisation will mean that 800,000 mortgages will now effectively be owned by the government.

Redundancies among the 6,500 Northern Rock employees are inevitable, although the bank's new boss refused to speculate on that subject.

The banking industry is awaiting the bank's business plan to see whether government ownership will give it an unfair competitive advantage.

Legal action looms in battle to put price on bank's shares

SO HOW much might shares in Northern Rock be worth? Can the group's 144,000 small investors expect to see the 90p at which they were suspended? The £4-a-share book value for which hedge funds SRM and RAB are preparing a legal battle? Or the round figure of nothing?

It seems scarcely credible that shares in Northern Rock were trading at more than £12 apiece less than a year ago. But much of that rested on it being a going business with the prospect of rising profits and dividends. That is long gone.

The fine print of the government's promise to have Northern Rock shares "independently valued" under nationalisation could, in fact, lead to the conclusion the shares now have little or no value.

In a statement to the Commons on 21 January, Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, said the legislation he was preparing to give the government the option of nationalising the bank would seek to compensate Northern Rock shareholders based on the value of their shares if the government's support was withdrawn. That might lead a valuer to conclude that the shares were worthless.

Shareholders are already lining up to oppose the move in court. A senior lawyer lined up by Northern Rock shareholders to fight for compensation will seek to take a book-value of £4 per share as the basis to negotiate.

David Greene, from Edwin Coe, who is working on behalf of around 6,000 Northern Rock shareholders and the UK Shareholders Association (UKSA) has said he believes the government is planning to make a "nil" payment to shareholders and he is "optimistic" he can get more than that through legal action. Coe has a history of fighting such cases.

Mr Greene said: "We have been told the book value is about £4, so that is where we take it from. Whether that proves enough I do not know, but it is the basis where we will begin looking at it."

The figure is significantly above the 90p level of Northern Rock shares before they were suspended.

The problem with the "book value" argument is that it is a construct and does not reflect a "willing buyer, willing seller" case. If the book value of £4 a share is indeed so compelling, why did no private-sector buyer come forward with an offer at around this price – or indeed, snap up Northern Rock shares at the 90p level they were trading at last week?

The book value may be substantial. But the bank is only still around because of taxpayer intervention.

An independent valuer is unlikely to force taxpayers to pay for the value of their own support to the bank.

Mr Greene said legal action was likely to begin in the High Court, though it could reach the European Court of Human Rights. He said he believed that shareholders have the stomach for a fight that could last between 18 months and two years.

At the helm: the man they call in a crisis

"HAVE crisis? Will travel." Ron Sandler, the new executive chairman of Northern Rock, could have the slogan printed on his business cards.

The rescue of embattled Northern Rock could be seen as his biggest challenge to date, but it would be run pretty close by his work, along with close friend Sir David Rowland, in pushing through a controversial "reconstruction and renewal plan" to save the 300-year-old Lloyd's of London insurance market from extinction in the 1990s.

Lloyd's had racked up £14 billion of losses between 1988 and 1992. Sir David, as chairman, and Mr Sandler, as chief executive, pushed through a bail-out that infuriated many "Names" – the wealthy individuals who then bankrolled Lloyd's.

Many felt they had been duped by some of Lloyd's operators into the riskier underwriting syndicates.

The two teamed up again in 1999 when Royal Bank of Scotland and Bank of Scotland fought to take over NatWest. Sir David and Mr Sandler were drafted in to repel what Sir David deemed the "tartan hordes". However, RBS eventually won the takeover fight.

Mr Sandler, 55, will be hoping for a more successful banking outcome at Northern Rock. He certainly has the City credibility and connections for the role. Importantly, he worked with Gordon Brown when he was chancellor. The two are said to speak the same language.

In 2002, Mr Sandler produced a government-commissioned review of the long-term savings industry following scandals such as the fall of Equitable Life.

Mr Sandler is married with two children and lists poker as an interest. His aim at Northern Rock will be to confound critics who believe he has been dealt a busted flush.

