Follow this topicFollow this topic Knowledge » The economy

What Today's Bailout Means For You And Me

Stuart J Watson
by Lovemoney Staff Stuart J Watson on 19 January 2009  |  Comments 56 comments

It's taxpayers to the rescue again as yet more of our money is pledged to unglue the banking system. Will it work?

As Bruce Jackson outlined in this article, the second banking bailout is now upon us. We've also seen a raft of other news from our major banks in the last few days. So how does it tie together and what impact will it have on us all?

Whereas the first bailout was about avoiding a full-scale banking collapse, this one is about getting lending flowing again. Many people have derided the government's calls for `lending at 2007 levels' saying lending at such levels is what caused the mess in the first place. That's true - but my view is that this excessive debt is like an addiction. We need to wean ourselves off it slowly to mitigate the damage to the economy.

Exactly how slowly is a matter for debate, but I think that turning off the lending taps altogether would result in too many otherwise viable businesses going bust, with the loss of even more jobs. We also have the situation that many international lenders are no longer lending in the UK (they are quite naturally concentrating on their own domestic markets) so total new lending will fall even if our own banks maintain the levels of credit they're offering.

Royal Bank of Scotland

Let's run through the banks' news first. Royal Bank of Scotland (LSE: RBS) is truly the sick man of the sector. It's now expecting to make a loss of between £7bn and £8bn for 2008 plus take a further £15bn to £20bn hit from writing down its investment in Dutch Bank ABN Amro, which it bought in 2007. (Oops!)

The government is converting the £5bn of preference shares it signed up last year into ordinary shares. So no new public money is being spent doing this but it could take the taxpayer's stake in RBS from just under 60% to almost 70%.

As part of this deal, RBS has pledged to increase its UK lending by £6bn over 2007 levels. At the end of 2007, RBS had lent £324bn to UK individuals and corporates, so an £6bn increase represents just 2% of its pre-credit crunch lending total. Therefore this is small beer, but beer that's flowing in the right direction.

Northern Rock

The government-owned Northern Rock has been criticised in the past (including here at The Fool) for ramping up its rates for mortgage customers when they came to the end of their introductory deals -in order to encourage them to remortgage with other lenders. The Rock was also slated by my fellow Fool Donna Werbner for being the most aggressive lender for using the courts to pursue repossessions. This was all done in order to clear its books and pay back its loans from the government as quickly as possible. But of course this strategy is now the opposite of what the government wants every other bank to do!

So, to enable the Rock to make a sharp U-turn in its lending policy, the government has now said Northern Rock will be allowed to pay back its debts more slowly. This means Northern Rock mortgage customers are arguably the biggest winners from today's news - but the full details of this are yet to be published.

HBOS

As of today, HBOS is no longer a separate listed company. It is now part of Lloyds Banking Group (LSE: LLOY) which issued its own trading update this morning saying nothing much had changed since its last statement. That's good news, if a little vague.

(By the way, we taxpayers own just over 43% of this company as a result of the first bailout.)

Government guarantees

So that's what's going on with the bailed-out banks.

But what else has the government announced?

The Bank of England starts investing

A special fund is to be set up which will buy high-quality private sector assets. Up to £50bn will be spent initially, which will effectively see the Bank of England providing credit to the private sector through buying bonds and other corporate loans.

This will be funded by issuing more government debt and the Bank of England will be able to use this facility in conjunction with setting the base rate in order to meet its inflation target.

Insuring banks' losses

The government will also protect banks against future bad debts with what is, in effect, a huge insurance scheme. Only bank assets deemed most at risk from the current crisis will be included in this scheme and it will last for at least five years. It will cover 90% of losses over a certain amount, which will vary according to an initial assessment of the risk of the asset in question. A fee will also be payable for each asset insured.

Just how much this will cost us taxpayers is impossible to say. We don't know what assets will be included, what the level of the first losses will be or how much the fees are. And the government says it doesn't expect to release any further details on any of this until the end of February.

Summing it all up

With so much of the detail on this bailout yet to be provided, it's pretty difficult to come to any firm conclusions! While some of the actions should help more or less immediately, others are going to take a few months to get up to full speed. Once again this means that it will some time before we know whether this package is working and it will also be very difficult to separate its impact from everything else that takes place.

However I like the fact it's taking a two-pronged approach providing additional lending from the Bank of England on one side but also partly insuring the banks' losses made on previous loans. While the insurance element looks like a blank cheque, the government has a lot of leeway regarding what it can include and the extent of the loss we will bear.

Looking at the share prices of the banks today, the market has obviously decided it is not good news for them in that they are not getting off scot free. HSBC and Barclays are down 10% as I write, while Lloyds is down 25% and RBS is 40% lower. However, the UK taxpayer invested £29bn in RBS and Lloyds' shares just over two months ago. As things stand, we've lost about two-thirds of that money.

As for the pound, it's down slightly against the dollar and the euro and the market is also demanding a higher rate of interest for UK government debt. In other words, the markets are taking the view that today's announcement is a negative development for the UK economy, but not significantly so.

