Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Second Bank Bail Out Looming Already


Recommended Posts

I think we are being softened for yet more bailouts.

The Governement know what is happening to these banks balance sheets. They have people sitting on the boards of these bansk and they have been going through their accounts. They can see the mounting losses and much larger holes in balance sheets than first fessed up.

We are being softened up for yet more bailouts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

blair, brown, darling et al are actually sleepers working for the fourth reich and have been activated to destroy the UK from within. Them or the commies!

Whoever they work for, it's not Britain, they're doing a great job of bringing us down and the monarchy is sat on it's useless ****, as usual... why do we have a queen??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wish you were right but I think it is more likely that they are testing the idea on the money markets to see if they would stomach another bailout.

+1

The only real solution now would be full and complete disclosure of all outstanding liabilities on and off balance sheet realistic assignment of value to held assets followed by swedish style recapitalisation with shareholder wipeout and nationalisation.

Calamity Brown has tried to implement the model without disclosure and failed to restore confidence that something very nasty is not lurking on the balance sheets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to have been an internal Nationwide glitch, i.e. not because the BACS payments didn't arrive.

We usually keep to max one 'glitch' a year with payroll being late. Rarely a glitch where everyone's salary gets paid twice.

Our last payroll glitch was when our bank terminal wouldn't allow us to log in all day to push the button on payroll going out. Tried to access account that suppliers are paid from, with a different bank, to at least get some out, no joy either. Got home and turned on the news, Bear Stearns had gone tits up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they hung on to it. It was never intended to re-start lending (though that's what the government claims, perhaps they even believe it?) it was to plug holes in balance sheets and stop banks from collapsing.

This series of videos is worth watching for more info on the subject.

Correct, and the second tranch will be tax payer debt raised to give to banks to then lend out to tax payers.

*Mods if you're reading could you merge these threads on the new bailout?

* assuming one of you is around on a Saturday night and don't have a life, not like yours truly waiting for the phone call to pick my Daughter up from a party later... <_<

Edited by Converted Lurker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1

The only real solution now would be full and complete disclosure of all outstanding liabilities on and off balance sheet realistic assignment of value to held assets followed by swedish style recapitalisation with shareholder wipeout and nationalisation.

Calamity Brown has tried to implement the model without disclosure and failed to restore confidence that something very nasty is not lurking on the balance sheets.

Totally agre.

But is this possible? Would'nt it require all banks to fess up which frankly is not going to happen unless the U.S decide to push it?

Also if they did fess up to the full extent we might see that the liabilities are far greater than the British tax payer could shoulder thus why they are keepng them hidden and are hanging onto hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally agre.

But is this possible? Would'nt it require all banks to fess up which frankly is not going to happen unless the U.S decide to push it?

Also if they did fess up to the full extent we might see that the liabilities are far greater than the British tax payer could shoulder thus why they are keepng them hidden and are hanging onto hope.

they'd go to bail out seven if nec. be interesting to see opinions on how much tolerance the UK has before this gets very very messy, I'd go for 500bl, they've (the banks) had approx. 300bl in various ways already...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask the man on the street and most won't know what you are talking about.Most do not know what is going on or the implications.

The people that will stop the government are the people buying the government debt and making investment in the UK, hence why they leak it first to the reaction of the markets. If there is no backlash then expect to se it go ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot, just to add. On two separate occasions we had large numbers of staff complaining that their wages were being paid late. We investigated and their wages were leaving our acct the same time as everyone elses. Checked who they banked with, first time it was Alliance & Leicester, second time it was Bradford & Bingley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you base the 4-6 months on?

How do you know that they have not lost all the money already and are on the verge of collapse again? Darling would not come out and say "well everyone they have lost all your billions that you have borrowed and given to them and they want more so dig deeper"

It's to do with the reporting cycle; we've survived the year end; with only a handful of blow-up's (and probably a few more to come). When it get's time for the half year exposure of the books it'll be time for another round of oh my god we're all buggered. Asset prices will have gone doon more, investment will have left the country, more jobs will be lost etc. etc. It's never over in one downward leep; it always take's a few - just look at the stockmarket prices of the last umpteen crashes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot, just to add. On two separate occasions we had large numbers of staff complaining that their wages were being paid late. We investigated and their wages were leaving our acct the same time as everyone elses. Checked who they banked with, first time it was Alliance & Leicester, second time it was Bradford & Bingley.