Martin Flanagan

EUROPE IS WATCHING

THE European Commission said it was keeping a "very close eye" on Northern Rock, following the UK government's decision to nationalise the bank.

The warning comes as a financial services lawyer described the government move as "anti-competitive".

Nigel Frudd, of Rosenblatt Solicitors, said: "The government's retrograde decision to nationalise Northern Rock is inconsistent with European Union subsidy regulations. It provides it with a guarantee that other banks cannot match."

SHAREHOLDERS' VIEWS

SMALL shareholders last night gave their verdict on the decision to nationalise Northern Rock.

Armand Borisewitz, 67, from Aberdeen, said: "I'm resigned rather than angry about the whole thing. Between my wife and me, we've lost £12,000, which is the cost of a car. But I'm not in the same boat as some of those poor souls in north-east England whose nest-eggs have been literally stolen from them by incompetent management."

Robin Ashby, 60, a founder of the Northern Rock Small Shareholders' Group, had invested more than £1,500 in shares which peaked at £10,000 but were now "unsellable". He said: "I'm outraged at the nationalisation. I think I've ended up with the wrong thing at the wrong time in the wrong way."

Peter Graves, 55, from Hartlepool, owned 1,500 shares, which were valued last February at £18,000. By the end of last year, they were worth barely £1,000. "Who knows what my shares are worth now, but I just don't think the government can come in now and say to shareholders: 'We're sorry, you took the risk and lost out'," he said.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 18 February 2008 9:12 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Jimmy the Pie,

19/02/2008 00:16:26
'Shares can go up or down'
Is that so hard to understand??
Why the taxpayers are picking up the tab is beyond me, but then I'm not a genius like Mr Bean and Captain darling.
2

Jimmy the Pie,

19/02/2008 00:40:44
The hedge funds should get precisely nothing back. The vultures took a chance and failed. Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
3

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 19/02/2008 00:40:54
Now, is it not strange how predictions come true?

Vote vor an SNP government and be saddled with thousands of pounds worth of debt.

Well yes, but not as we imagined it, Jim.

As for that moaning twot at the end of the article......
4

Richardinho,

19/02/2008 01:17:08
It's hard to say if the westminster government is making the right decision here.
What's clear however is that they certainly made the wrong policies choices which led to this sometime in the past. This has the potential to cause a huge disaster for the UK's economy. Surely, we can't have a banking system where this is even possible?
5

karinxx,

19/02/2008 01:23:11
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7250916.stm

interesting link
6

,

19/02/2008 01:54:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

An Beal Bacht,

19/02/2008 02:06:54
Ah'm skint! Can Ah be nationalised?
8

indune1,

19/02/2008 02:10:41

Does this mean that my beloved Magpies will get Newcastle Brown back as an offical sponsor?
9

John Blackley,

Winter Garden, FL 19/02/2008 02:19:51
To those of you who write here and are actually employed: This is your money - the money you work for and you could use to feed, house and clothe your own families. How long do you intend to be treated like milk cows?

As for "But Mr Darling hit back yesterday, saying the Tories were playing politics with a serious issue." Shocked I am! Shocked and horrified! Politicians playing politics with serious issues? It can't be true!
10

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta 19/02/2008 03:11:41
Hey Dudes ..Wise up

Its all about money

Why can't u get that..... u dopes..

Ever tried "EFFEXOR" 2x75 mg. a pop.

GC

GC
11

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 19/02/2008 03:32:36
Hmmm, I wonder if the Clydesdale suffered a similar fate to Northern Rock would the outcome have been the same?

For some reason I fail to see sections of the English media being as supportive of such a plight, indeed I cannot see the likes of Brown and Darling being as supportive. Brown might as well give Cameron the keys to number 10 right now.

Scottish tax payers have funded this mis-adventure to the tune of 10 billion! Would anyone have figures of how much the UK has spent on Scottish corporate bail-outs in the last decade?

Another wonderful union dividend.

12

An Beal Bacht,

19/02/2008 04:31:53
12 - Dougie Douglas, Brisbane 19/02/2008 03:32:36

How much - Ah bet a wheen.

