I don't know the answer but how much in tax did they pay on their profits the previous ten years before the crash say 98-08
Used to work there, and when yearly figures announced used to get copies of press releases stating made more profit than Nike and Mcdonalds combined that year, and that years tax equivalent to paying for the building of 30 hospitals etc
They paid a lot in tax on profits but the ABN amro deal was cataclysmic and probably led to enormous losses and then clawing back tax from previous years. In retrospect it's now clear that the size of tax receipts convinced government and regulators not to examine just how these banks made their profits. The chair who rescued it likened it to defusing a bomb such was the size and complexity of the assets, derivatives and liabilities. As @newyorkaddick states there was never any possibility that the government of the day could allow RBS (or HBOS) go to the wall. Brown and Darling did an excellent job during the crash to ensure we didn't have a repeat of the 1930s - it's a shame there hasn't been clarity on this. And that we haven't had a sensible debate about how to prevent or at least minimize damage caused by another crash.
Should of let them gone under and sold all the assets, just like any other business. That would have saved us the expense of the bail out and the cost of the sell off. But I suppose the banks are one of the "lame duck" industries we must continue to support.
And just like any other business the people who were owed money would be the only ones to suffer.
The idea that the Banks were bailed out for any reason other than to save ordinary people from losing their pensions and savings, and hundreds of UK businesses going bankrupt, is puerile tosh.
What was wrong was allowing the situation to develop, not saving us from their crass misdeeds.
I hope the aims expressed by the governor of the B of E come to pass, making it clear that banks would be regulated to ensure they would never have such a stranglehold again, so none would be too big to fail. So yes in future failing banks ought to be able to fail and go to the wall and the State compensation scheme would be able to protect the public against losses. That was not the case had so many of our banks been allowed to fail when the crunch came last time.
By the way, the "expense" of the bail out and "cost" of the sell off, is actually a profit since as well as the sale of the shares, many assets acquired as security for failed loans and other commercial assets, have been sold in the meantime and fees have been paid to the Government.
You can argue whether the profit is £10bn or £30bn, but the State has made a profit on the deal which is why it makes sense to get out now and not take any risk with taxpayer money in the share market.
Thats a great spin on a 13 billion loss. The advice allegedly is from Mark Carney at the Bank of England. No clear reason as to why it is the best time to sell, only that it is.
At at time when very large cuts are being rolled out. If it turns out that RBS shares signifcantly increase in value and it appears that that RBS is massively undervalued, I guess there will be some spin on that. Its Ok we have all the masses of newspapers, media, lobby groups and spin doctors to tell the general public that the Tories are not economically incompetent.
Also pass on the message that it was all Labour's fault in any case.
(The global crash, UK's dependence on financial services, not regulating despite the business community including the Tories wanting less regulation, overspending etc etc said enough times so that the lie lodges in enough peoples brains)
Save for exercised options from my employer I don't own shares, never have so I have a very limited understanding if these things. However I am not sure how this is like The Post Office at all. The PO was being floated so there was always going to be an element of guess work involved in setting a price, and I suspect, the risk of a failed float by the Government forced a relatively 'soft price'. RBS on the other hand is floated so there is a price set by the market. Therefore the government selling to its mates at below market prices seems unlikely/illegal, why do other posters think this will happen? I am sure the price will rally after the sale so people can still moan but that will surely be down to the fact that if you flood the market with a large sale (anything, not just shares), that will always be the case.
As for not benefitting from the buy/sale of RBS I would be interested to know the likely loss to the taxpayer had they been allowed to go bust (lost deposits/deposit protection scheme, bust companies leading to redundancies etc etc) so that I could compare with the loss made on sale of the shares. Could someone give me that comparison?
Not true, a large sale in theory should plummet the price due to supply and demand.
They paid a lot in tax on profits but the ABN amro deal was cataclysmic and probably led to enormous losses and then clawing back tax from previous years. In retrospect it's now clear that the size of tax receipts convinced government and regulators not to examine just how these banks made their profits. The chair who rescued it likened it to defusing a bomb such was the size and complexity of the assets, derivatives and liabilities. As @newyorkaddick states there was never any possibility that the government of the day could allow RBS (or HBOS) go to the wall. Brown and Darling did an excellent job during the crash to ensure we didn't have a repeat of the 1930s - it's a shame there hasn't been clarity on this. And that we haven't had a sensible debate about how to prevent or at least minimize damage caused by another crash.
Can we now have some credit that Brown and Darling did a good job after the crash in preventing a 30's style financial catastrophe ? Rather than the this Tory mantra that Labour was somehow responsible by overspending, for the global business crash (starting from sub prime US mortagages) ?
However I am not sure how this is like The Post Office at all. The PO was being floated so there was always going to be an element of guess work involved in setting a price, and I suspect, the risk of a failed float by the Government forced a relatively 'soft price'.
Just for the sake of clarity, Post Office Ltd, trading as The Post Office, is (still) wholly owned by the UK Government through Postal Services Holding Company Limited (which also holds the remainder of the government's stake in Royal Mail plc) The Post Office, has not been sold off (yet). But it merely consists of the retail shops you see dotted around. It is entirely distinct from Royal Mail - the letter and parcel delivery service - which is being sold off in tranches.
They paid a lot in tax on profits but the ABN amro deal was cataclysmic and probably led to enormous losses and then clawing back tax from previous years. In retrospect it's now clear that the size of tax receipts convinced government and regulators not to examine just how these banks made their profits. The chair who rescued it likened it to defusing a bomb such was the size and complexity of the assets, derivatives and liabilities. As @newyorkaddick states there was never any possibility that the government of the day could allow RBS (or HBOS) go to the wall. Brown and Darling did an excellent job during the crash to ensure we didn't have a repeat of the 1930s - it's a shame there hasn't been clarity on this. And that we haven't had a sensible debate about how to prevent or at least minimize damage caused by another crash.
Can we now have some credit that Brown and Darling did a good job after the crash in preventing a 30's style financial catastrophe ? Rather than the this Tory mantra that Labour was somehow responsible by overspending, for the global business crash (starting from sub prime US mortagages) ?
When partisan party politics are stripped out of the argument, I believe most people accept that.
They paid a lot in tax on profits but the ABN amro deal was cataclysmic and probably led to enormous losses and then clawing back tax from previous years. In retrospect it's now clear that the size of tax receipts convinced government and regulators not to examine just how these banks made their profits. The chair who rescued it likened it to defusing a bomb such was the size and complexity of the assets, derivatives and liabilities. As @newyorkaddick states there was never any possibility that the government of the day could allow RBS (or HBOS) go to the wall. Brown and Darling did an excellent job during the crash to ensure we didn't have a repeat of the 1930s - it's a shame there hasn't been clarity on this. And that we haven't had a sensible debate about how to prevent or at least minimize damage caused by another crash.
Can we now have some credit that Brown and Darling did a good job after the crash in preventing a 30's style financial catastrophe ? Rather than the this Tory mantra that Labour was somehow responsible by overspending, for the global business crash (starting from sub prime US mortagages) ?
When partisan party politics are stripped out of the argument, I believe most people accept that.
I may misunderstand your comment, but I am not sure that most people accept this.
It is very unlikely to happen that party politics will be stripped out of politics considering the whole system runs on it. Also, that what is felt best to do or the results of an action depends on a point of view. For example whether the UK should be so dependent on financial services or have a more diversified economy. The actual role of govenment is a point of view. The Tories have a view that they think that the government should have a small a role as possible.
The trouble is that the Tories, media, and spin doctors continue to spin untruths about the economy and economic performance and Labours previous role within that. The lack of clearness and depth on economic discussion on UKs massive debt and how that is best paid back / managed was appalling in the UK election.
The Conservatives are not as competent on the economy as they like to spin and tell everyone. Labour are better and did good things post crash. Labour did not cause the crash by overspending, it was a global crash. UK was exposed due to the importance of the UK on financial services. The main problem was that they let the Tories pin this on them and didn't challenge it. The handling of the RBS sale and the lack of credit given to Darling and Brown is an example of how these stories are spun.
Save for exercised options from my employer I don't own shares, never have so I have a very limited understanding if these things. However I am not sure how this is like The Post Office at all. The PO was being floated so there was always going to be an element of guess work involved in setting a price, and I suspect, the risk of a failed float by the Government forced a relatively 'soft price'. RBS on the other hand is floated so there is a price set by the market. Therefore the government selling to its mates at below market prices seems unlikely/illegal, why do other posters think this will happen? I am sure the price will rally after the sale so people can still moan but that will surely be down to the fact that if you flood the market with a large sale (anything, not just shares), that will always be the case.
As for not benefitting from the buy/sale of RBS I would be interested to know the likely loss to the taxpayer had they been allowed to go bust (lost deposits/deposit protection scheme, bust companies leading to redundancies etc etc) so that I could compare with the loss made on sale of the shares. Could someone give me that comparison?
Not true, a large sale in theory should plummet the price due to supply and demand.
That was my point! Badly made maybe. A large sale means prices will drop. They will then rally sometime after and people will moan the govt got out too early rather than realise the fall will happen any time you sell something in bulk.
Worked for those rotten bastards for 12 months after they bought ABN Amro.
Unmitigated, conceited and unscrupulous idiots the lot of em.
Fuck it, sod the money just napalm 250 and 99 Bishopsgate and target a cruise missile into the foyer at Wankside, that'll do me!
Pah,
Just leave 280 and 135 alone !!!
All I'm saying is that I worked NatWest/RBS for over 18 years and left company in healthy state in Jan 2007.
They then bought ABN and the problems started !!!!
