Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Scottish banks may be 50% public-owned

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: 10 October 2008
THE Westminster government could own about half of Scotland's two remaining banks under its dramatic rescue plan, analysts claimed last night.
Royal Bank of Scotland is believed to be in line for the lion's share of the potential £25 billion Treasury bail-out to shore up the ailing high-street institutions, while it is thought that HBOS – the subject of a controversial takeover bid by Lloyds TSB – may need £5 billion.

The figures from analysts Sanford C Bernstein were released as the FTSE 100 tumbled again, closing 1.21 per cent down, showing the £500 billion bail-out had done little to restore market confidence. But leading banks made gains. HBOS was up 31.20 per cent to 154p, Lloyds increased 0.83 per cent to 212p and RBS showed gains of 5.84 per cent to 96p

HSBC boosted its finances by £750 million without government help by transferring extra capital from its international parent company, HSBC Holdings, to its UK operations and, as such, has no plans to take part in the rescue plan.

It also said it had lent about £4 billion in long-term funds to other banks – a key to getting markets moving again – in the past three days.

It was still unclear how much of an active role the government will have if any bank takes up its offer of preference shares.

Under the scheme, worth an initial £25 billion with a back-up £25 billion in the coffers, banks need to raise £25 billion to increase their capital ratios.

They can do this by any means they want – including going to their shareholders or the government. Even if they do go to the government, the shares which they sell are unlikely to carry voting rights. They are expected to come in the form of a voucher, which entitles the government to dividend payouts before ordinary shareholders.

Barclays has no plans to recapitalise, but has not revealed how much it plans to raise. However, the bank is known to be planning to tap shareholders for about £3 billion – still in preference shares – and would take up the government offer if that fails.

RBS plans to take up the offer, but it is not known by how much.

Lloyds TSB and HBOS declined to comment on plans to take up the capital injection.

According to the market analysts Sanford C Bernstein, the government may own as much as 30 per cent of the combined value of RBS, Barclays, Lloyds TSB and HBOS.

RBS, at present valued at £16.55 billion, may take £8 billion from the government; HBOS, currently worth £8.5 billion, may take £5 billion and Barclays and Lloyds TSB £2.5 billion.

"The proposed injection leaves the UK banks in a strong solvency position," said Bernstein's Bruno Paulson.

"The downside is, of course, that the capital raising implies dilution, with the government potentially taking 20-30 per cent of the banks."

But he pointed out that the RBS share price plunge over the past fortnight was higher than the potential dilution.

Keith Bowman, an analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown, said: "I think it is possible we could have part-nationalised banks, but I'm sure most of the big players will do their best to not take up the government's hand of assistance." He said the package had generally received a positive reaction and the feeling in the City was that, while it had been a long time coming, it covered the basic elements it should.

In Edinburgh, Bryan Johnston, at Bell Lawrie, said that until the details of the deal emerged, including the level of stewardship the government wanted in the banks, it was hard to judge the package.

But he added: "On balance, I prefer the concept of taxpayers' participation to the American system.

"It was a long time coming, but was quite a successful proposition."

Takeover deal questioned as HBOS shares continue to rally
DOUBTS were raised yesterday over the controversial HBOS-Lloyds deal as shares in HBOS rallied in the wake of the £500 billion government bail-out.

Tavish Scott, the Liberal Democrat leader in Scotland, claimed it was no longer "the only deal in town" and called on Alex Salmond to negotiate to keep HBOS independent. However, the First Minister rejected the calls and hinted that while the bank could have recovered if the measures were announced earlier, it was now too late.

Shares in HBOS rose another 31.2 per cent yesterday to 153.5p, while Lloyds TSB gained just 0.3 per cent to 211.75p. At this price, the Lloyds paper-swap bid values each HBOS share at 153.5p.

The stronger the HBOS share price, the more shareholders may be tempted to reject the formal offer, but Lloyds TSB and HBOS say the bid is proceeding.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 09 October 2008 11:38 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Credit Crunch
 
1

subrosa,

10/10/2008 00:14:23
# 1

Explain your interpretation of the Norwegian model please. Many thanks.
2

jimboo,

in receivership 10/10/2008 00:19:54
have about 10,000 in debts, can have half of me in public ownership if they want
3

jimboo,

in hope 10/10/2008 00:20:40
and can i have a norwegian model too please.
4

SkeptikScot,

10/10/2008 00:21:02
Why are "Doubts raised over the HBOS/Lloyds merger" whenever the HBOS shares go up AND whenever they go down? It's filling the paper with what is perceived to be a "Scottish" story even when there isn't one. I use quotation marks because how Scottish can you be when the UK government owns half of your shares and god knows who is buying and selling the rest.

How about a nice, safe, old-fashioned Scottish bank (not a mega-corporation) - with a real bank manager and prudent lending policies. Oh, yes - I really don't care what it is called!
5

Rufus T. Firefly,

10/10/2008 00:21:04
#1 is definitely correct. This is a copy of the Norwegian model.
6

,

10/10/2008 00:44:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 00:48:17

Re: 1,2,6

Nothing wrong with some "Norwegian Models" I have seen, they tend to be tall, with Gorgeous long hair, and a 'Figure' to die for!

Somewhere out there, your Charles, has Norwegian roots, hence my name, Linskaill.

You can 'Bank' on it, if I still belonged to Norway, I would be Married to one of these Models, and being productive, I dare say, my large family of Children, would be of economic advantage, to the Banks.
8

AVRENIM,

Montvalent 10/10/2008 01:03:06
According to wiki Iceland was settled by Norwegians and Scots.....
9

Edward,

10/10/2008 01:03:59
The total Asset value of RBS is £1,730.7 billion
Cash and balances at central banks are £35.2 billion
Treasury and other eligible bills are £42.7 billion
Total regulatory capital is £ 64.5 Billion

So why does this paper state that the RBS is only worth £16.55 billion and will have to take £ 8 Billion from the government, something doesnt gel here
10

Bring it Off,

UK 10/10/2008 01:08:59
Without an equal in British Political history GORDON BROWN is the most catastrophic, devastating, ruinous, duplicitous, dreadful, harmful and dangerous Prime Minister – (UNELECTED BY THE PEOPLE REMEMBER) that the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland has ever seen, CONGRATULATIONS MR BROWN THE WORST PRIME MINISTER IN BRITSH HISTORY ---- BUT WAIT he isnt finished yet this BUST to BUST PRUDENT CHANCELLOR WHO PRESIDED OVER RECORD GOVERNMENT DEBT WHILST ENCOURAGING RECORD PERSONAL DEBT says he is the man to solve the problems.

COME TO GLENROTHES GORDON I HAVE HALF A DOZEN EGGS WAITING FOR YOU
11

SkeptikScot,

10/10/2008 01:10:06
Maybe it was inevitable but the government now has the banks by the cohones.
12

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 01:11:14


Edward ~10,

Don't be Soo Sensible!

When you Pay your £16k, as a tax-payer, for this venture,....
......... Like-it-or-Not!

NO! Sensible argument we have, will allow you to escape, the cost to you!

Got ta GO!,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>, Thats Miss Norway, at my Door. :-**
13

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 01:13:17

Bring it Off ~12,

Are you "bring them on" clone or sommid,? :))
14

Willie Macleod,

Wick 10/10/2008 01:27:42
#16 No but I do recall and recommend +nut Hamsun.

His "The Wanderer" and "Hunger.

Sorry the censor says I cant say Hamsuns first name!
15

Willie Macleod,

Wick 10/10/2008 01:42:46
#17 The Devils Advocate.
16

Willie Macleod,

Wick 10/10/2008 01:47:21
But there again the"Deils Awa Way The Excise Man"!
17

Willie Macleod,

Wick 10/10/2008 01:48:22
Excise.
18

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 01:57:38


The dead parrot sketch in Monty Python first aired in 1969
Adding to the absurdity was the fact that parrots - being tropical birds - don't come from Scandinavia.
Or do they? For now, in a development putting the sketch in a completely different light, it turns out that the Norwegian Blue did exist.


As did our 'Banks'! :((
19

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 02:02:20

I recon Salmond, would fit into a "Monty Python" Sketch quite nicely! after watching him on TV tonight, not answering questions on, HBOS, or Free School Meals for our Children.