Good post!
13

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

19/02/2008 04:58:13
100million in fees already lost from the public purse with an admission that they will not be allowed to compete on mortgage interest rates. This means it goes bust anyway as people move to more attractive interest rate providers.

Mr Sandler, on a visit to the bank’s headquarters in Newcastle, said that it would take years for the bank to pay back its loans from the taxpayer. “It is clearly unrealistic to talk about months,” he said. “We are clearly talking about a period of some years.”

14

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

19/02/2008 05:10:31
Another gamble on the way with the announcement that the Labour govt will give the go ahead to 16 supoercasinos next month.

Lets hope the deprivation they cause will help him get re-elected.
15

Banoo,

Glasgow 19/02/2008 05:26:19
The situation can be saved - but only when LIBOR and Base Rates come to parity - because NR raises its money on the wholsale markets.
16

TommyKaye,

UK 19/02/2008 05:34:08
Jacqui Smith buries a minority report

Whilst everyone is still talking about Northern Rock there was something else announced today it seems. The Home Secretary made some statements about crime. Specifically she said she wanted to reduce violent crime because it was quite bad.

You must of course ignore the fact that only a few weeks ago she was telling us how safe we all were so long as we didn't walk the streets after midnight. What struck me as one of those things that has been quite usefully buried by the Northern Rock disaster was this little announcement though.

[the Government will be] investing over £20 million over the next three years to support the rollout of multi-agency interventions and information sharing, involving local police, local councils, voluntary groups and health workers, across the country to manage and identify people at risk of committing serious violence as well as providing support for victims
Got that? £20 million to be spent on what is essentially a "pre-crime unit" (see this). Scary stuff really, they're going to start identifying and targeting people that they think 'might' commit a crime before the crime they might commit has happened yet.

How will they do this? Well, like it says, they're going to share data between all and sundry right down to volunteers at a local level. That's the plan of the Government that lost 25 million personal data records; hard drives and laptops.

That's the same Government led by a Prime Minister who is currently carrying out a "review" on data security, saying that its going to start sharing data with God knows who, in order to figure out if you 'might' commit a crime, and then go after them to stop them doing what they have not done yet but that their sociological algorithm predicts they will.

What a marvelous day to announce that you plan to target people who have not committed a crime but that you think might do on the basic assumption that you can share lots of personal data abou
17

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

19/02/2008 06:28:39
Gordon's at it....

"WESTMINSTER'S sleaze watchdog has written to Gordon Brown asking for information about rental money he received for an office paid for from public funds"
18

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

19/02/2008 06:35:40
"Even in the sunny economic conditions of a year ago, the Rock was repossessing homes at the rate of eight a day and writing off loans at the rate of £2 million a week. Assuming that it is applying the same enforcement criteria today, the seizure rate and writeoffs will be escalating in leaps and bounds as mortgage bills rise and house prices fall"

19

Citylocal Fife,

19/02/2008 07:11:59
Quote: "....leaving Gordon Brown saddled with the beleaguered bank well into the next general election campaign."

perhaps "leaving the taxpayer saddled with Gordon Brown *until* polling day"

I suspect that the good 'Captain' Darling will {hopefully} face the firing squad before then ......


Yours etc

Angus Whitton
20

donald,

glasgow 19/02/2008 07:21:04
Nationalise the Bank of Ingerland and give Scotland her money back.
21

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

19/02/2008 07:25:24
I should have smaked him as a child..

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Sleaze-row-forces-son-of.3790034.jp
22

M & S loyal,

Lochwinnoch 19/02/2008 07:29:29
I cant imagine anyone being stupid enough to leave their money in Northern Rock or open a new account with Big Broon & Darling Alistair calling the the shots.
23

Phil C,

19/02/2008 07:43:47
The big questions to come out of all this are:-

1. Is Darling a natural blonde? That wee clash going on with the eyebrows! Come on Alistair, off with the kegs and let's see if there's a badger's head kind of thing going on down there!