It would be nice to think that this second bailout can draw a line under this whole situation. But in reality, it's just a small piece of the puzzle compared to what taxpayers are already on the hook for.

On the positive side, it's more targeted than previous measures. So, pound for pound, it should have a more visible impact for the man on the street.

Eventually..

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (56)

  • RogerGLewis
    Love rating 2
    RogerGLewis said

    So the jury's still out on this one then.

    This is a measured and compelling reaction to what is I think good news.

    The key sentiment here is that it considers the longer term, the banks will recover their Value and the investments the government have made on our behalf will give us two benefits, first armageddon didn't happen and secondly the government have made a good investment on our behalf.

    Banking is a good business to be in almost as good as being a government, it is possible to mismanage and screw up even good businesses, Bad Governments get voted out and poor managements should be shown the door by their shareholders.

    Todays so called bail out is nothing more than putting some oil back into an engine that was about to seize, we should all be grateful for that. Now lets get on and drive the car and sack the mechanics that drained the oil in the first place.

    Report on 19 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • churchill123
    Love rating 0
    churchill123 said

    Not sure what this 'armageddon' was supposed to have been except that banks have held democratically elected governments to ransome by saying, 'we'll pull the plug on everyone to protect our positions' leaving British credit junkies and the Americans the most vulnerable.

    I think the whole thing stinks: A bit like Iraq, if we don't act now then..........

    are we really to trust what we're told when all we're fast becoming is a massive hedge fund for the banks?

    Report on 19 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Terrapin1
    Love rating 0
    Terrapin1 said

    The criminals at RBS must be charged with theft- no argument. Either they are stupid beyond belief or they are thieves. How much was paid in sweeteners for the AMRO deal?

    Report on 19 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • RogerGLewis
    Love rating 2
    RogerGLewis said

    The answer to your question terrapin1 depends on whether you subscribe to the conspiracy theory of life or the cock up theory. Usually when I suspect foul play or a conspiracy I end up finding a good old fashioned cock up.

    Whether we feel the bankers have gone unpunished or not doesn't really matter what is important is that positive action that works is excercised and the future conduct of the banks is kept within check. Salaries and bonuses paid to employees on the scale they have been really are not justifiable I am staggered that shareholders allowed it to happen, the problem is that the institutional shareholders are run by the same clique and they form a self justifying cardre that doesn't act in the best interest of the ultimate owners the small policy and deposit holders.

    We can't not have a banking system but i think we all want one that is run in a more responsible way, we'll probably get one for most of the next couple of cycles, heres hoping. For now I'm glad the government has stepped in and is spending all of our taxes on something which should benefit us all.

    Report on 19 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Fingered
    Love rating 0
    Fingered said

    Stuart,

    When will the Foolish Team stop pumping out such Foolish nonsense.

    Please please take a look a back through history.

    We are in a Depression ( Yes the taboo D-Word for depression) so pls i beg you, take a reality check and just go do a simple a google search and read about history ( NO - NOT VERY RECENT HISTORY!) pls pls DO YOUR HOMEWORK guys and stop this editorial nonsesense.

    Never, ever, Ever, EVER thru history have all the bailouts stopped a "downturn" in its tracks. It follows it's natural course. Plot all the bailouts against stock market indexes and it's perfectly, perfectly clear.

    Report on 19 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Fingered
    Love rating 0
    Fingered said

    Would anyone like to offer a definition of Depression? - Go on, I dare you !

    Report on 19 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Fingered
    Love rating 0
    Fingered said

    SKY News has the answer ( so do all the others by the way - "no idea of what's going on" Unprecidented this, that this that - billions of £, $ Euro Yen etc etc etc , intewrest rate cuts, nationalisation of banks, Gas prices, trade wars, Gaza, pensions crisis , unemployment, wrecklessness of bankers and sub-primers and fingerpointing, green shoots of recovery, balance of payments, Madoff, blablabla. Feel-good factors -Obama will save the planet. - News flash "Today is today is "Blue Monday" Oh really?

    Report on 19 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • peepobaby
    Love rating 49
    peepobaby said

    Recession is when your next door neighbour loses his job but you're fine. Depression is when you lose yours.

    Report on 19 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • mancman
    Love rating 0
    mancman said

    Just what may be a very simple foolish stupid question but can anyone tell me what has happened to all the billions in profits that the banks have made over the years. Please don't tell me that it was all paid out in salaries and bonses to the bankers and dividends to shareholders. Surely the banks kept something for a raint day?

    Second question is this, if we all accept that gordon Brown is in many ways responsible for this mess by allowing the banks to do more or less what they wished as he had removed virtually all forms of regulation what now makes him qualified to sort it all out?

    Third question, as I now own a part of all these banks what rights does it give me?

    Question four, Gordon and his grey haired friend are telling the banks that they must lend money is this a responsible position? What guidelines should the banks use to lend this money? As the money is partly mine will I get any discounts if I buy products from these companies?