20

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 02:04:20

Every Question was diverted, to one of nonsense!
21

Neil Waugh,

Old Strathcona 10/10/2008 02:30:56
Alex Salmond has no choice in the matter. If the RBS and HBOS now "public" banks then the Scottish parliament and the Scottish administration should have the controlling say in how those shares are voted.
They are Scotland's banks, billions of pounds of Scotish money (through the oil revenue rip-of) are being used to inject the new capital, so they are essentially our banks.
And should be turned over to Scotland at Westminster's earliest convenience.
Or was this Gordon Brown slimey little plot all along to scuttle independence? Just asking.
22

Ugly George,

10/10/2008 05:19:33
25 Neil Waugh
"They are Scotland's banks, billions of pounds of Scotish money (through the oil revenue rip-of) are being used to inject the new capital, so they are essentially our banks."

I cannot understand how people can possibly still make this type of claim. The SNP government's own figures show that (even allocating a "geographical share" of North Sea revenues to Scotland) there was a deficit in the Scottish budget of £2.7bn in the last year for which figures are available (2006/07). Similar analysis shows that there have been deficits in each of the preceding 5 years.

Also both of these banks conduct the majority of their business elsewhere in the UK.

Your claim defies all logic and reason.
23

Johnnyf,

Scotland 10/10/2008 05:43:11
#12 Bring it off
Well, Gordon Brown is the Worst Prime Minister ever?
You must be about 12 years old and your mum shouldn't be letting you use your computer at this time in the morning.
I'm glad Alex Salmond's unrealistic dream of an independent Scotland is failing. His horseracing tips weren't that great either. The oil wealth of Scotland was squandered many,many years ago by Thatcher and now our even bigger asset has gone "belly up".
Alex, face up to facts, you "nosed the favourite" at the post, after a considerable amount of Scots were disenfranchised at the polls.
24

donald,

glasgow 10/10/2008 05:52:23
The Scottish Banks should be 100% publicly owned by an Independent Scottish Government.
25

Johnnyf,

Scotland 10/10/2008 05:56:14
#25 Your Time's Up
26

Johnnyf,

Scotland 10/10/2008 06:02:21
#28 Donald
I didn't think that nationalism and socialism went hand in hand.
27

Rodster,

Glasgow 10/10/2008 06:07:55
Linskaill and Johnnyf,
Can we assume you are two of the Labourites that were punching the air at the Labour party conference when the news of the HBOS difficulties came through?
A despicable bunch of carpetbaggers that revel in anything bad happening to Scotland .
A party that consistently and habitually has put its own interests before that of Scotland .
Shame on you and a plague on your house of war mongering ,lying deceiving traitors.
as to your comment that the Independence bandwagon has been stalled or stopped I would suggest you wait till November 6th then let us hear your comments then .
I feel sure the good folk of Glenrothes have a message for you and all the other Uncle Tom Quisling Westminster apologists.
28

Drum Major,

Brisbane, Australia 10/10/2008 06:08:32
The supposed buying into the banks is in fact a motgage of the country to the banks. That is why congress got so uptight about it.
29

Johnnyf,

Scotland 10/10/2008 06:15:44
#31 Rodster
No sorry,
My first choice was SNP. Just don't like the man at the helm.
30

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 06:19:30
28 Donald
"The Scottish Banks should be 100% publicly owned by an Independent Scottish Government"

What do uou mean by Scottish banks. Both RBS and HBOS conduct the majority of their business elsewhere in the UK.
31

Johnnyf,

Scotland 10/10/2008 06:23:19
Just a wee thought.
When Joe Public goes "illegally" into overdraft, sometimes the banks do it for you. Joe Public is charged £5 per day(or more dependant on youe bank) when you are in overdraft + £25 -£35 for the bounced cheque/direct debit/standing oreder.
Does that then mean thet when the banks borrow from us, and technically are in overdraft, do they pay each and every one of us £5 per day + a fee for being overdrawn in the first place + the other charges.
32

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 10/10/2008 06:31:02
These 2 Banks ceased to be "Scottish" Banks a long time ago. If they actually broke down their UK revenue by country you would find that they get less than 10% of total revenue from Scotland. Their may still be a lot of Scottish Shareholders but I doubt they make more than 30% of the shareholders.

RBS is an International Bank with global operations. In the US they are Citizens Bank. They own part of Bank of China and they now have a larger global foot print courtesy of their purchase of ABN Amro's international operations. Which includes a network of Branches and a domestic banking license here in Indonesia.

This crisis is Global in nature, the effects on the banks would have been the same whether Scotland was independent or not. So Unionists who try to make some argument about how these banks have done better by Scotland being part of the UK are just showing how utterly ignorant they are.

If anything the exposure to the English Property market has been the fatal flaw in the HBOS model along with relying on short term credit markets to fund long term liabilities.

Despite the supposedly informed opinions of the UK press I do not think you will see RBS gripping the poisoned chalice of selling shares to the UK government. Of all the Banks bar HSBC they have the lowest level of exposure to the English Property market and their US exposure has now become a plus since they will be able to participate in the US funded bailout. Their troubles are more that of bad timing in their ABN Amro purchase.

As they say, only time will tell. The UK is only at the begining of its property slide which is expected to last a couple more years and knock an additional 25% of current house prices. We will have to see how many banks are left standing after that.
33

Angleland Isover,

10/10/2008 06:40:07
As soon as Scotish banks merged with english banks their fate was already sealed.
34

Johnnyf,

Scotland 10/10/2008 06:40:19
I was trying to put a post on the site but had unfortunately put a "banned word" in there somewhere.
Fortunately,#36 kampunghighlander has rendered my argument in much more eloquent language.
Hey, GOOD ON YA SON
35

Johnnyf,

Scotland 10/10/2008 06:46:15
Is there for honest Poverty
That hings his head, an' a' that;
The coward slave-we pass him by,
We dare be poor for a' that!
For a' that, an' a' that.
Our toils obscure an' a' that,
The rank is but the guinea's stamp,
The Man's the gowd for a' that.

What though on hamely fare we dine,
Wear hoddin grey, an' a that;
Gie fools their silks, and knaves their wine;
A Man's a Man for a' that:
For a' that, and a' that,
Their tinsel show, an' a' that;
The honest man, tho' e'er sae poor,
Is king o' men for a' that.

Ye see yon birkie, ca'd a lord,
Wha struts, an' stares, an' a' that;
Tho' hundreds worship at his word,
He's but a coof for a' that:
For a' that, an' a' that,
His ribband, star, an' a' that:
The man o' independent mind
He looks an' laughs at a' that.

A prince can mak a belted knight,
A marquis, duke, an' a' that;
But an honest man's abon his might,
Gude faith, he maunna fa' that!
For a' that, an' a' that,
Their dignities an' a' that;
The pith o' sense, an' pride o' worth,
Are higher rank than a' that.

Then let us pray that come it may,
(As come it will for a' that,)
That Sense and Worth, o'er a' the earth,
Shall bear the gree, an' a' that.
For a' that, an' a' that,
It's coming yet for a' that,
That Man to Man, the world o'er,
Shall brothers be for a' that.
36

Angleland Isover,

10/10/2008 06:59:04
I prefer bought and sold for english gold.
37

Rob,

10/10/2008 07:03:53
I totally disagree with Skeptic Scot (13). It is the reverse - the banks have the Government by the short and curlies. The last months have seen the Governemnt (and not only ours) pour hundreds of billions into the banking system just to persuade these people to undertake the job they pay themselves so handsomely to do: and still they refuse. Some may call it hanging out for a better deal.

And the talk of restricting bonuses, exec pay etc is arrrant nonsense. When this is sorted they will be moving to Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Doha etc where they will be welcomed with open arms into the lands of super greed. Over the last 6 months these states and others have been extracting a premium of over $70 (and that's a conservative estimate) on each of the 10 billion barrels they have extracted and sold to the world. And where is that money now? What has been put into our banking system via deposits to help their valued customers and allies when they have a problem? You won't need a calculator to work out the answer but super exec jets are pretty cheap right now. Our "allies" in this world help us by buying £20 billion's worth of military jets every 20 years or so. Helps keep them safe, you know. Anyway, you can make your own mind up on the morality of disproportionate wealth.