2. Was his father a zebra?

24

Nell,

The Preservation Hall 19/02/2008 07:51:24
No 9 Indune 1:- It wont matter who they get as a sponsor, they will still be pants.
25

conservative,

19/02/2008 07:52:03
When my pension was cut by half in the Equitable Life scandal Gordon Broon said that £15m was too much to pay to compensate people who had been let down by the government.

Now it seems that £110m isn't too much to pay people who have been let down by a bank. Of course this is in the Labour heartlands so what would you expect - equality?
26

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

19/02/2008 08:16:19
26

Exactly conservative and what about the farepak people.

Many seats to lose in the NE of England.

It was a political decision because it could not possibly be a commercial one.
27

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 19/02/2008 08:47:11
#26 Conservative

It wasn't 110 million - try 110 billion!

That's 7500 of your tax pounds personally.

#27 I agree entirely - not a decision based on commercial reality - rather a decision to pacify the NE of England and enrage the rest of the UK - and to make labour un-electable for a generation.

The B&D show is surely going to skid off the road anytime now.

28

Paddi,

19/02/2008 08:50:09
Why should we be surprised by Brown's mismanagement of Northern Rock or indeed the economy? The latter was after all handed to him on a plate by global low inflation and a spike in asset prices, yet he claimed it as his, now when its going wrong it's everyone else fault.

Lets not forget that Brown was the man who sold 400 TONNES of our Gold at or around $325 an ounce, that same gold would now fetch almost $950, or to look at this another way, £2bln wasted. And now Northern Rock, these people aren’t fit for office.
29

Gothic Rose,

19/02/2008 08:50:46
In the world of the stock market,thats life.


If you can`t play the game,don`t join in.






30

JimC,

Kilmarnock 19/02/2008 09:02:11
Browns handling of the issue is one thing, but let's not forget that the cause of the crisis was greed by American Banks who sold mortgages to those who could not afford them.
31

Phil C,

19/02/2008 09:08:32
#31 The cause of Northrn Rock's problem was partly the American Banks, but more their own business model and their directors together with a huge dose of government agency (FSA) incompetence.

Don't even try to let Brown off the hook!
32

Paddi,

19/02/2008 09:15:41
#31 it wasn’t just American banks, there were plenty here up to that game as well. what do you think "self certified mortgages" are or buy-to-let? Subprime that’s what they are, you tell us what you earn and we won’t check.......ummm "do you think they'll notice if I put 100k when I’m on 30K??
33

Phil C,

19/02/2008 09:29:13
Many shareholders greedily bought shares during the NR crisis, looking for a quick bounce back. It was an obvious risk and they shouldn't be too surprised that they lost out. For the major institutional and long-term shareholders, it's a case of you win some, you lose some. They usually win. No crocodile tears please.

34

Evan Owen,

Snowdonia 19/02/2008 09:33:38
Simon Cawkwell did very well once again, he bet on 5p a share, I bet on 1p.

There WAS another option, that was to shut it down when the problem became known to the FSA, if the FSA knew anything of course.
35

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 19/02/2008 09:46:10
Northern Rock's failure was due to its inept business model.

Interestingly enough Brown has admitted that NR's business model was - to quote - "unsound". This of course raises the question why Brown's own introduced tripartite system failed to regulate properly.

NR funded 75% of loans from borrowing on financial markets. That is a HUGE amount. Compare that to the high street banks where, if memory serves me, we are talking 10% to 20%.

Basically whenever there would be a credit crunch, NR would be in trouble. We are entering a down cycle, so credit crunches are coming. If it wasn't the American subprime incident - it would have been something else. Which is why it is a bit of a red herring to blame the subprime scenario - the crunch would have simply come from somewhere else.

NR's business model was based on there always being lots of liquidity. That's a bit like basing a business model on the premise that it isn't going to snow.
36

Gopher,

edinburgh 19/02/2008 09:53:53
Why did the goverment have to save Northern Rock? Why was it not allowed to go under like any other failed business?
37

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 19/02/2008 10:05:47
The government sticking its fingers into NR was an astoundingly bad decision. What are they playing at? Who on earth would put their savings into NR now? Am I expected to pay for this sh+t?
38

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 19/02/2008 10:13:22
The people responsible for NR's bad investments are still running the bank. Now does that sound stupid, or what?
39

Publius,

London 19/02/2008 10:16:47
#37 Gopher.
A good question. Answer: the government didn't have to save Northern Rock. It is only a mortgage bank. Every bank in the UK offers mortgages on houses, as well as 59 building societies.
In any case, if Brown had not created a tripartite regulatory system for banks, the chances are that the Rock wouldn't have gone bust anyway. LloydsTSB would have been given a quiet nod from the Bank of England to take over the Rock last August. That's the way it was done before Brown fiddled with the regulatory system.
But once the Rock went bust (early September) it should have been put into administration, just like any other company that goes bust. The government could then have bought it from the receivers for a nominal sum (say one pound), paid off the depositors and disposed of the mortgages as and when opportunities arose.
Tough on the shareholders and employees but no tougher than on shareholders and employees in any other bankrupt company (Rover or countless others).
40

Publius,

London 19/02/2008 10:20:38
#39 Jaybee
Jaybee, the costs are greater than you think. At least 100 mill to Goldman Sachs as a consultancy fee, plus compensation to Virgin and the other would be take over merchants for costs incurred plus litigation costs from shareholders. All to paid by the teaxpayers.
41

Queen D,

Glasgow 19/02/2008 11:26:57
Anyone watch the Dispatches programme last night?
Most illuminating and very scary!!
42

The Strategist,

19/02/2008 11:39:46
This is all to do with Nu Labour's sycophantic attitude to financial services.

It seems astonishing to me that this sector having been complicit in pushing up house prices, household debt and the trade deficit should be given any special treatment whatsoever.

But no, despite having helped reduce manufacturing to a niche sector, sold off as many UK companies as it can to overseas owners, lent huge amounts to private equity companies despite the fact that these create absolutely nothing new and doesn't invest anything like enough in new companies Brown still thinks the sun shines out of the City's rear end.

Northern Rock should have been allowed to go under as an example to the rest of the sector.
43

treacleswamp,

19/02/2008 11:51:15
The political misjudgement was made 20 years ago - allowing building societies to demutualise. Some of us have received payouts of perhaps £1000, but small beer against the cost when things go wrong. I'm glad the Tories aren't in power now,imagine a bankrupt NR, 800,000 mortgages forclosed, millions of life savings wiped out! Shareholders (at least institutional ones)should now expect no sympathy: other major bank shares have dropped by about a third in wake of NR.
44

westview,

north of "its grim up north." 19/02/2008 12:07:54
Is that some of my pension money that Brown & company are throwing away to keep buying votes in the Labour suporting north of England? Can we now at least change the name of this British Government owned bank to the "Finance United Kingdom Bank" please? The acronym would stand out at least!
45

hertscot,

19/02/2008 12:10:38
Whinging bloody shareholders, who elected a board that promised them the riches, this lot should be left for the free market to decide their fate, your stake is worth less than it was, well you should've read the small print bozos 'share prices go down as well as up'. The company is worth nothing and your greed has come to nothing. Because let's face it, you like the rest of Thatchers b*stard children deserve nothing. After years of bleating about the rights of a free market, you now want to complain that the taxpayers of this country wont give you compensation. The Government and the BoE should have let you drown in your own excrement!
46

hertscot,

19/02/2008 12:11:27
Why can't I legitimately use the word B*STARD in a post on this site?
47

SCOT JOCK,

SCOTLAND 19/02/2008 12:26:13
£90000,a MONTH for the new N R EXECUTIVE,pay BRANSON and OLIVANT their expences back.BROWN is very very generous with the TAX PAYERS MONEY.
P S--I am old age PENSIONER and still cotribute through income tax.
48

Tris,

dundee 19/02/2008 12:39:29
~47

Couldn't agree more. Putting your money in a bank account is saving; buying shares is gambling. All perfectly reasonable, I'm not knocking it, I have a few shares myself. But at the end of the day, it's not that much different from putting your money on a roulette table. You hope it will nett you shed loads more, but you are aware you could lose it.

So, I say stop whingeing shareholders. If you invest in a company, and you care about what is happeneing to your money, you should be watching the management's policies, and acting accordingly, with your votes, or with your feet.

If you don't understand business enough to do that, or you simply don't have the time, then put it in the Post Office.
49

Tris,

dundee 19/02/2008 12:45:00


~49. Yes Scot Jock, and his deputy is on £75,000 a month.

So I saw him on telly last night and he was fielding questions about what he was going to do by saying, it would take him a while to get to know the company.

Seriously at £90,000 a year, never mind a MONTH, you'd be expecting him to hit the ground running, wouldn't you?

Maybe he should get a training allowance for the first few months till he finds out where the executive bathroom is!
50

ARP,

Scotland 19/02/2008 13:15:53
Did Blair broker the deal that turned the cream of Northern Rocks assets nominally worth £2Bn over to J. P. Morgan the day after he was appointed their 'advisor'? And what will those assets fetch when JPM sell them?

Did no one notice?
51

Chris.m,

19/02/2008 13:30:00
Once you cut out the misreporting and hysteria (see BBC news reports yesterday evening), this was really the only option.

From the govts. perspective, once the issue had arisen, they rightly tried to sell the Bank out in the private sector. Its evident that this was not an option and have nationalised the Bank ensuring the tax payer gets a return to compensate for the risk taken.
As far as I can see, there are only two (albeit major) issues with the Govts. handling of this.

1. The regulatory environment was evidently not sufficient to manage this
2. Whilst the action taken is correct, they have not managed the story well.

Other critism is unfounded and I am yet to hear a serious alternative to the proposed action.

I fear poor Gordon is going to have the double hit of losing an election and seeing the Tories reaping the reward when NR is put back into the market.

Also, the Govt. has not paid £100bn. This is the value of the mortgage book. By all accounts, despite the crazy headline grabber 125% LTV mortgages, the bulk of the NR book is pretty good quality. Once the market has calmed down and the Bank is restructed, this will be a valuable asset for the Govt which should generate a windfall revenue for the public purse.

I have sympathy for the smaller shareholders however the shares were worth a nominal sum without the Govts support. The hedge funds who went in to profit from the position had every right to do so, however they have no right to call foul.

The right man is in charge of the Bank and £90k p.m. is pretty standard for this level. Incidently it equates to £21k p.w. - this doesnt get you an average Premiership footballer. The guy has a good trackrecord and is well respected - those critising him, what exactly are you basing that on?
52

An Beal Bacht,

19/02/2008 13:44:35
Capitalism is predicated upon continued growth. When the economy has deflated wages in order to improve the corporate bottom line workers are less able to buy the products they are selling. Credit at usurious rates can work for a little while but then the reality of household expenditure outpacing income becomes the elephant in the room.

Mr. Micawber, in Charles Dickens' David Copperfield, summed it up by saying:

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

The other way of ensuring continued growth is through mass immigration. Welcome to the 21st century.
53

Fairfax,

19/02/2008 14:04:27
Chris.m (53): "Once you cut out the misreporting and hysteria (see BBC news reports yesterday evening), this was really the only option."

Not so. Another option would be to simply let NR die, whilst continuing to guarantee depositors' liabilities. Had this choice been made last summer, we would have been spared 6 months of dithering and more than £100 million in fees.
54

Allan(handofgod137),

19/02/2008 14:06:05
Nu labour = old labour - the party of losers.
55

Fairfax,

19/02/2008 14:06:52
An Beal Bacht (54): "Credit at usurious rates can work for a little while"

The nominal Bank of England rate is 5.25%, implying a real rate of just over 3%, allowing for inflation. In what way is this usurious?
56

An Beal Bacht,

19/02/2008 14:22:31
Fairfax -57 - The problems experienced by NR are related to sub-prime mortgages in the US. In what way is that related to the BoE?

"Sub-prime loans came with all sorts of bells and whistles designed to entice people of limited means and a poor understanding of what they were getting into. There were teaser rates - interest payments that were discounted for the first two or three years before the homeowner began to pay the real rates, which were considerably higher than those on conventional mortgages.

There were interest-only mortgages. There were even pay-option loans that allowed homeowners to make monthly payments, for a limited period of time, that didn't cover the interest owed, which was merely added to the principle, a practice known as negative amortization."

http://www.businessedge.ca/article.cfm/newsID/17136.cfm
57

Chris.m,

19/02/2008 14:43:39
55-Fairfax
In this scenario, NR would have defaulted on loans to other institutions, seriously damaging the interBank market and having a big knock-on impact for the mortgage market in the UK.
Also, this would be the worst time to be selling a mortgage book.
The people who would have suffered in this scenario are not just the shareholders of NR but a large proportion of the population with mortgages who would find it even more difficult to refinance when the fixed rates start to expire in the spring.
It would have made what are difficult (though not disastrous) economic conditions far worse.
58

Fairfax,

19/02/2008 15:17:58
Chris.m (60): "In this scenario, NR would have defaulted on loans to other institutions, seriously damaging the interBank market and having a big knock-on impact for the mortgage market in the UK."

I agree that defaults would have occurred, followed by disposal of NR's assets by its primary creditors. I don't agree that there would have been any particular damage to the wholesale market: after all, NR's debacle was caused by the fact that the wholesale market had already ceased to function liquidly.

"and having a big knock-on impact for the mortgage market in the UK. Also, this would be the worst time to be selling a mortgage book."

There are, in any case, consequences for the UK mortgage market. Further, the creditors would not necessarily need to sell the mortgage book: they can assume the business themselves.

"The people who would have suffered in this scenario are not just the shareholders of NR but a large proportion of the population with mortgages who would find it even more difficult to refinance when the fixed rates start to expire."

Nationalisation implies that all taxpayers suffer. However, to address your point, I see no reason why the state should protect those wishing to refinance after fixed-rate expiry. In any case, even with the continuation of NR in government hands, those borrowers will have the same problem.
59

Fairfax,

19/02/2008 15:23:43
An Beal Bacht (57): "The problems experienced by NR are related to sub-prime mortgages in the US. In what way is that related to the BoE?"

Your post referred to usurious borrowing without saying where the usury was taking place. I therefore assumed you were referring to the UK, since the article concerns NR.

However, although usury has certainly occurred in the sub-prime mortgage market, its primary problem has been risky lending during a period of cheap credit. It is over-expansion due to the assumption of continuing cheap money that lies at the root of NR's problems.
60

Chris.m,

19/02/2008 15:34:26
Fairfax - The liquidity in the market, or lack thereof, was thankfully a relatively short term problem which is slowly improving. Defaulting Banks would have made it far worse and longer term.

The creditors cannot simply assume the business themselves.

Tax payers will not necessarily suffer, the likelihood is that there will be a significant windfall in year 3-5 when it is sold off again. That said, I accept that we are bearing a degree of risk (not the £100bn quoted however)

Finally, my point on the refinance was not so much on borrowers being able to get a good deal, more that the mortgage market will be far more expensive, higher numbers of repossessions, and the impact this will have on the wider economy.

It is not a good situation, caused by poor management and insufficient regulatory control. However the main aim now is to ensure the minimum impact on the economy as a whole. (incidently, I feel one of the major causes both with NR and the credit crunch has been short termism in financial markets - perhaps another day fairfax)

61

Iain's,

19/02/2008 16:00:58
This is not the first time 'New ' Labour have bailed- out a failing company.

Remember Airtours?

They had their audit done by the late great Arfur Anderson, (lovely Jubbly!), who failed to notice an 'error' of a billion pounds. ( The directors of Airtours all left with million pound pay offs, the Group internal audit manager was fired for reporting the problem - no surprise there).

