Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Government warned not to hold 'fire sale' of bank assets

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: 14 July 2009
MINISTERS have been warned not to rush into a politically motivated sale of taxpayers' £65 billion shareholding in Lloyds Banking Group and the Royal Bank of Scotland ahead of the general election.
The warning came from the main opposition parties, as an annual report from the bailed out banks' watchdog was published.

UK Financial Investments (UKFI) said it could take years to sell all of the government's stake in the two banks.

But its a
cting chairman, Glen Moreno, also revealed that the sell-off could begin within a year.

So far every UK household has £3,000 invested in the two banking giants. Shares have also dived by a third since the banks were rescued by the government.

UKFI said that taxpayers' liability if shares were to be sold now would be £10.9bn.

Read Bill Jamieson's analysis here

In its first annual report, the body set up by the Treasury, said: "Our own task of returning these investments to the private sector is challenging.

"The amounts involved are very large, and a successful disposal of our holdings will require professionalism and patience.

"We all have a stake in UKFI's success. Skilled disposal of these investments will recoup tens of billions of pounds for the taxpayer."

Ministers have previously made clear their desire to dispose of the shares as quickly as it was practicably possible, when market conditions recovered.

But opposition parties last night warned against a sale ahead of the general election, which is due to be held by next spring.

Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat's treasury spokesman, who predicted the financial crisis, also questioned the predicted losses. He said the state's liability if the shares were sold now would be closer to £20bn.

"There is no justification for an early sell-off. UKFI should ensure that any government attempt at a quick sale before an election is stopped in its tracks," he said.

"Taxpayers bailed the banks out and, in return, UKFI must start to act in the public interest and make it clear to the banks they own that they should operate in the same way."

Shadow chancellor George Obsorne said: "In the run-up to the election, UKFI should be protected from pressure from this increasingly desperate government that is more interested in its own short-term political interests than the long-term interests of taxpayers."

SNP treasury spokesman Stewart Hosie said taxpayers deserved a return for the "astronomical sum" poured into Lloyds and RBS.

"The Prime Minister's terror that the next UK government might claim credit for selling these shares at a profit must not be allowed to cloud his view and prompt a fire sale," he added.

The government set up UKFI in December to manage the stakes Westminster picked up after a £37bn bailout. It employs 11 people and is run from a small set of offices in the Treasury.

Initially, the government poured £20bn into Lloyds Bank after its botched takeover of HBOS and £14.5bn in struggling RBS. Those investments are now worth £23.6bn on 30 June, a loss of £10.9bn.

Shares would have to be sold at 122.6p for Lloyds and 50.5p for RBS for taxpayers to recover their money. But the liabilities are greater because the government is also guaranteeing billions in possibly toxic assets held by the banks.

The taxpayer currently owns 70 per cent of RBS and 43 per cent of Lloyds, but after extra shares are issued under a scheme to insure the banks' toxic debts, worth £585bn, this will rise to 84 per cent and 62 per cent respectively.

Mr Moreno, who is the acting chairman of UKFI and has waived his right to a salary, said: "Make no mistake – this ain't over yet. We are a long way away from normalcy in the world's financial markets."

Mr Moreno said the body's aim was to achieve "sound, prudent and profitable banks", and added: "UKFI is not, I repeat not, a short-term investor."

However, later, in his first broadcast interview, he suggested that the sale of shares could start sooner. "I would not be at all surprised to see some transactions occurring within a year or so… and continuing over the next several years," he told the BBC's World at One.

The sale of UKFI's stakeholding would not come at once but be released gradually.

UFKI pointed out that there have only been three sales of more than £10bn in shares at any one time. These were sold by banks HSBC, RBS and UBS.

Yesterday it also emerged that RBS chief Stephen Hester could face tougher targets to receive his £9.6 million salary.

Sources said Mr Hester would have to meet other goals on profitability and performance beyond a share price target.

UKFI employee numbers will rise to 15 when it takes over supervision of Bradford & Bingley's and Northern Rock's loan books, if it receives EU approval.

Buy-to-let loan default

BRADFORD & Bingley became the first stop for lenders in the buy-to-let boom which came to a shuddering halt with the slump in house prices.

Its £42 billion mortgage book was taken over by the government last year while retail operations were sold to Spanish banking giant Santander.

Branches are now in the process of being rebranded and the B&B name will disappear from the high street.

B&B recently defaulted on three classes of loan agreements.

No explanation was given and, as this is now a state-owned entity, higher standards of disclosure had been expected.

Taxpayers count cost

THE government now holds 39.6 billion ordinary shares in Royal Bank of Scotland, equivalent to 70 per cent of the voting capital.

The cost was just over £20 billion or an average price of 50.5p a share.