Forget about HBOS, BOS and RBS - sad, but they have very little do with Scotland and their only interest is maintaining offices north of the border because it's cheaper than in London. These are self proclaimed "global players" - is anyone crazy enough to believe that they view 5 million Scots as even remotely important within their conquer the world vision?

A final thought - when is someone going to ask these local authorities what sort of bonuses their Treasury Departments are on? Banks are not the only institutions where heads should be rolling.
38

Ugly George,

10/10/2008 07:04:29
36 Kampunghighlander
"So Unionists who try to make some argument about how these banks have done better by Scotland being part of the UK are just showing how utterly ignorant they are."

I am not trying to make a unionist/nationalist point here but we have to consider the scale of things. If the article is correct and RBS is to receive the biggest proportion of the equity bail out (as opposed to the funds available for liquidity) then the UK govt may have an investment in RBS in the region of £10bn. As with all investments there is a risk. It might perform well but it might perform badly.

However that risk is effectively spread over 60 million people. If Scotland had to do this on its own the risk would be spread among only 5 million people -effectively investing £2000 in RBS for every person in Scotland. Would it be acceptable to have such a level of risk. What happens if RBS continues to struggle.

39

Evan Owen,

Snowdonia 10/10/2008 07:05:17
Is Gordon Brown happy now? Never seen him smile so much.
40

Walter Ego,

Durness 10/10/2008 07:12:04
If Salmond had his wits about him, he'd be pushing for 100% nationalisation of the banks and 100% renationalisation of the public utilities.
41

Rob,

10/10/2008 07:13:25
#44 Salmond probably does have his wits about him- but he also has a brain: which is why he won't.
42

Johnnyf,

Scotland 10/10/2008 07:14:05
#41 Rob
Clap, Clap, Clap. Wonderful speech.
In which constituency are you standing?
I agree with so much you say, perhaps not the last paragraph, which leads me to say "Thank God, the next Baronet of Osborne is not in charge at the moment."
43

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 07:26:50
44 Walter Ego
"If Salmond had his wits about him, he'd be pushing for 100% nationalisation of the banks and 100% renationalisation of the public utilities."

At a cost of how many billions to buy out the shareholders?
44

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 07:29:21
42 George#

You are absolutely right this is what would happen if Scotland was independent and magically still in the union.

You apply the model of an independent Scotland to a bank that has never developed or been subject to the legislation in an independent Scotland..so what is the point?

What you are saying indirectly is that the UK banking sector is deeply flawed in a Scottish context; i agree.
45

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 07:32:00
George#

To take it a little further you state that £10 billion would lead to a £2000 liability for everyone in Scotland and ask if this would be acceptable.

How much is the Westminster solution levying on each head for £250 billion...excluding Bradford and Bingley and Norther Rock..how much were they again?
46

Jingsitsme,

EDINBURGH 10/10/2008 07:33:58
I would like the banks totally nationalised. Then we would see a possible end to the fat cats payouts that push up bank charges and decrease service leaving us feeling they are doing us a favour when they dare take a minute to speak with us!

I'll be very angry if large dividends are paid to those at the top in view of recent happenings.

I rather suspect they will be arrogant to start this blame culture yet again of 'it's no my fault'.

We should have a say now - not alone but together we can achieve change..........
47

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 07:35:33
48 Nevski
I am just illustrating the situation as it is now. I was not offering any conclusions. As you can see, I merely asked if such a situation is acceptable.

As far as speculation of what might have - been well that is another matter. Who knows - it might have been better - it might have been worse.
48

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 07:41:32
49 Nevski
You are confusing two different allocations of cash. The £250bn is to aid short term liquidity - it is not to buy equity in the banks. RBS will get some of this money as well on top of the £10bn or so purchase of its equity.
49

Bridged and tunnelled,

easter 10/10/2008 07:45:09
So if we got independence, and let's say we got 10% of the UK's assets (slightly above our population share), that would mean a foreign Government would own 45% of our main banks, and we would own 5%.

One example of the independence dividend?
50

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 07:45:58
49 Nevski
PS
You can see from the article that the total amount allocated for purchase of equity is only £25bn
51

izzie,

dundee 10/10/2008 07:57:21
#27 Again the issue of the NUMBER NOT AMOUNT of lost votes raises its head we do not know and will never know for which party these were intended therefore it is erroneous to say that the result of the election would have been different.

I am curious to know if this current financial situation will see the UK joining the EURO any opinions?
52

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 08:08:55
55 George#

The figure initially is that £25 billion is available with a further £25 billion in the coffers and that equals £50 billion.

Then there is the cost of Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley.

These are the basic figures as far as i can see and as Wall Street is falling, Asian markets are falling and the LSE has just plunged 10% in a few minutes...looks like all the banks are failing by as much as 25% already!

Looks like the initial figues will be much much higher George!


53

Bigwull,

edinburgh 10/10/2008 08:12:14
ITS AMAZING HOW A FEW THOUSAND GAMBLERS/SPECULATORS HAVE BROUGHT THE WORLD TO ITS KNEES FRIGHTENING.
It's a prime example of the Private sector good - Public sector bad policies of the last 30 years oh and no 12 obviously you never lived through the Thatcher era then, someone that Scotland never ever voted for.
54

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 08:12:19
56 izzie
"I am curious to know if this current financial situation will see the UK joining the EURO any opinions?"

Very unlikely. If we had been in the Euro, the govt would not have had its own central bank to control and instruct to make liquidity available for the banks. They would have had to operate through the ECB. I am not saying whethjer that is a good or bad thing - just that I cannot see the govt giving up this power.
55

Greens,

10/10/2008 08:16:01
Why persist in calling them "Scottish" banks? As soon as a company is quoted on the Stock Market it becomes multinational regardless of where its headquarters is. Have heard no mention of The Clydesdale, are Aussies better at operating banks?
56

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 08:17:12
Personally i think the government has made a massive mistake here, they have mis-timed the intervention and acted alone.

This is all proving to have no impact on the stock shares whatsoever, they really have made a ba**s up of this i think.

Any bets on which bank will be nationalised next?
57

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 10/10/2008 08:17:29
#44 and #50

Nationalizing the banks would not be a very smart idea.

If you nationalized the banks who would be in charge of running them? Most likely is would the same people who where running the regulation of financial services. These are the people who where so brain dead that they where unable to see this coming despite dire warnings by economists, the IMF and the worlds SuperBank , the Bank of International Settlements.

Do you actually believe that if Government was the sole shareholder that lending decisions would be made with out political interference? I can just see every useless back bench MP lobbying the bank to lend to all sorts of commercially unviable schemes that serve their own narrow political interests.

The banks are guilty of lending recklessly, which has been one of the major causes of the property bubble. But the regulators did nothing to reign this in because Government was enjoying the benefits of this illusionary growth.

Banks are best when they are run along commercial lines. Governments are best when they regulate.

58

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 08:18:57
60 Greens#

If that was the case then Iceland would not be facing bankruptcy would it?
59

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 08:19:53
57 Nevski
The money that went to Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley was, once again an injection of liquidity - it was not purchase of the company. Already about half of the injection for Northern Rock is paid back. Both of these were virtually bust so the govt got them for virtually nothing.

Even if the amount for equity purchase does reach £50bn - that is just over £800 per person in the UK but that is also spread between 6 companies. That averages out at about £170 per person per company.

That is entirely different to £2000 per person per company. That is the point I was making about spreading the risk.
60

Wiliam Y,

Kinross 10/10/2008 08:25:27
Over the past 30 years the culture of high st banking has changed from a culture of savings to a culture of loans. Perhaps the two opposing cultures are demanding that there should be a bank for savers and a bank for loaners.

Separate banks would employ specific worker types and perhaps automatically self regulate the que system.
61

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 08:28:49
57 Nevski
Sorry - correction
That should be 5 companies giving an average of £160/170 assuming the total is a bit over £800 per person.
62

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 08:29:49
George#

You are again referring to RBS in an independent Scotland and divising the liability. RBS has never operated in an independent Scotland so you just can apply that logic.

Like you said earlier, we have no way of knowing what the situation with them or BOS would have been.