NEW LABOUR, bailed out the company by doing a deal with the Germans. This avoided about a million voters losing their holidays.

If you are a company director of a failing company or wish to carry out a monster fraud (God forbid!) New Labour will protect you.

Pity about the shareholders though!
62

indune1,

Canada 19/02/2008 16:18:39
25 - That may be so - King Kevin will fix it - next year !!!

At the end of the day - Newkie Broon isn't pants.
63

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 19/02/2008 17:12:15
Whilst Labour tries to spin this positively, not all are convinced.

>>>Peter Spencer, the economic adviser to the Ernst & Young Item Club, said: "I think the Government is still in denial and will have to come to its senses. It cannot resurrect this business. It's commercial folly.

"The entire business model is a busted flush. I think any private buyer would have found it extremely difficult to have run it, and I think it will be almost impossible for the Government to float Northern Rock as a going concern again. The more I look at this, the more I come to the view that sadly Northern Rock really cannot be resurrected and has to be run down.

"The Government must realise the inevitability of a run-down. They are playing for time and they will run it down and it's a shame because the costs of keeping it going are going to be met by the taxpayer." <<<

From this it sounds like the tax payer will end up paying a lot. The irony is that Labour made such a song and dance about the SNP costing each family £5,000. Maybe they got the figure correct after all, just the wrong party.
64

Fairfax,

19/02/2008 17:51:54
Chris.m (63): "The liquidity in the market, or lack thereof, was thankfully a relatively short term problem which is slowly improving."

It's certainly improving, but has not yet disappeared. It's by no means clear that it will be a short term problem.

"Defaulting Banks would have made it far worse and longer term."

more that the mortgage market will be far more expensive, higher numbers of repossessions, and the impact this will have on the wider economy.
Defaults would have generated liquidity problems initially, but I disagree that they would have extended the problem period; still, you may be correct. Specifically, I would argue that the demise of a bank would send a much stronger signal to the banking community than its botched rescue. In other words, I take the same view as did Mervyn King initially: the rescue of NR promotes moral hazard in our banking system.

"The creditors cannot simply assume the business themselves."

In practice they can, and do. Indeed, nationalization is, after all, the primary creditor of NR taking effective control, albeit via intermediaries.

"more that the mortgage market will be far more expensive, higher numbers of repossessions, and the impact this will have on the wider economy."

I agree with your analysis of the consequences, but take the opposite view: the greater difficulty of obtaining mortgages, together with repossessions for the over-extended, is a necessary corrective, in my view, which has prolonged our housing bubble.
65

Fairfax,

19/02/2008 17:53:16
"in my view, which has prolonged our housing bubble."

Typo: I meant to write: "in my view, whose absence has prolonged our housing bubble".
66

Tris,

19/02/2008 18:02:03
# 66 The irony is that Labour made such a song and dance about the SNP costing each family £5,000. Maybe they got the figure correct after all, just the wrong party.

Actually I always wondered where they found that figure... and what it meant.

Most households I know couldn't possibly have lost out to the tune of £5000. They wouldn't have it to lose. If, as Labour suggested, it was gonna cost the average household that, then they would have had to have a warrant sale for most of us! Maybe had to sell our bodies!

Labour in metroland again methinks.
67

The Strategist,

19/02/2008 19:02:00
It now turns out that the Govt appointed Exec Chairman Ron Sandler and the woman he has chosen to be his chief financial officer, Ann Godbehere, are both "non doms".



68

SCOT JOCK,

SCOTLAND 19/02/2008 21:11:57
NON-DOMS-GREEDY!
69

Tris,

dundee, but sometimes it feels like a parallel u 19/02/2008 22:57:46
70........."It now turns out that the Govt appointed Exec Chairman Ron Sandler and the woman he has chosen to be his chief financial officer, Ann Godbehere, are both "non doms""

So, on his five grand a day, he won't even have to pay any tax. You really couldn't make it up.

I seem to say that more or less every day.

 

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.