The value of this investment as at June 30 was £15.3 billion. So UKFI (aka the taxpayer) is currently sitting on a loss of £4.7 billion.

Every 1p move in RBS shares changes the value of this huge taxpayer stake by £393 million. At last night's price for RBS of 36.2p, the shares would need to rise almost 40 per cent for the taxpayer to break even.

However, this is by no means the end of the taxpayer exposure. Under the Asset Protection Scheme covering some £325 billion of RBS' problem assets, RBS will bear a first loss amount of any of these loans go sour. Thereafter losses will be borne 90 per cent by the taxpayer and 10 per cent by RBS.

The government has agreed to inject more capital of up to £19 billion the form of 38 billion non-voting B shares. In total this would bring the government's shareholding up to 84 per cent of the total capital. But the voting share would remain at 70 per cent.

New giant, new losses

THE government holds 11.8 billion ordinary shares in Lloyds Banking Group – 43 per cent of the voting capital.

This cost £14.4 billion, or an average price per share of 122.6p. The value at the end of June was £8.3bn. So the loss stands at £6.2bn.

For the taxpayer to break even on this investment, shares in Lloyds would need to rise 90 per cent from their level last night of 64.5p. As with RBS, the taxpayer liability does not stop here. Under the terms of the Asset Protection Scheme, covering £260bn of problem loans, the government will receive 37.1bn non-voting shares – bringing its holding up to 62 per cent of the total share capital – though the voting stake would remain at 43 per cent.

The Lloyds group was formed in January through the controversial merger of HBOS and Lloyds TSB. It is the largest retail bank in the UK and operates a range of businesses, including Scottish Widows, Cheltenham & Gloucester, Clerical & Medical, as well as Lloyds TSB, Halifax and Bank of Scotland.

The European Union competition commissioner has warned that she will press for divestments.

Bank that rocked UK

NORTHERN Rock was the first UK bank to succumb to the financial crisis with a dramatic run on its branches in the autumn of 2007.

The government nationalised the stricken business in February 2008 after a failure by the tripartite system of banking regulation to detect its over-reliance on wholesale money markets at an earlier stage.

UK taxpayers are now subsidising the bank in loans and guarantees to other lenders to the tune of about £55 billion.

A recent proposal for Northern Rock to be split in two has triggered concerns from the European Commission, which must approve the restructuring plan under state aid rules.

NR submitted a plan to separate out a "good" bank which would take more than £19.5bn of retail deposits, wholesale deposits and some mortgage loans. The rest of the bank's mortgage assets, including those held in its Granite securitisation programme and its government loan, would be placed into a "bad" bank. The Commission said it "doubts at this stage that the aid measures included in the new restructuring plan are compatible with the common market".












Page 1 of 1

 
1

Darien,

Panama 14/07/2009 00:22:08
UKofGB&NI is bust.

The union began with a bust bank and will end the same way.

Darien's Revenge!
2

truthsleuth,

14/07/2009 00:37:43
It still boils down to the British Taxpayer holding quite a sizeable sum much of which is realisable if there is a general stabilisation of the global economy.

These assets can be measured against Government debt the overall result will be a massive reduction in that debt.

All the sign are that the capitalist economy is trying its hardest to ensure that poor old Gordon gets the Blame and 'aggressive' boy David reaps the benefits UNLESS the British voter sees the truth in time.
3

Fletty73,

Stirling 14/07/2009 01:32:20
Broon sold the gold at the bottom of the market.
So expect these shares to disapear in the January Sales.
2 for 1 anybody? 75% off! Much bargains. Special Offers just for you.
Free today with an ID Card purchase!
4

Edward,

14/07/2009 01:33:34
We may dislike the banks, but the bottom line was that it was a failure by the FSA (set up by Labour) in not having proper checks in place. Other countries did have stiffer regulations and are fairing better.
But Labour are churning out breifings to keep the momentum up against the banks. The problem is for Scotland, if the UK Government does go ahead and have a fire sale (even this story is a primed leak to test the water) Scotland will loose it premier Bank thats a fact!
RBS have to be allowed to purchase back its own shares at an equitiable price that benifits the taxpayer. That way RBS can be left intact and functioning in a stiffer regulatory field.
If RBS are not allowed to buy back and there is every hint they will be prevented from doing so, then they will be cut up and sold off and its about time every Scot got a grip of this reality and realised this is what will happen if Labour and Gordon Brown gets his way!
5

,

14/07/2009 01:59:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

Pretzel Logic,

14/07/2009 02:06:37
How can banks have no money.