What is absolutely sure is that it is the UK that is responsible for the current situation and not an independent Scotland.
63

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 08:30:15
69 dividing
64

,

10/10/2008 08:30:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
65

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 08:30:53
65 William Y
So where would the lending bank get the money for loans?
66

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 08:31:35
70 Nevski
Correction already made.
67

Boy Wonder,

10/10/2008 08:34:07
When I were a lad ... I remember a socialist Labour Party proudly boasting "We'll nationalise the banks!"

And it seems they've given up their principles now that they're actually doing it ...
68

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 08:37:56
69 Nevski
I am just illustrating the situation as it might have been. That is all. This might have happened in an independent Scotland or it might not - who knows? But the Irish banks have similar problems and Scottish banks might (or might not) have operated in the same way as Irish banks.
69

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 08:41:04
sm753#

The talk on the TV is mother Russia coming to the aid of Iceland and how strong Russia is...the usual pseudo-patriotic propoganda.

The loan will almost certainly be agreed but the money is very little in terms of the Russian reserves.

It's little more than a public relations stunt and a show of goodwill but i don't think there will be any strings or even a mention of NATO.

The only thing that is being mentioned here is in relation to Russias claim to the arctic oil and gas reserves and that Iceland could well be a useful friend to have.
70

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 08:42:41
75 Nevski
Also both HBOS and RBS do most of their business in other parts of the UK. IF Scotland had been independent would RBS and BOS have been content just to operate in Scotland or would they have sought to expand. Again who knows? But if they had chosen a similar expansion they would have been mainly regualted by the authorities in the rest of the UK as banks are regulated where they do business, not where their head office is.
71

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 10/10/2008 08:42:47
Q: When where the last two dates the FTSE 100 traded below 4,000

A: December 19th 1996 and Today
72

Fairfax,

10/10/2008 08:43:10
KampungHighlander (62): "Nationalizing the banks would not be a very smart idea."

I have similar misgivings, but it's preferable to systemic collapse. So long as we're following the Norwegian model of the early 1990s, this would be a temporary part-nationalization, followed by a re-privatization a few years in the future, if all goes well. The Norwegian Bank's self-analysis makes fascinating reading:

http://www.norges-bank.no/templates/article____18098.aspx

73

Fairfax,

10/10/2008 08:45:05
Nevsky (76): "It's little more than a public relations stunt and a show of goodwill but i don't think there will be any strings or even a mention of NATO."

Is there no mention of use of the former USAF base at Keflavik?
74

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 08:49:58
76 Nevski
I don't know about the relevance of Iceland regarding Arctic resources. Both Greenland and Norwegian Islands are further north and they would control any resources that might be present.

There could be something sinister here from Putin but I am only speculationg. He is worried about Georgia (and others) joining NATO. He might well be trying to exert some influence in this respect as Iceland is a NATO member.
75

Brodric,

10/10/2008 08:50:45
UK government should buy those shares and hand them over to the Scottish independent government, as part of the divorce settlement.
76

Edward,

10/10/2008 08:54:05
#77 Ugly George
You really are clueless arent you!
Both RBS and HBOS conduct business globally not just in the UK, they are INTERNATIONAL banks!
If Scotland were Independent there would be no change, they still would be INTERNATIONAL, just as Banco Santander conducts business in the UK under the Abbey brand
77

Rob,

10/10/2008 08:54:31
#80 Fairfax.

I agree. It took the Russians 2 minutes to come up with the dosh for Iceland. Funded from their Defence budget no doubt. As the Icelandic prime minister put it - "new friends"
78

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 08:54:42
83 Brodric
Why should they hand over companies which do most of their business in other parts of the UK.
79

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 08:58:41
80 Fairfax#

I don't think that there will be any conditions attached to NATO in the discussions; it will be a commercial loan as far as i can see and a goodwill gesture from Russia.

Russia is and always has been desperate to be a participant in and be accepted by the west and that is the thinking behind this offer i believe and also the Arctic!

You never can tell here though so i will post what i find out.

80

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 08:59:52
85 Edward
Before resorting to gratuitous insults please read what I said. I said that they did MOST of their business in other parts of the UK. I did not say that they did all their business in the UK. I have held shares in both these companies and I am well aware of their operations overseas including (USA and China). The oversea operations of HBOS are more limited. But the fact remains that the comment I made is true and accurate. So please check before you resort to insults.
81

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 09:05:00
88 Nevski
Is Putin renowned for his "goodwill"
82

Mr Lahey,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 09:07:01
#60 you have heard no mention of Clydesdale as it’s not quoted on the UK markets but on the Oz ones. It's parent has been badly run for years and engulfed in scandal after scandal. They are now on their third CEO in about six years. For those claiming RBS is not 'Scottish' until recently there was only one Englishman on the board. The majority of directors were Scots or other nationals. The only reason Gordon Pell was not axed when RBS took over Nat West was because of the golden handcuff he had of about £3m as a parting gift from the former Nat West board. Mark Fisher was the only other English man and Nat West survivor and he has been ‘rewarded’ with the CEO post at ABN Ambro.
What’s likely to happen now those is that Scottish influence will be diluted by the expected appointment of ‘no-nonsense’ Yorkshire man Stephen Hester to the role of CEO when Sir Fred finally pays the price for destroying what he created.
83

Rob,

10/10/2008 09:07:28
Nevsky 88. You can't seriously believe that!
84

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 10/10/2008 09:09:00
Does this mean Gordon can print his face on Scottish money? He'll love that.
85

Mr Lahey,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 09:09:37
As an aside I notice that RBS staff are still flying club class when they travel to and from London, which includes a nice glass of Champagne before takeoff.
One can't help but be reminded of a certain emperor fiddling while Rome burned.
86

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 09:10:45
92 Rob#

I do!
87

Rob,

10/10/2008 09:18:28
Nevsky. I think you've gone native, mate: you need to come home and get re-acquainted with reality. (Although I fully confess that won't be a very happy experience!)

The Russians only think strategically - this is about their empire extension in the Arctic. To believe this is anything other than that is, in my view, very very dangerous. Russians don't do friendly gestures

88

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 09:28:35
96 Rob#

I understand your view but don't agree.
89

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 10/10/2008 09:30:08
#47 ""If Salmond had his wits about him, he'd be pushing for 100% nationalisation of the banks and 100% renationalisation of the public utilities."

At a cost of how many billions to buy out the shareholders?"

Oh, that's an easy one. Let the banks all go bust, at which point the shares are worthless, and take them over immediately in the nation's name. Then run them the way banks were run sensibly and profitably for hundreds of years, until Thatcherism turned them from carefully-managed savings-and-loans providers into wild gambling manufacturers of totally imaginary money which has finally bowed to the inevitable and ceased to exist.
90

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 09:33:18
96 Rob#

Article from Russia Today which is pro-Kremlin..rather like the Scotsman is pro-union but neverthless sums up the general mood:

http://mnweekly.ru/columnists/20081010/55350499.html
91

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 10/10/2008 09:37:15
#100 "Brilliant, quite brilliant. A rerun of 1929. Even deeper in the smelly stuff than we are."

Do enlighten us with a rational explanation of how that would be worse than leaving them in the hands of the people who have just cost the nation half a TRILLION pounds with no perceptible benefit for it, as the FTSE continues to plunge.
92

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 10/10/2008 09:42:05
#93

I think printing Gordons visage on bog rolls would be a more popular choice.
93

TommyKaye,

UK 10/10/2008 09:42:13
greta new name for our dearleader


CRASH GORDON

94

Rob,

10/10/2008 09:48:23
Nevsky 99. Fair enough. It's an interesting article - particularly when read from the perspective of being a pro Kremlin publication. However, the strands that I fear are in it.

Commissar Brown has decided to confront Iceland for purely political grandstanding reasons. Suddenly this is not about global solutions - let's take these shits to court and get our money back - the hard man repeating for his usual mantra of best for Britons, small businesses etc etc - you know that spiel as well as me. What happened to sitting down and discussing this rationally given that it seems to affect Brits and Brit Institutions more than anyone else? Or would that not contribute to stability, transparency etc etc i.e mantra part II?
95

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 09:49:25
From todays' telegraph on just how inept Brown is, i doubt Scotland could be any worse off with independence to be honest:

'Tim Congdon, a banking historian at the London School of Economics, said the rot had seeped through the foundations of British lending.

