Follow this topicFollow this topic Knowledge » Politics and Finance

Nick Clegg's bonkers bank bribe

Cliff D'Arcy
by Lovemoney Staff Cliff D'Arcy on 27 June 2011  |  Comments 39 comments

The Deputy PM's idea to hand out free shares in Lloyds and RBS is daft.

Nick Clegg's bonkers bank bribe

One of the joys (and sorrows) of being a government minister is that you have a whole team of people whose job it is to think for you.

Often, these 'policy wonks' are young, highly intelligent special advisers, political activists or civil servants. They spend their time looking to impress their masters --and wow the public -- with big ideas that can be implemented at relatively low cost.

To get an idea of how these policy wonks work, all you have to do is watch the outstanding BBC comedies Yes, Minister, Yes, Prime Minister and, more recently, The Thick of It.

Nick Clegg's big idea

Since forming a coalition government with the Conservatives in May 2010, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg MP has been under the cosh. Faced with the reality of the nation's shaky public finances, he and his Liberal Democrat party have abandoned several pre-election promises.

What's more, it appears that the Deputy PM has been paying too much attention to his policy wonks, because he outlined a frankly daft proposal last week. During a two-day trade trip to Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, Clegg put forward an idea for what he called "the people's bank".

Clegg's plan is deceptively simple.

Related blog post

Instead of selling the government's large stakes in bailed-out banks Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland, he suggests giving these shares to the public in one huge hand-out. Thus, the British public would become major shareholders in both banks, as a reward for bailing them out during the financial crisis of 2007/09.

(Note that Clegg didn't ask taxpayers to cough up for the vast losses run up by 100% state-owned banks Bradford & Bingley and Northern Rock.)

What do we own?

What did we get in return for our multi-billion-pound bailouts of these banks?

Lloyds

We paid £17.4 billion for 27.6 billion shares in Lloyds, at an average price of 63.2p a share. This bought us 41% of the 'black horse' bank.

At the current price of 42.9p, our stake is worth £11.8 billion. In other words, Joe Public is down by £5.6 billion, or £208 per household.

RBS

We paid £45.2 billion for 90.6 billion shares in RBS, at an average price of 49.9p a share. This bought us an 83% share of the Edinburgh-based bank.

At the current price of 35.6p, this stake is worth £32.3 billion. In other words, we've lost out by nearly £13 billion, or £480 per household.

At present, these two bailouts have lost the government (and the public) a total of £18.6 billion, or £688 for each of the UK's 27 million households. Ouch!

Clegg's bank bribe

Nick Clegg's idea is to empower the public -- and put the banks in their place -- by gifting these shareholdings to each of the UK's 46 million over-18s. In other words, he aims to bribe voters with a bung of bank shares.

The idea is that the government sets a 'floor price' for the shares, probably the average prices we paid for our stakes (50p per Lloyds share and 63p per RBS share). When voters sell their free shares, they pocket the gain above these break-even prices.

Suppose both shares eventually reached a third (33%) above these break-even prices: 84p for Lloyds and 66.4p for RBS. This would deliver a capital gain of £20.7 billion to voters, or £766 per household.

Four big snags

On the surface, getting 'something for nothing' or a 'free lunch' is pleasant -- unless it's offered by a politician. Predictably, there are four big problems with Clegg's give-away:

First, Clegg is giving us something we already own. Our stakes in Lloyds and RBS are managed by UK Financial Investments (UKFI) on behalf of the government and, ultimately, the British public.

Second, both stakes are deeply underwater; in other words, we're sitting on a big loss at the moment. Therefore, any mass share-ownership scheme shouldn't take place until both shareholdings are 'above water', that is, back in profit.

Third, divvying up these stakes between the UK's 46 million adults would be a logistical nightmare on a vast scale. Tracking down all UK adults in order to hand over their share certificates would be a Herculean effort. Also, what about non-residents, prisoners, people who die just before the shares are issued, and so on?

Frankly, a successful public share handout would be the Devil's own job. Indeed, building society-turned-bank Halifax demutualised in 1997 and was still trying to track down missing shareholders a decade later. Hence, I reckon the costs of distributing these shares would exceed the cost of the 2011 census (perhaps £500 million).

Fourth, our nation is deeply in debt. Therefore, any ultimate profits from selling Lloyds and RBS should go towards reducing public sector net debt. Last month, this figure hit £921 billion and is growing at over £10 billion a month. Put simply, when a country's broke, there's no room for bribes, no matter how widespread.

Ditch this daft plan

This isn't the first time that this idea has reared its head -- it was also suggested by Lib-Dem Stephen Williams MP in March. Despite being a headline-grabbing crowd-pleaser, it seems to me to consist of 100% political manipulation and 0% financial sense.

If Nick Clegg has any sense, then he must drop this public-relations stunt like a hot potato!

More: Start saving for a brighter future | We all lose from the Rock sale | You can beat professional investors

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (39)

  • killick_becki
    Love rating 29
    killick_becki said

    Aside from the political undertones of some of the comments above, i actually have something apolitical to say.

    Akin to "The Bank Manager"'s comments, if the government keep hold of the shares there is always the premise in the market that they will want to sell them all at some point. The share price is thus artifically low at the moment in anticipation of this. They know they are waiting for the all important "break even" share price to be reached.

    By giving away the shares to the public, the idea is that this becomes more uncertain as to when the share will be sold. Thus aliveating the "predictable" flood of the market that is expected.

    a) Not everyone will get to hear about the break even price being reached (even with agressive advertising).

    b) Not everyone will want to sell

    The question as to how the shares are split up into smaller packets of owners is a completely different matter.

    Now a slightly political point: Atleast the current government is getting wise and trying to play the market rather than the previous that sold off (the potentially profitable part of) Northern Rock at the first chance.

    Report on 28 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • tallen1950
    Love rating 1
    tallen1950 said

    I take your criticism of tracking down all the residents, (although why not just use the 2011 census results?) but surely haven't you missed the point Cliff? If an institution like UK plc has a large shareholding which it wants to sell off what will the market think? Clearly the share price would drop like a stone and it would be nigh on impossible to recoup "our" losses. This way, I think, is quite clever. With the shares distributed over such a large number of people and none of them about to sell unless they get above the "break even price" would mean that they would sell in dribs and drabs and the market would be none the wiser. I am guessing that one of the main reasons for the low value of these shares is due to the fact that they are in the hands of one big institution. Once they were split into millions of small holdings they could drift on up to their "real value". So not so daft after all I guess. Basically the comment above this is fine by me.

    Report on 17 July 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 22Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 22 months (2.9% fee) Representative 17.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 17.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 17.9% PA (variable). Refund offer reduces handling fee from 2.9% to equivalent 1.7% (Ts&Cs apply)

Virgin Money MasterCard

0% for 20 months (2.99% fee) Representative 16.8% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 16.8% APR (variable). Purchase rate 16.8% PA (variable).

Barclaycard Low Fee Platinum Visa

0% for 17 months (1.6% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest