Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Scunnered

Bbc: Rbs Faces £8Bn In Full Year Losses

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25918998

RBS may face full-year losses of up to £8bn, after the bank said it needed another £3.1bn for claims relating to the financial crisis.

Shares in the 80%-taxpayer owned bank dropped 3% on the news.

RBS boss Ross McEwan said: "The scale of the bad decisions during that period [the financial crisis] means that some problems are still just emerging."

To be fair though,

RBS said its executive committee would not receive a bonus for 2013, Mr McEwan has waived his bonus for 2013-14.

Also, from Robert Peston, Pre-crisis mistakes still haunt RBS.

Edited by Scunnered

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For what it's worth, a number of investors and politicians have recently said to me they think it is a wholly naive hope that we will ever get all our money back.

This bit's a shocker :rolleyes::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to pay to retain the 'talent' or they will go to one of their competitors. It takes real skill to run up such massive losses, these guys are sure to be in demand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to pay to retain the 'talent' or they will go to one of their competitors.

You wrote the script for the CEO's Sky news interview?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that £8 bn include any write offs for Ulster Bank?

Seems to mostly focus on mis-selling compensation costs and a bit lacking on any details of impairments or asset value markdowns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the art of running a business was to make money but every year make a paper loss so you pay zero tax and if you ever do make a paper profit the years of loss making ensures you pay zero tax and you can get the ship back in order to make more paper losses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to pay to retain the 'talent' or they will go to one of their competitors. It takes real skill to run up such massive losses, these guys are sure to be in demand.

Not a sensible comment. The decisions that led to these losses were made pre 2008. Activities going on today are about managing the bank's exit from investment banking and minimising losses.

But you are right that the best have long gone, but that does not mean that others are unemployable elsewhere.

If you take a job at RBS today you expect equivalent compensation to elsewhere in the industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a sensible comment. The decisions that led to these losses were made pre 2008. Activities going on today are about managing the bank's exit from investment banking and minimising losses.

But you are right that the best have long gone, but that does not mean that others are unemployable elsewhere.

If you take a job at RBS today you expect equivalent compensation to elsewhere in the industry.

why?....a great performer in a dead company should be as redundant as the next man.

Zombies are killing us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you take a job at RBS today you expect equivalent compensation to elsewhere in the industry.

That's the problem right there. The industry in its present state should not exist and only does so because of huge bailouts. So ironic considering the capitalist mantra of the industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PPI cheques in the post eh?

I proposed a couple of years ago that Osborne would deliberately drive RBS into the red to provide the economy with a continuous stealth fiscal stimulus. Since I believe the credit impulse from HTB is fast wearing off, putting 2+2 together suggests this a panic measure to keep the GDP numbers elevated. Of course it opens a politically sensitive can of worms with the bonus issue, but better that than more deficit borrowing, perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a sensible comment. The decisions that led to these losses were made pre 2008. Activities going on today are about managing the bank's exit from investment banking and minimising losses.

Simply not true.

Many of the ongoing scandals and loses date from well after 2008. A lot specifically caused by the geniuses supposedly clearing up the mess (GLG).

RBS needs putting out of it's misery. Or at least broken up. Spin off Natwest and let the rest die in a welter of lawsuits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the art of running a business was to make money but every year make a paper loss so you pay zero tax and if you ever do make a paper profit the years of loss making ensures you pay zero tax and you can get the ship back in order to make more paper losses?

In fairness, the taxation system/government is partly responsible for encouraging business to behave in this manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah-ha! Osborne's found another systemic banking fraud he can throw some cash at.

Just in time for the General Election too. Yes, yes!

Bank account complaints jump 155pc in nine months

Thousands of customers paying up to £300 a year for extras that they either did not know existed or did not want

By Andrew Trotman

12:30AM GMT 28 Jan 2014

Complaints from bank customers over paid-for accounts have soared 155pc in just nine months, the Financial Ombudsman Service has said.

Thousands of customers are angry they are paying up to £300 a year for extras such as travel insurance and car breakdown cover that they either did not know existed or did not want.

The Ombudsman found that a third of people with so-called packaged accounts do not use the added perks that come with them.

A year ago the Ombudsman received around 40 complaints a week about the accounts. But in the past nine months it has dealt with 3,107.

This surge threatens to turn paid-for accounts into the next bank mis-selling scandal, after lenders spent £13.3bn on settling customers' PPI claims.