Average equity capital has fallen to 3.2 per cent (nearer 2.5 per cent sans "goodwill"), compared with 5 per cent seven years ago. "How on earth did the Financial Services Authority let this happen?" he asks.

Worse, changes pushed through by Gordon Brown in 1998 have caused the de facto cash and liquid assets ratio to collapse from post-war levels above 30 per cent to near zero. "Brown hadn't got a clue what he was doing," he says.

The risk for Britain - as property buckles - is a twin banking and fiscal squeeze. The UK budget deficit is already 3 per cent of GDP at the peak of the economic cycle, shockingly out of line with its peers. America looks frugal by comparison.

Maastricht rules may force the Government to raise taxes or slash spending into a recession. This way lies crucifixion. The UK current account deficit was 5.7 per cent of GDP in the second quarter, the highest in half a century. Gordon Brown has disarmed us on every front'

96

thistle do,

here n'there 10/10/2008 09:53:13
#94 Well spotted but remember they are a bunch of bankers. They're just taking the lead from "its not my fault my exciting decisions have been found out" Sir Fred. When are heads going to roll?
97

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 09:54:41
104 Rob#

Totally agree, it's a disgrace what Brown has done with regard to Iceland. The UK could guarantee the UK money in the meantime until Iceland could repay the debt.

Russia offers to help Iceland and Brown freezes bank accounts and threatens a small country (that is despeately in need of help) with legal action..what an a*se!

98

Brodric,

10/10/2008 09:58:27
87 - Ugly George - as we can see from the current global situation, everybody is trading with everybody else. There's no difference, except that BOS is rooted historically and culturally in Scotland. So, that's why!
99

Fairfax,

10/10/2008 09:58:51
Rev. Campbell (101): "in the hands of the people who have just cost the nation half a TRILLION pounds with no perceptible benefit for it"

They haven't cost us this money yet. There are two parts to this deal: (i) £50 billion for the bank equity, on the assumption that this extra cash will tide them over, and (ii) several hundred billion quid in loans, acting as lender of last resort. The hope is that the second massive loan will take the place of the now-defunct wholesale credit market, with the taxpayer ultimately getting this money back. The perceptible benefit will come if we avoid Great Depression 2.0 -- admittedly, it's a big "if".
100

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 10/10/2008 09:59:22
It must be difficult being Gordon Brown. Earlier he was mad with the Irish for guaranteeing all personal deposits in Irish Banks and now he is mad at Iceland because they won't guarantee the commercial deposits in Icelandic Banks.

He is even using anti-terror legislation aimed at money laundering to seize Icelandic assets.

What's next? Detention under anti terror laws for bank executives?

Or will he declare himself Lord Protector like the other most unpopular political leader who was never elected.
101

Rob,

10/10/2008 10:05:11
Nevsky Absolutely! I think we are very much in accord about the performance of Commissar Brown who thinks he's saving the world at the moment. Using anti-terrorist laws to get at Iceland was the cheapest shot I've seen in years: he should be made to apologise. The Telegraph piece was excellent, I agree.
102

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 10/10/2008 10:12:36
#110 Yeah, I know how the measure works, but thanks for discussing it intelligently instead of the standard trolling from sm753 and his ilk. Your point that it's a very big "if" is the pertinent one here. The market is in the grip of such an irrational panic now that I don't think there's any preventing the worst-case scenario - traders haven't paid the slightest heed to the billions and billions and billions pumped into the system at daily intervals over the last week or two, and are just running around like shrieking children playing the world's most expensive game of Pass The Parcel.

We have an economy built on entirely imaginary money, and no amount of the government shouting "CALM DOWN! EVERYTHING IS UNDER CONTROL!" will suddenly make it real. The bailout sums are meaningless for that same reason - Forbes quoted the US Treasury last month as saying that the $700 billion bailout plan was that size because:

"It's not based on any particular data point, we just wanted to choose a really large number."

http://tinyurl.com/5ygr2m

You don't solve an imaginary-money problem by making up more imaginary money. Robert Mugabe tried that, and it isn't working out too well. We WILL use up the entire half-trillion, and when that's been swallowed by the bottomless pit we'll need another half-trillion, and so on until China pulls the plug.
103

Fairfax,

10/10/2008 10:12:59
KampungHighlander (111): "He is even using anti-terror legislation aimed at money laundering to seize Icelandic assets."

Given the billions of pounds of British money lodged with Icelandic banks, I would say those are now British assets. I agree that Iceland is a small country facing complete financial collapse, but we're watching a sovereign default -- if we don't seize their assets, then we won't get any money back. It's time for Iceland to offer something in return for this default: assets in Britain, access to fishing, or shares in their hydroelectric power generation, for example.

"Or will he declare himself Lord Protector like the other most unpopular political leader who was never elected."

Cromwell is really quite popular here in England.
104

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 10:19:38
114 Ronaldo#

There are no Brigadoon economics as far as i know and i am not sure what this has to do Scotland; the banks followed the UK model.

Read the article from the Telegraph for just how well UK PLC had done with your glorious leader at the helm and what his legacy will be.

The UK registered 'Brig 'o' Broon' is fast going down the tubes!
105

Fairfax,

10/10/2008 10:24:00
Rev. Campbell (115): "The market is in the grip of such an irrational panic"

I'd prefer to describe this as rational panic -- their fears that the world economic system is in terrible trouble are well-founded.

"traders haven't paid the slightest heed to the billions and billions and billions pumped into the system"

To be fair, the traders are simply executing the orders of investors: investors are selling equities because ultimately cash is king.

"You don't solve an imaginary-money problem by making up more imaginary money."

All money is ultimately imaginary -- the key is to avoid stretching its credibility too thin. You're almost certainly correct that we will, in part, pay for this via inflation, but that need not lead to hyperinflation. After all, even the inflation of the 1970s was quite modest 10^8 per cent, or Germany's 1920s inflation of 10^16 per cent.

"We WILL use up the entire half-trillion, and when that's been swallowed by the bottomless pit we'll need another half-trillion, and so on until China pulls the plug."

It might happen that way, in which case China is also in terrible problems -- I agree that there's a risk of Great Depression 2.0, but there's still a chance to avoid it.
106

Fairfax,

10/10/2008 10:25:55
117: "After all, even the inflation of the 1970s was quite modest 10^8 per cent, or Germany's 1920s inflation of 10^16 per cent."

A typing error! It should have read: "even the inflation of the 1970s was quite modest compared to Zimbabwe's 10^8 per cent, or Germany's 1920s inflation of 10^16 per cent."
107

Rob,

10/10/2008 10:32:28
#113 and #114./ I agree that investors shouldn't have touched Icelandic Banks with a barge pole. It has shades of BCCI - an extra .25% was never worth it but the institutions should have known better. They should sing for it but again, as public servants, they are blaming everyone else but themselves. Real professionals there.

As for the "diplomacy tool" as you describe it - complete disaster. Hello Mr Putin, what can you do for us today?
108

Gtj,

10/10/2008 10:39:23
Thank goodness were are protected by this invincible Union force field I keep reading is Scotland saviour.

It seems to have done us wonders.

I'll take it as read that rubbish argument is blown out of the water.
109

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 10/10/2008 10:43:59
#116 Fairfax

"Cromwell is really quite popular here in England"

I think you may be a little biased since he was your comrade in arms. But when he died he was reckoned to be the most hated man in England.

Who knows, maybe 400 years passing may even improve Browns reputation. I doubt it though.
110

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 10/10/2008 10:47:02
#118 "I'd prefer to describe this as rational panic -- their fears that the world economic system is in terrible trouble are well-founded."

Well, yes - I meant that it's irrational in the sense that the same sense that it was irrational when everything was going well. Panic would have been the rational response any time in the last 20-odd years...
111

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 10:49:36
121 Ronaldo#

'Salmond and the Liberals with their Brigadoon ecomonics would have seen Scotand go exactly the same way as Iceland. Bust in 48 hours'

How do you know? You can't make this statement as the banks are operating in a UK framework so in a UK context if the banks went t**s up then Scotland would be bankrupt; your point is about the UK and NOT the situation of banks in an independent Scotland.