It would be silly to assume that those banks/lenders that havn't had a public shock have been meticulously managed over the past seven years. N-Wide have been conspciously absent from examination over the past twelve months...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be silly to assume that those banks/lenders that havn't had a public shock have been meticulously managed over the past seven years. N-Wide have been conspciously absent from examination over the past twelve months...

Published balance sheet not sufficient, you feel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be silly to assume that those banks/lenders that havn't had a public shock have been meticulously managed over the past seven years. N-Wide have been conspciously absent from examination over the past twelve months...

I think Nationwide have also been buying big parcels of student loans of the govt as well. I'm sure these will need some writedowns wat above whatever they currently have. I can't imagine that Barclays can keep their heads above water with Middle East money alone. Barcap was into debt securitisation to their neck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Nationwide have also been buying big parcels of student loans of the govt as well. I'm sure these will need some writedowns wat above whatever they currently have. I can't imagine that Barclays can keep their heads above water with Middle East money alone. Barcap was into debt securitisation to their neck.

Folk should not lose sight of the fact that N-wide also has/had a dangerous exposure to sub prime and BTL with UCB home loans. They entered it (both sectors) relatively late and very badly positioned 'using' other peoples' money...their depositors' :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also if they did fess up to the full extent we might see that the liabilities are far greater than the British tax payer could shoulder thus why they are keepng them hidden and are hanging onto hope.

The US need not be involved in this at all.

The Swedish state when faced with a similar crisis which had basically resulted in 5 of 8 major banks becoming insolvent successfully compelled full public disclosure in return for state recapitalisation. Losses for the sector peaked at 12% of annual GDP cost to state was approx 5% of annual GDP eventually reduced to between 0% and 2% depending on how the returns (profits) are accounted.

The transparency produced by full disclosure can result in confidence returning to the system reducing the level and duration of government support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US need not be involved in this at all.

The Swedish state when faced with a similar crisis which had basically resulted in 5 of 8 major banks becoming insolvent successfully compelled full public disclosure in return for state recapitalisation. Losses for the sector peaked at 12% of annual GDP cost to state was approx 5% of annual GDP eventually reduced to between 0% and 2% depending on how the returns (profits) are accounted.

The transparency produced by full disclosure can result in confidence returning to the system reducing the level and duration of government support.

That was a different environment though, they weren't trying to pull it off in the face of a global debt-deflationary collapse. I don't see how you could hope to perform full public disclosure at the moment, how could you possibly value the assets? And if you valued them low enough to be sure it was realistic, would the guarantor-state be solvent at the end of it?

But one Swedish example we should have followed was in not bailing out shareholders or bank management.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how you could hope to perform full public disclosure at the moment, how could you possibly value the assets? And if you valued them low enough to be sure it was realistic, would the guarantor-state be solvent at the end of it?

I honestly don't know how you'd assign a realistic value to held assets / liabilities iirc the swedish approach did generate a asset value formula which turned out to be quite realistic in the face of falling values.

Will the guarantor state (HM Government) be solvent at the end of the current bailout process? At some point the state will not be able absorb any more then I suppose it's time to call the IMF again. Callaghan 1976, Brown 2009?

Actually on thinking about it could the IMF bail us out, the sort of level which would make HM government insolvent would be beyond the capabilities of the IMF to rescue.

The 300bn committed so far puts the bailout at 15% of GDP, at what point will the markets say no more 30%, 50%, 100%?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

b0rk, I wonder if there is a simple explanation for why they have not pushed for full disclosure. If the numbers are so bad that if they were made public it would cause a panic much greater than what we've seen. For example if we knew the government would likely have to bail out 2 trillion pounds worth over the next few years, it would cause a severe drop in the value of the pound.

My feeling is the numbers are unimaginably bad, like their real derivatives exposure. And how huge their losses will be once mass foreclosures start in the UK as the house price falls.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • 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.