Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
tomandlu

Taxpayers lose billions on RBS share sale

Recommended Posts

I'm so shocked that you could have knocked me down with a rhino.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2018/jun/05/taxpayers-rbs-share-sale-loss-billions-hammond-service-sector-car-sales-business-live

Quote

Taxpayers lose billions on RBS share sale
UK government has cut its stake in Royal Bank of Scotland, at a loss for taxpayers of over £3bn

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, they would loose alot more if they held onto them much longer, with whats going on with banking prices across Europe at the mo.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

Fred + Gorddy lost that money.

They were bailed by the tax payer.

Brown was always keen on 'Doing the right thing!'

Liquidate the MP, BoE, civil service and RBS pension funds. Put the pensioners on the street.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

With recession looming Spreadsheet Phil is clearly desperate for spending money.

 

No.

More like this is never going to get better.

Get rid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But ... but ... we were told by the media that this would ultimately make money for the taxpayer.

 

I'm SHOCKED I tell you, just shocked.

 

😅

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dumb failed bankers at the top continued to get million pound salaries even though after they became  effectively (failed) civil servants. 

Corrupt UK as ever

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Gribble said:

The dumb failed bankers at the top continue d to get million pound salaries even though after they became  effectively (failed) civil servants. 

Corrupt UK as ever

 

Fixed that for you..:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They say 'tax payers' but presumably they borrowed this money and as such the victims of this sorry episode are taxpayers of the future and who cares about them??  Hence very little outcry or concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good day to bury bad news, with the Heathrow announcement.

Quote

The taxpayers' holding in RBS will fall to 62.4% from 70.1% due to the sale.

So only another 9 tranches of £3bn (minimum) losses to go.

After the 2nd or 3rd time it won't even get a byline in the FT when it happens.

Then later on they can quietly liquidate the remainder of the holding and hand it back to the new, improved GOODBANK RBS.

Trebles and directorships all round.

Edited by Lambie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lambie said:

A good day to bury bad news, with the Heathrow announcement.

 

 

So only another 9 tranches of £3bn (minimum) losses to go.

After the 2nd or 3rd time it won't even get a byline in the FT when it happens.

Then later on they can quietly liquidate the remainder of the holding and hand it back to the new, improved GOODBANK RBS.

£3bn loss for around 30m UK tax payers is £100 each... so around £1k each and every tax payer has subsidised the equity holders.

Question for me is why they decided to pay such a high price for the shares. Surely they could have just as quickly structured a deal where they paid almost nothing, but with an option for the equity holders to buy back if it turned out to be worth anything. What other option would they have had than losing all the equity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, nayth said:

Question for me is why they decided to pay such a high price for the shares. Surely they could have just as quickly structured a deal where they paid almost nothing, but with an option for the equity holders to buy back if it turned out to be worth anything. What other option would they have had than losing all the equity.

+1.

Maybe it's not so bad?  Westminster propaganda outlet reckons we 'only' lost £2.1bn.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44366731

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, nayth said:

£3bn loss for around 30m UK tax payers is £100 each... so around £1k each and every tax payer has subsidised the equity holders.

Question for me is why they decided to pay such a high price for the shares. Surely they could have just as quickly structured a deal where they paid almost nothing, but with an option for the equity holders to buy back if it turned out to be worth anything. What other option would they have had than losing all the equity.

My recollection is that Alistair Darling had no time to consider anything else. RBS was hours away from closing its doors forever. The UK's entire financial system was teetering on the point of collapse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

My recollection is that Alistair Darling had no time to consider anything else. RBS was hours away from closing its doors forever. The UK's entire financial system was teetering on the point of collapse.

Probably true, a shame that Gordon Brown stopped the BOE supervising banks, it had worked well for over 100 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iamnumerate said:

Probably true, a shame that Gordon Brown stopped the BOE supervising banks, it had worked well for over 100 years.

Not sure it would have made any difference. Mervyn King knew all about the housing bubble as early as 2003 but chose to ignore it. He and his fellow central bankers were still taking time out to congratulate themselves over the so-called 'Great Moderation' in 2006. Everyman + dog at the Bank and the Treasury believed that financial markets should be left to regulate themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, zugzwang said:

My recollection is that Alistair Darling had no time to consider anything else. RBS was hours away from closing its doors forever. The UK's entire financial system was teetering on the point of collapse.

An alternative was possible with RBS and Lloyds. They could have been put into administration and share- and bondholders frozen out while the banks were broken up and wound down. Take share- and bondholders out of the equation and suddenly the balance sheet doesn't look so bad. In terms of keeping the banks operating the Treasury could have provided the cash to make depositors whole up to the FSCS limit (or beyond if the Treasury wanted to). This would have been much cheaper for taxpayers and would have avoided much of the moral hazard that Darling's solution created.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, nayth said:

£3bn loss for around 30m UK tax payers is £100 each... so around £1k each and every tax payer has subsidised the equity holders.

Question for me is why they decided to pay such a high price for the shares. Surely they could have just as quickly structured a deal where they paid almost nothing, but with an option for the equity holders to buy back if it turned out to be worth anything. What other option would they have had than losing all the equity.

They?

Him - Browm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, zugzwang said:

My recollection is that Alistair Darling had no time to consider anything else. RBS was hours away from closing its doors forever. The UK's entire financial system was teetering on the point of collapse.

IIRC he was told that if he didn't approve the bailout the bank would close its doors and the cash machines stop working within the hour. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dorkins said:

An alternative was possible with RBS and Lloyds. They could have been put into administration and share- and bondholders frozen out while the banks were broken up and wound down. Take share- and bondholders out of the equation and suddenly the balance sheet doesn't look so bad. In terms of keeping the banks operating the Treasury could have provided the cash to make depositors whole up to the FSCS limit (or beyond if the Treasury wanted to). This would have been much cheaper for taxpayers and would have avoided much of the moral hazard that Darling's solution created.

There was no resolution mechanism in place.

The big bang in 87 was not complete. They ignored resolving a bust bank.

The idiot Darling should have made RBS sweat and do an emergrncy law to fold the bank pension fund into the bank eqity. Blunderbuss the assets, imporish tge peopke who made the most from the bank. 

Edited by spyguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Benson55 said:

Its the big city fat cats who will prosper from this and their Tory buddies. Corruption is alive and well in the 21st century.

Err the major bust banks were all Scottish.

And they were all close to Brown.

The City has very little to do with uk retail banks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

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.