A spokesman for the Ombudsman said: "The good news is banks are reacting differently to how they did with PPI, when they fought us every step of the way."

http://www.telegraph...ine-months.html

Edited by zugzwang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a sensible comment. The decisions that led to these losses were made pre 2008. Activities going on today are about managing the bank's exit from investment banking and minimising losses.

But you are right that the best have long gone, but that does not mean that others are unemployable elsewhere.

If you take a job at RBS today you expect equivalent compensation to elsewhere in the industry.

You know, for a group of supposed turbo-capitalists, the bank employees often sound exactly like a bunch of the less reasonable 1970s trade unionists..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I proposed a couple of years ago that Osborne would deliberately drive RBS into the red to provide the economy with a continuous stealth fiscal stimulus. Since I believe the credit impulse from HTB is fast wearing off, putting 2+2 together suggests this a panic measure to keep the GDP numbers elevated. Of course it opens a politically sensitive can of worms with the bonus issue, but better that than more deficit borrowing, perhaps?

Sorry I do not know how RBS is treated in the public accounts. I do not understand that if these ppi provisions relate to the old pre crash days then why are they coming out with more and more? These are not loans going bad. To me it just suggests they are managing it and drip feeding. There are jobs that depend on these ppi claims at the banks, legal companies and the indirect consumer economy.

Maybe the ppi problem is much much worse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1390856614[/url]' post='1102457026']

If you take a job at RBS today you expect equivalent compensation to elsewhere in the industry.

I think this is a fair comment... What your saying is that a mostly taxpayer owned bank must still compete in the same labour market as it's more successful and profitable peers.

Hypothetically... If a recruitment agent pushed me a stack of job specs RBS/ Deutche / BoAML all sounding more or less similar ... Which one do I get him to arrange and interview with first?

I'd actually want MORE money to go and work for RBS...(as a zombie taxpayer owned black hole in which morale is probably very low ) than any other bank. Adverse selection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you take a job at RBS today you expect equivalent compensation to elsewhere in the industry.

Fair enough but their industry isn't banking, it's extending and pretending a load of zombie mortgages so that politicians can avoid a large-scale liquidation of "homeowners" and a drop in house prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, for a group of supposed turbo-capitalists, the bank employees often sound exactly like a bunch of the less reasonable 1970s trade unionists..

Socialism for the banksters, capitalism for the proles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I do not know how RBS is treated in the public accounts. I do not understand that if these ppi provisions relate to the old pre crash days then why are they coming out with more and more? These are not loans going bad. To me it just suggests they are managing it and drip feeding. There are jobs that depend on these ppi claims at the banks, legal companies and the indirect consumer economy.

Maybe the ppi problem is much much worse?

Wasn't it Keynes who said that we should bury bags of printed money and then get people to invest in digging it up.. this is clearly the hi tech version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I do not know how RBS is treated in the public accounts. I do not understand that if these ppi provisions relate to the old pre crash days then why are they coming out with more and more? These are not loans going bad. To me it just suggests they are managing it and drip feeding. There are jobs that depend on these ppi claims at the banks, legal companies and the indirect consumer economy.

Maybe the ppi problem is much much worse?

Much better you mean - I've seen claims that a lot of economic 'recovery' is down to people splashing out their compo.

PPI compensation is almost like a scaled down version of QE for the public. The difference being it has actually gone into the real economy rather than being used to push up commodity prices and shore up balance sheets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much better you mean - I've seen claims that a lot of economic 'recovery' is down to people splashing out their compo.

PPI compensation is almost like a scaled down version of QE for the public. The difference being it has actually gone into the real economy rather than being used to push up commodity prices and shore up balance sheets.

It's been reported that PPI has been used to finance a LOT new car purchases/leases. Looking at the sharp decline in household saving, the compensation does seem to have been spent rather than saved. £13bn is an enormous fiscal stimulus over three years that hasn't had to appear in the public accounts. Osborne is clearly aware of the true state of RBS and what the ultimate cost of the clean up operation is likely to be. Disclosing some of that information now means he can run down the RBS balance sheet more aggressively than he might have done otherwise. By seeking to compensate RBS' customers he can ensure that money run off from the balance sheet is spent immediately into the economy again. The extraordinary £200m provision for legal services will also help, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   211 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.