Fred got to ambitious with the takeover of ABN...wife had spent most of her working life with Nat-West/RBS...Greenwich Financial markets etc etc. She got out in 2010 after a stint out in Singapore..she will enjoy reading this thread but still has friends in 280 and 135 so would appreciate if these wern't nuked or napalmed.
They paid a lot in tax on profits but the ABN amro deal was cataclysmic and probably led to enormous losses and then clawing back tax from previous years. In retrospect it's now clear that the size of tax receipts convinced government and regulators not to examine just how these banks made their profits. The chair who rescued it likened it to defusing a bomb such was the size and complexity of the assets, derivatives and liabilities. As @newyorkaddick states there was never any possibility that the government of the day could allow RBS (or HBOS) go to the wall. Brown and Darling did an excellent job during the crash to ensure we didn't have a repeat of the 1930s - it's a shame there hasn't been clarity on this. And that we haven't had a sensible debate about how to prevent or at least minimize damage caused by another crash.
Can we now have some credit that Brown and Darling did a good job after the crash in preventing a 30's style financial catastrophe ? Rather than the this Tory mantra that Labour was somehow responsible by overspending, for the global business crash (starting from sub prime US mortagages) ?
When partisan party politics are stripped out of the argument, I believe most people accept that.
I may misunderstand your comment, but I am not sure that most people accept this.
It is very unlikely to happen that party politics will be stripped out of politics considering the whole system runs on it. Also, that what is felt best to do or the results of an action depends on a point of view. For example whether the UK should be so dependent on financial services or have a more diversified economy. The actual role of govenment is a point of view. The Tories have a view that they think that the government should have a small a role as possible.
The trouble is that the Tories, media, and spin doctors continue to spin untruths about the economy and economic performance and Labours previous role within that. The lack of clearness and depth on economic discussion on UKs massive debt and how that is best paid back / managed was appalling in the UK election.
The Conservatives are not as competent on the economy as they like to spin and tell everyone. Labour are better and did good things post crash.
Reference your last two sentences here, I agree with the first but not the second. Didn't Brown lean on Lloyds bank, a decent business at the time, to take over a dog and ruin its own balance sheet?
Anyway with RBS it is quoted so it's all a question of timing. If the price goes up it will be the wrong time for the Govt to sell off. If it falls however it could be right. The effect of cash flow has to be factored in too.
Could say the same about Brown's gold sales. Hindsight doesn't make his timing look very fortuitous.
Comments
Used to work there, and when yearly figures announced used to get copies of press releases stating made more profit than Nike and Mcdonalds combined that year, and that years tax equivalent to paying for the building of 30 hospitals etc
In retrospect it's now clear that the size of tax receipts convinced government and regulators not to examine just how these banks made their profits.
The chair who rescued it likened it to defusing a bomb such was the size and complexity of the assets, derivatives and liabilities.
As @newyorkaddick states there was never any possibility that the government of the day could allow RBS (or HBOS) go to the wall. Brown and Darling did an excellent job during the crash to ensure we didn't have a repeat of the 1930s - it's a shame there hasn't been clarity on this. And that we haven't had a sensible debate about how to prevent or at least minimize damage caused by another crash.
At at time when very large cuts are being rolled out. If it turns out that RBS shares signifcantly increase in value and it appears that that RBS is massively undervalued, I guess there will be some spin on that. Its Ok we have all the masses of newspapers, media, lobby groups and spin doctors to tell the general public that the Tories are not economically incompetent.
Also pass on the message that it was all Labour's fault in any case.
(The global crash, UK's dependence on financial services, not regulating despite the business community including the Tories wanting less regulation, overspending etc etc said enough times so that the lie lodges in enough peoples brains)
The Post Office, has not been sold off (yet). But it merely consists of the retail shops you see dotted around. It is entirely distinct from Royal Mail - the letter and parcel delivery service - which is being sold off in tranches.
It is very unlikely to happen that party politics will be stripped out of politics considering the whole system runs on it. Also, that what is felt best to do or the results of an action depends on a point of view. For example whether the UK should be so dependent on financial services or have a more diversified economy. The actual role of govenment is a point of view. The Tories have a view that they think that the government should have a small a role as possible.
The trouble is that the Tories, media, and spin doctors continue to spin untruths about the economy and economic performance and Labours previous role within that. The lack of clearness and depth on economic discussion on UKs massive debt and how that is best paid back / managed was appalling in the UK election.
The Conservatives are not as competent on the economy as they like to spin and tell everyone. Labour are better and did good things post crash. Labour did not cause the crash by overspending, it was a global crash. UK was exposed due to the importance of the UK on financial services. The main problem was that they let the Tories pin this on them and didn't challenge it. The handling of the RBS sale and the lack of credit given to Darling and Brown is an example of how these stories are spun.
Anyway with RBS it is quoted so it's all a question of timing. If the price goes up it will be the wrong time for the Govt to sell off. If it falls however it could be right. The effect of cash flow has to be factored in too.
Could say the same about Brown's gold sales. Hindsight doesn't make his timing look very fortuitous.