112

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 11:00:52
127#

So far this is all about the liquidity of banks and lending and the ability to obtain credit and short to medium term finance.

I completely fail to see how the situation will get better in a recession, you can't keep re-financing the banks to ride it out...and what happens when the whole mortgage market defaults again, which it will?
113

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 10/10/2008 11:08:46
#128 Exactly. Which is why the half-trillion will be used up, and more will be needed. Boiled down to the simplest possible explanation, mortgage debt is far higher than could ever be recovered by selling the properties it's secured on. If everyone defaulted on their mortgage tomorrow and the banks repossessed everyone's home and sold it at its full current market value (hard to see who they'd be selling them TO, of course), it wouldn't raise nearly enough money to cover their maze of complex and labyrinthinely-disguised obligations.

Essentially the entire planet is basically bankrupt. We've borrowed and lent more money than actually exists.
114

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 11:12:06
128 Nevski
"and what happens when the whole mortgage market defaults again, which it will?"

Are you saying that everybody will stop repaying their motgages?

If things get really bad in the UK then you will see the value of Sterling fall as a kind of balancing act.
115

Fairfax,

10/10/2008 11:12:25
KampungHighlander (123): "I think you may be a little biased since he was your comrade in arms. But when he died he was reckoned to be the most hated man in England."

I admit my bias here. I would say the "most hated" status did not arise until 1660. It's his 350th death anniversary:

http://www.olivercromwell.org/350_death_anniversary.htm

It's a pleasant relief from financial collapse!
116

energizer,

edinburgh 10/10/2008 11:14:25
Meanwhile, back on topic, Fred Goodwin, and his predecessors [Mathewson and Younger] were lionised by the politicians and media who mostly don't understand the financial markets. ABN Amro was the vanity purchase to end them all and it's already brought down Fortis, which was one of the partners. Santnder was the other so don't think your Abbey accounts are safe - and me with a mortgage there!
The solution is going to be governments printing money, inflation spiralling up, old debts being wiped out because of that, but new borrowing becoming all but impossible. Back to the 70s. Cash is king. And whaty did Gordon do with the gold reserves that could have underwritten the printing presses? Oh yes, the grand gesture to third world debt - he sold them and the price went up, as any fool could have told him.
Let's hope it's not back to the 30s.
Also, look to hearing less and less from Salmond a co about public investment - that new Forth Bridge will be the first thing to go - the old one isn't as bad as it was thought, and even if they changed their minds on PFI, the construction companies can't borrow to fund the schemes. B the way #125, correct about the banks - so don't the so called Regulators read wikipedia then?
117

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 11:14:27
129 Rev
I don't know if that is the case. Not everyone has a 90% mortgage. Many older people (if they have been prudent) have mortgages which amount to less than half the value of their houses.
118

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 11:17:11
132 energizer.
Many people criticised Fred Goodwin at the time if the bid for ABN Amro saying that it was a bid too far and he was overpaying. Barclays put in the initial bid and then RBS topped that and Barclays walked away as they were not prepared to pay any more.
119

Fairfax,

10/10/2008 11:18:27
LeLutin (125): "Ok, it is a form of credit insurance but unlike an insurance taken out with a “normal” insurance company the insurer is not regulated"

That's correct. For example, if credit default swaps on Megabank are priced at 3%, then lending £100 to Megabank requires a £3 payment to the CDS provider, in order to protect against default. For comparison, Bear Stearns CDS rates were at 12% (IIRC) when they failed, whilst the Icelandic banks had CDS rates in the 30% range last week [financial markets often use basis points: 1 bp = 0.01%]. You're correct that they're not directly regulated and that nobody knows how reliable CDS default payouts would be.
120

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 10/10/2008 11:22:49
#121 Ronaldo

"There is no Scottish Bank capable of surviving a run without UK government intervention. Brown has done well in preventing this."

Brown is a leading expert in Dithernomics. That is the Dismal Science of doing nothing and hoping it will all go away, much like his recurring dreams of someone in cabinet trying to stab him in the back.

Examples:

He dithered around until Northern Rock was only salvageable by Nationalization.

He said that he would not raise the guarantee bank deposits and that dither created the need to raise the guarantee.

He was taking to Lloyds months ago about taking over HBOS but dithered until this became a necessity.

He castigated the Irish for going it alone and then after dithering at a half hearted co ordinated effort decided when he had no choice to go it alone.

The man has a history of being unable to make any decision until all of his options disappear and he is left with only one option.

His "Big Bang", and regulatory changes are partly to blame for this crisis in the first place, and his utter inability to make a decision has made it much worse. If anybody should be falling on his sword for this fiasco it Gordon Brown
121

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 10/10/2008 11:23:21
#133 Yeah, but some people also have mortgages which are now worth about 150% of the value of their house...
122

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 10/10/2008 11:25:14
(Obviously I've been grossly oversimplifying the situation to try to make it comprehensible. But the basic fact is that if everyone who's currently owed money by someone somewhere calls it in, there isn't enough money on Earth to cover it all. And what there is will be 100% owned by China. Communism wins!)
123

Fairfax,

10/10/2008 11:28:50
Rev Campbell (129): "We've borrowed and lent more money than actually exists."

That's partly correct, but is not in itself unusual; I believe you're missing the essential point here, which is that financial institutions have ceased to believe in risk estimates, and the latter are a sine qua non for liquid markets. After all, the whole point of credit is to fund current expenditure from future earnings, so every state's national debt is promising to repay amounts that do not exist in the present, for example. For comparison, even the large amounts being considered today pale in comparison to the vast quantities required to pay for the World Wars -- in that sense, things could be much worse.
124

Fairfax,

10/10/2008 11:34:27
Le Lutin (141): "We are all doomed?"

I don't think so, but we're in for a difficult decade.
125

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 11:36:16
139 Ronaldo#

Your argument is based AGAIN on Scotland within the UK and not on an independent Scotland so again it's pointless.

The UK is bailing out the UK and NOT independent Scottish banks in an independent Scotland!


Unless it has escaped your attention the UK has just put together a package of £500 billion so how do you equate that Scotland could not provide £20 billion.

Even Ireland has guaranteed banks to the tune of £300 billion and yesterday EXTENDED it's guarantee to foreign banks with Irish shares..they can clearly manage and not one Irish bank has yet failed!
126

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 10/10/2008 11:41:00
#140 Well, there's one of the fundamental fallacies of capitalism - the whole idea of "wealth creation". As the Germans in the 1920s/30s found, and as Mugabe is finding today, you can't create wealth. There is a finite amount of money - if you print more it devalues to compensate.

All you can do with wealth is move it around. Your house has only doubled in value if someone's prepared to buy it, and if the one you buy to replace is hasn't also doubled in value. Otherwise, regardless of its price, it's worth the exact same as it always was - one house, and the second you start believing anything else you're playing Fantasy Economy, which is what banks and governments have been doing since about 1980.

How do you magically invent wealth? If you invent something clever out of dirt and sell it at a huge profit, someone had to have the money to buy it from you in the first place. You haven't created wealth, you've simply moved it from them to you. We used to apply restraint and limits to stop this situation getting out of control, but idiotic short-sighted greed at the highest levels put an end to that, and what we're seeing now is the inevitable result. Everyone's finally realised that there isn't enough money and never will (or can) be, and are clamouring to grab their own bit before it runs out, so that they can spend it on tinned food, bottled water and an AK-47.

Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better, and they may *never* get better. Idiots like #139 trying to make ridiculous petty local capital out of it need to lift their heads up and look at the oncoming juggernaut.
127

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 10/10/2008 11:44:10
#142 "But the key point surely is Brown did save the situation. "

The FTSE seems to disagree with you. 8.2% down at time of writing, and falling by the minute.
128

Fairfax,

10/10/2008 11:47:19
Nevsky (144): "Even Ireland has guaranteed banks to the tune of £300 billion and yesterday EXTENDED it's guarantee to foreign banks with Irish shares..they can clearly manage and not one Irish bank has yet failed!"