Strange....
7

Pretzel Logic,

14/07/2009 02:59:11
#7

Could they not just print some?
8

donald,

glasgow 14/07/2009 06:24:26
Labour in banks meltdown. Son of Martin says "Vote for me and my dad.
9

donald,

glasgow 14/07/2009 06:26:03
Maddox says "SNP in meltdown". Vote Liebore.
10

Jings MacCrivvens,

14/07/2009 07:31:56
#1
How right you are!
11

Liberal for life,

Dunblane 14/07/2009 08:01:37
Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat's treasury spokesman, who predicted the financial crisis, also questioned the predicted losses.

"Taxpayers bailed the banks out and, in return, UKFI must start to act in the public interest and make it clear to the banks they own that they should operate in the same way."

I've really nothing to add to this statement by a man who has his finger firmly on the pulse.
12

Jimmy Le Pie,

14/07/2009 09:28:35
Comrade Broon's track record with his 'prudent' sale of massive gold reserves at rock bottom discounted prices, should ensure that some fat cats enjoy a bargain bonanza.

Maybe in return for a directorship after Comrade Broon suffers his biggest humiliation at the next general election????

Or am I being too cynical???
13

Finnzz,

14/07/2009 09:38:01
It is an undisputed fact that successive governments have always sold taxpayers assets for politically motivated reasons.

How else can these champions of short termism finance their ruinous levels of public sector borrowings. Both labour and the Tories are falling over themselves with their promises not to cut spending and the only way this can be achieved is to sell some more of the nations silverware.

Not that there's much left in the cupboard.
14

Fairfax,

14/07/2009 12:24:11
Darien (1): "The union began with a bust bank and will end the same way."

To be precise, it began with a bust Scottish state, not merely a bank, which had devoted some 25% of its liquid assets to the Company of Scotland.

"Darien's Revenge!"

On whom? The Scots?
15

Tris,

14/07/2009 12:59:42
No point in telling Brown not to do something stupid. He's wired to do stupid things. No point in telling him what the experts advise. He always knows better than experts. That's why we are in the state we are in.

Just as well I had no say in the rescue though. I'd never have invested £3000 of my money in this load of chancers.
16

Sumlogic,

14/07/2009 13:39:36
Thanks to the magic of ‘Fractional reserve banking’ banks were allowed to 'invent' cash based on the promise to pay by 'any' borrower, irrespective of their credit worthiness and then pat themselves on the back and pay themselves huge bonuses for their wonderful conjuring trick.

Sign here and we will put non-existent money into your account and charge interest on that non-existent money!

Bottom line the money was invented, just like the cash printing exercise called Quantitative easing.

All funny money...based on assets that were over inflated and bound to bust or the promise to pay by someone on the dole!

Good if you’re a Wan...sorry banker, not if your Joe Bloggs Tax payer saddled with the Tax (pay or go to Jail) guaranteed debts!
17

Proghead,

Embra 14/07/2009 14:20:09
#11

Sad but true. A bank is a business like any other that runs into trouble, Woolworths, MFI etc. As you say, there would have been no shortage of investors to pick up the pieces. It was the criminal lack of regulation that allowed the greed culture to flourish with the results we saw. Then it was easy to blame the likes of Fred for it all going t*ts up. Notice how the heat went off the banks and onto the politicians when the expenses scandal blew up ??!!
18

Eve,

Scotland 14/07/2009 14:37:12
#2 truthsleuth: Well it would appear that ye cannae see the truth.

Ye cannae be in all seriousness be suggesting that Gorden Brown is blameless in this area of difficulty. He played a part in the Banking industry's fall. How many years was he the chancellor before becoming PM?

Now let me think 1997 the 1st election win Gorden Brown (If I'm right in thinking, if I havenae forgoten someone) was the Chancellor. In 2007 he became PM, so that (providing I havenae forgotten someone) means he was roughly Chancellor for 10years.
19

Eve,

Scotland 14/07/2009 14:49:28
#1 Darien: Really I thought their policy was just kept on making money and allow the shedding jobs until the vast majority are unemployed with no much hope. Obviously this only naturally excludes areas such as the London and South East England.

So when this happen all we'll have is oor opinions. The future of oor country in the union is completely and utterly bleak. I hope that the end is nigh.

20

ih8hibs,

14/07/2009 19:30:27
Don't pannic just don't sell until the price is correct, if they dont then all they've done is rob the masses to protect the rich.
21

truthsleuth,

15/07/2009 00:05:20
Honestly you people let your politics fuddle your brains.

You would not blame the police for robbers robbing a bank.
22

truthsleuth,

15/07/2009 00:10:16
Yes GB was wrong to let the banks have a free hand.

But then no doubt your the same who moan that there is to much government interference then complain when you get your fingers burnt by someone a bit smarter than you.


 

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.