No Irish bank has formally failed, but the Irish government acting unilaterally to guarantee depositors was almost certainly born of near desperation. For comparison, Irish banks' total liabilities are of the order of 450 billion Euros, but with a GDP of 140 billion Euros -- roughly 3 to 1. For Iceland this ratio was 7 to 1. There must therefore, sadly, be the chance that Ireland will not pull through.
129

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 11:52:45
145 Rev
Wealth is just another name for ownership of assets. It is perfectly possible for an economy to create more assets.
130

Fairfax,

10/10/2008 11:54:37
Rev Campbell (145): "As the Germans in the 1920s/30s found, and as Mugabe is finding today, you can't create wealth. There is a finite amount of money - if you print more it devalues to compensate."

Your analysis would be correct if economies were static, but is false when economies grow: printing money only leads to disaster if its rate of growth exceeds the growth of the economy itself, as occurred in Germany and is occurring in Zimbabwe and Iceland.
131

Ugly George,

10/10/2008 11:58:11
144 Nevski
Once again you are not comparing like with like. The £20bn you mentioned is for the purchase of shares in the companies. The £500bn is liquidity to be spread around the banks and bank of England in loans. In other words amounts from the £500bn will be continually flowing in and out of the Bank of England but the £20bn has gone to the shareholders of the banks whose shares have been bought by the govt.
132

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 11:59:51
147 and 148#

I agree Ireland are in a precarious situation to say the least but for the moment they seem confident enough to extend the guarantee and are making a better fist of it than the UK which is plunging to critical levels!
133

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 10/10/2008 12:01:04
#150, 151 Nevertheless the core fact is true - wealth is finite. It has to be finite, because the planet is finite. People are realising that as things like oil start to run out, you can't count on notional future earnings, because there won't be anything to make those earnings from. As I said, I'm simplifying the situation for comprehensibility, but wealth, in every meaningful practical sense, IS finite. It's no use creating "assets" if nobody can buy them.
134

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 10/10/2008 12:01:43
#142 Ronaldo

"But the key point surely is Brown did save the situation."

I think the jury is still out on that one but from where I am sitting the situation in the UK does not look saved at all.

You are only 9 months into a housing correction that will last 2 to 3 years.

If this housing market continues to unravel you may be looking at the nationalization of the entire UK banking and building society sector except for HSBC.

Things may get so bad that the government may start nationalizing peoples homes.

By that I mean you may see the Government taking all the repossessed housing stock of the banks hands and turning them into Council Flats. This may become necessary as to allow them to be auctioned would only force prices to fall further and put more mortgages under water.
135

Wiliam Y,

Kinross 10/10/2008 12:08:52
72 Ugly George

Perhaps borrow from the savings banks (if the lending models has not been blown apart)...but rebranded and marketed as 2 distinct separate brands.
136

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 12:13:13
157 Ronaldo#

Don't forget Norway will be just fine but then it's not a tinder box economy; it's independent and has it's huge oil reserves to rely on and the accumulated wealth that went with it!
137

Fairfax,

10/10/2008 12:23:52
RevCampbell (154): "Nevertheless the core fact is true - wealth is finite. It has to be finite, because the planet is finite."

That's certainly true, and ultimately your argument is another form of Malthusian insight: in the very long term, unless new technologies intervene, humanity would ultimately reach the stage at which all planetary assets were exploited to their full potential, at which point growth, in our current sense, would end. However, that does not imply that we have yet reached this stage.

"People are realising that as things like oil start to run out, you can't count on notional future earnings, because there won't be anything to make those earnings from."

Not all things are like oil, however. Consider, for example, wind power: despite its high capital costs and the unreliability of wind, there is no obvious upper bound to its expansion, despite the stored kinetic energy in the Earth's wind systems being obviously finite. The same is also true of solar power, for example (for comparison, the solar energy used by plants per year is roughly ten times humanity's current energy consumption).
138

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 12:30:07
158 Nevski
Things have a funny way of turning out. Norway has invested its oil fund in a number of areas and investments around the world. But markets around the world are taking a hammering. I am not saying that Norway is in trouble but its oil fund (depending on where it is invested) might be taking a big hit.

Also regarding the oil. If there is a full blown crash and the markets go into meltdown then the demand for oil will fall even more and the price could well come down dramatically. New North Sea oil fields tend to be smaller, in deeper water and hence it is more expensive to extract the oil. At what stage do these fields cease to be viable at lower prices as opposed to very cheap production in the Middle East and other parts of the world.

As I said, I am not saying that Norway is in danger - only that it might not be immune to the problems around the world.
139

Doh,

10/10/2008 12:32:41


Up to 50% taxpayer owned and not even a seat on the board.

Will Gordon Brown please resign and let an amatuer take over.
140

Fairfax,

10/10/2008 12:34:26
Nevsky (158): "Don't forget Norway will be just fine but then it's not a tinder box economy; it's independent and has it's huge oil reserves to rely on and the accumulated wealth that went with it!"

Norway is certainly in an enviable situation, but there are still clouds on the horizon. Its accumulated wealth is invested in assets and currencies whose total value is obviously decreasing, and which are, for the most part, overseas.

On a slightly different topic, I have heard rumours from Icelandic colleagues that their government begged Norway for support, even to the extent of suggesting becoming part of Norway, citing the fact that the total liabilities of Iceland would be trivial for Norway. Now the population of Iceland is small and concentrated, and rumour obviously abounds at present, but I wonder if any others have heard such stories?
141

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 10/10/2008 12:44:41
Alex Salmond won't be happy to see smug Gordon's face printed all over Scottish bank notes.
142

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 10/10/2008 12:48:32
#163 Fantasy jingoistic drivel. We have more overpriced houses than anyone except America, and an economy massively unbalanced away from manufacturing and towards "financial services", ie the source of all these problems.
143

,

10/10/2008 12:48:42
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
144

Alan B,

10/10/2008 12:49:31
#165

"smug Gordon's face printed all over Scottish bank notes"

Is Brown trying a new style of devaluation.
145

Fairfax,

10/10/2008 12:50:30
Oort Cloud (165): "Alex Salmond won't be happy to see smug Gordon's face printed all over Scottish bank notes."

You're a light-year from the sun, so presumably you're still commenting on Northern Rock's recent fall from grace. Alternatively, this would be a good time to unveil your superluminal technology. [And if you're Iain Banks, another Culture novel would be welcome, or Wasp Factory II: The Pregnancy.]
146

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 12:52:08
162 Fairfax#

Norway will feel the pinch as well i am sure but in no way to the extent as we will. Scotland is really in trouble within the UK now along with the rest of the country.

There is no way Iceland would give up it's independence so don't know how you heard that rumour, do explain as i also have two Icelandic friends and that would in no way be on the cards!

Does raise the interesting question that if Scotland had outpaced the wealth of Norway and England following 30 years of stagnation went bankrupt next week due to a banking crisis, you could well be applying to be subsumed into the Scottish state.

We would probably sell bits and pieces off to France and Germany i guess and just keep Berwick!
147

,

10/10/2008 12:53:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
148

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 13:02:30
163 bring them on#

You really come out with some of the most ill-informed rubbish of any poster...read 105 to see just how well placed we are!

One of the best placed..are you serious?

Interesting that you are now quoting Norway and Denmark as being ahead of the UK; surprising how small independent countries can manage isn't it?
149

Fairfax,

10/10/2008 13:15:08
Nevsky (170): "There is no way Iceland would give up it's independence so don't know how you heard that rumour"

I heard it via an Icelandic academic whose family is part of the so-called Octopus -- ask your Icelandic friends for info. Still, it's only a rumour. I'm not sure it's any less credible than borrowing money from Russia: I'd rather be a Norwegian subject than a Russian one.
150

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 13:21:16
Interesting article from the Times on Darling and how he culd be starting a run on the banks.

Darling, in refusing to guarantee deposits for public bosies so councils and public bodies are considering withdrawing their money from the banks and putting them into government bonds; Chelsea and Kensington seem the first to be considering it!
151

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 13:42:31
175 sm753#

Was a joke directed at Fairfax's joke on Icelandic independence..sorry you are not bright enough to spot it..but no surprise!
152

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 10/10/2008 13:43:23
#175 That's why it's a question rather than a statement, you witless dolt.
153

Bigwull,

edinburgh 10/10/2008 13:51:44
174 chelsea and kensington oh what a surprise
154

Memyself&I,

10/10/2008 13:55:52
Rodster, easy son.
155

Memyself&I,

10/10/2008 13:57:13
#61 Mistimed? Hmm. Yes, had they left it any later we would not have an RBS right now.

156

Memyself&I,

10/10/2008 13:58:27
BTW, The smart people put their money in at the bottom of the market, sell at the top. I'd say the government will make a pretty penny out of all this.
157

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 14:21:16
182 Memyself&I
You could be right but have they called it right for the bottom of the market.
158

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 10/10/2008 14:42:15
#178 "- proposed putting ALL the UK banks into insolvency, precipitating a global economic collapse which would make 1929 look like a walk in park."

Still waiting for your reasoned explanation of why that would be worse than what's happening now, by the way.
159

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 10/10/2008 14:52:11
"- thinks only a finite amount of wealth can be created (one of the basic economic fallacies - ever hear of a concept called "innovation"?)"

Ever hear of a concept called "reading"? You can invent a way to turn dirt into diamonds, but it won't generate a penny of wealth if nobody's got any money to buy diamonds with.
160

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 10/10/2008 15:02:14
It wouldn't be a real collapse, though, only a notional technical one. The government would take them over, propping them up with the hundreds of billions they're pumping in now, except this time it'd all be for the benefit of the taxpayer instead of the greedy idiots who caused this mess. They'd be run conservatively like they always used to be, and core banking is inherently profitable so the taxpayer would get their money back and savers wouldn't lose their savings.

Current capitalism needs a factory reset. You don't stop a ship sinking with sticking plasters.
161

Ugly George,

10/10/2008 15:09:41
185 Rev
But money is only a token used to trade goods like diamonds etc. That is what you do not seem to understand. A ten pound note is only a piece of paper after all. The only reason it represents wealth is because of the assets or goods you can exchange it for.
162

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 10/10/2008 15:23:53
#189 I understand that perfectly. But you can't sell a man diamonds if he's got no food. In that society, diamonds are worth literally nothing. No wealth is created by their presence.
163

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 10/10/2008 15:26:54
#190 You really can't see the wood for the trees, too focused on trying to defend our incompetent Prime Minister to grasp the magnitude of thinking required to fix this fundamental crisis of basic arithmetic. If your house was on fire, you'd probably open a window to let the breeze in and cool the place down a bit.
164

Rufus T. Firefly,

10/10/2008 17:03:40
Falling Oil and Gas prices will make a big dent in Norway's economic performance this year and next.

However their Record high oil and gas investment
will help them weather the global economic slowdown better than many other nations.

They certainly have played a blinder.
165

Marga,

Fife 10/10/2008 17:08:14
Santander vs RBS

For a bit of information on the difference in professionalism/leadership/tactics (or piracy, or whatever it's called in banking circles) between the Santander and the RBS, see the following link:

Where Are They Now? Winners & Losers in ABN Amro Deal, a Year Later

http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2008/10/08/where-are-they-now-winners-losers-in-the-abn-amro-deal-one-year-later/?mod=yahoo_hs

Also, Santander's fancy footwork after the Amro deal was noticed by some people in comments on a BBC site (Peston's Picks, 14 July 2008):

"Santander have ABM Amro they got they sold some of it almost immediately and got most their money back.

Now they use their cash pile to buy at fire sale prices.

In short, Santander have been pretty shrewd and it reassures that maybe while we all know bad news is coming and it will probably get a lot worse, the complete armageddon that is built into almost all bank share prices is at the extreme end of probabilities".
and:
"Santander shares have a spanish withholding tax taken off the dividends and all this done with spanish government subsidy. Staff are moved to various companies like Isban and Produban to hide the true cost of the bank. Look out Alliance and Leicster I hope your union is strong because Santander dont have unions in Isban , Produban and barely recognise them in Abbey. Lets all say whoopee to the shareholders of Santander in spain and latin america. Bye Bye British Banking..Look out the Big four you'l be next"
166

Rufus T. Firefly,

10/10/2008 18:05:52
#196 Le Lutin

Yes if theyy have invested the money wisely (which I am sure they will have) then the money will keep pouring in.

As long as they never invested in British Banks!
167

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 18:13:05
197 Rufus#

How are Scotland doing in the union again Rufus?
168

Rufus T. Firefly,

10/10/2008 18:15:12
One Million times better than if we were independent Nevsky.
169

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 18:20:22
199 Rufus#

Like Norway you mean?
170

morris,

edinburgh 10/10/2008 18:22:52
These are the quotations from alegedly the same person.

27 I'm glad Alex Salmond's unrealistic dream of an independent Scotland is failing.

33 My first choice was SNP. Just don't like the man at the helm.

Perhaps you could explain how you can disagree with yourself ?
You then quote Robert Burns, but he detested the Union, or is Parcel of Rogues a figment of our imagination ?Try reading that sometime before you quote Burns again!

Im dying to know how someone can have SNP as their first choice because he does NOT like its leader and does NOT support independence?

If you dont support independence then what on earth are you talking about?

Inconsistency is your middle (or should it be muddle) name!
171

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 18:28:39
199 Rufus#

Just astonishing reading your posts with regard to Norway yet you don't have enough brain cells to figure it out do you?

I feel sorry for people like you Rufus, genuinely. It seems that you have been so indoctrinated that you are completely incapable of making any kind of balanced and impartial judgement whatsoever regarding either the union or independence.

You can even contradict your thoughts on independence and praise Norway (a country more similar to Scotland than any other) yet fail to see the irony.

Frankly, it's slightly embarassing!

172

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 18:37:45
Rufus#

Any idea where Brown was today with the world unfolding?

He was at the cheltenham book festival promoting his book and spent an hour taking questions from an audience.

Now that is leadership for you!
173

Rufus T. Firefly,

10/10/2008 18:40:51
Nevsky is dribbling at the mouth again.

Could be an age thing.

Remind me again, how do I contradict my thoughts on independence?
174

Rufus T. Firefly,

10/10/2008 18:45:37
Nevsky, and where was Salmond on the 27th of September whilst Gordon Brown was in the States helping resolve the world economic crisis with George Bush?

Salmond was mixing it with the political heavyweights of the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey.

Clearly he knows his level.
175

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 18:55:33
Rufus#

You really are on the cusp of idiocy aren't you..poor lad!


176

Alan B,

10/10/2008 19:01:51
#205 Rufus

"Gordon Brown was in the States with Bush"

What were they doing. Playing find the brain cell. Or just auditioning for the sequel to dumber and dumber.



177

Rufus T. Firefly,

10/10/2008 19:09:03
#207 Alan B

You are on the ball I see.

The Dumb and Dumber sequel was out a long time ago.
178

Rufus T. Firefly,

10/10/2008 19:16:34
Hey Nevsky you dimwit, still no answer to post 204?

No surprise there.



179

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 19:28:41
209#

Rufus your posts are no worth replying to that is why; what's the point?

If you can ask such mind-numbingly stupid questions why bother replying?

That's why no-one else bothers replying to you either!
180

Stirling Sentinel,

Stirling 10/10/2008 19:29:02
Too busy to comment. Great bargains to be had with such low share prices. Just about spent last year's bonus already !! Lets hope Footsie lower on Monday. Cheers all. Every cloud has a silver lining!!!
181

Rufus T. Firefly,

10/10/2008 20:08:53
Hey Nevsky #210

"Rufus your posts are no worth replying to"

Hence your replies at 200, 202, 203, 206 and 210.

What a plonker you are.

"That's why no-one else bothers replying to you either!"

Wrong again Nevsky. Do you read these forums? Clearly not.

You just arent at the races are you?

You should stop dribbling and try and post something constructive. You must have it in you somewhere.
182

Billy Boy,

Sherman Oaks California 10/10/2008 22:03:05
Did anyone notice that the analyst' spokesman was Bruno Paulson! The name of President Bush' Treasury chairman is Henry Paulson?????
183

Robin Bankes,

Culross 11/10/2008 10:19:29
Oh dear! A massive response with everyone missing the big picture of whether or not as shareholders in the RBS we will be able to shop at the Tesco branch within the Global HQ at Gogarburn. And will we still get Clubcard points?

 

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.