    It appears to me that the only people who appear to be benefiting from all these bailouts are the people that have been irresponsible. The bankers still have their overpaid jobs. I know of one person who went to work straight from university with a bank on a salary around £50k wheres the logic in that when he still needs to learn?

    Also people who have ramped their mortgages higher and higher are now as their fixed rate deals end benefiting from exceedingly low interest rates so making it simpler to pay of their debts.

    Now my mother who owns her house and has savings and is retired is seeing her spending power eroded while the guys who just spent spent spent and caused the problem get to pay off their debts on the cheap.

    Gordon get a grip and do us all a favour and resign and let us decide if we want you. You are totally and completely unelected not only by the people of the UK but also by your party. You have no right or authority to lend all this money that isnt even yours. You actually resemble a punch drunk riverboat gambler playing double or quits. How big is the next bribe (sorry bailout)going to be?

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • shlapper
    Love rating 0
    shlapper said

    This problem is world wide. Wizz kid Bankers parcelled up all sorts of loans and flogged them off to any other banker. They all went down as they found out how toxic they were.

    A similar story in a different vein occured in Germany 1920`s over hyper inflation/property but they were wise enough to unscramble the mess to a major degree and get industry moving. This is what is urgent here and not financing over in EU or the world until we are manufacturing our basic needs in UK

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • jeffslaw
    Love rating 0
    jeffslaw said

    The pound has fallen significantly since yesterday. It has lost four cents adainst the Swiss Franc (a safe haven) - about two and a half cents, and six cents against the dollar which is about four per cent (the Obama effect?). It is likely when markets open in London to fall further throughout the day, and I expect further downward movement over the next month. With interest rates at an historic low, and the Bank of England continuing to bail out the joint stock banks, foreign investments can only flow one way. Good news for exports and foreign visitors to the UK but imports will have to be cut significantly and despite predictions, we must hope that the oil price remains low.

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • daveyboy76
    Love rating 0
    daveyboy76 said

    What Today's Bailout Means For You And Me:

    I think it means more prolonged agony from a historical perspective. The fact of the matter is there is going to be agony. Now you can take that agony in a short sharp burst or you can prolong it for years, possibly decades. Never in the history of recessions and finance has government intervention worked. Recessions and depressions take a natural course, and it's natures way of flushing out the excesses of "good years". Asset markets created this mess via the governments loose control and active encouragement of living off borrowed money, and indeed participated in it themselves. And now the asset bubble has burst, its payback time. The government should let the markets sort themselves out. I'm sick to death of hearing "to big to fail". Banks, investment banks and financial organisations have been going bust since banks, investment banks and financial organisations began. Whats supposed to happen is the strong hands take over the weak hands. No doubt about it, if you let that happen it will be agony, but it will be "short term" in its nature. Propping up weak hands is just prolonging the agony.

    On another note, check your stock index charts and plot up all the big financial and bank bankruptcies and failures when they were allowed to go bust. I think you'll be extremely surprised on how the market(s) reacts to those.... there is a direct correlation between large bankruptcies and failures, and the market completely discounting it. I would even go so far as to say its an extremely bullish period. Do your homework....

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • teafoo
    Love rating 47
    teafoo said

    Sorry but the article doesn't tell us much - mostly because there is no detail in the entire 'bailout'.

    It's mancman that talks sense. I feel like your mother - I have saved and been careful, paid my way and not borrowed yet I see my savings eroded by the folly and loose spending of so many others.

    And now they are only concerned to save their own positions, in Gordon's case his seat at the next election.

    Who raided the pensions? Who sold gold? Who encouraged boom boom. Should he now be called Basil ?

    How can lending and borrowing pay off previous borrowing? How could Prudence not realise for years that borrowing has to be paid back...? Go away Gordon & Alistair & the rest of you ..

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • teafoo
    Love rating 47
    teafoo said

    Gordon, go to The Weakest Link, see if you can bank anything on there!

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • oozat
    Love rating 1
    oozat said

    So, schlapper, we should introduce more authoritarian measures, expand police poowers, limit democracy, start a war......

    Are you a member of the government?

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • chasbmw
    Love rating 5
    chasbmw said

    It seems to me that is was bonkers to release the ban on short selling banks shares just before the banks reporting dates, surely the bank's share price is reflected in it's capital base and therefore its ability to lend?................

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • cardewman
    Love rating 0
    cardewman said

    I agree with RogerGLewis. If the Banks have 'lost' all this money, at least someone somewhere must have 'gained' some of it. I know of a case of a man who borrowed £200,000 from one of our now nationalised Banks in 2003 in order to buy a farm. He then complained that the Bank had not set up the loan in the way they had promised and so refused to repay anything, either capital or interest. The Bank sent him threatening letters but did nothing else until last year (2008) when they threatened to repossess the property unless he paid them £270,000 (capital and interest). They have still refused to discuss his original complaint, the matter goes to Court early in February and my friend is quietly confident that he will win and that the Bank will have to write off the debt.

    How many other cases are there like that ?

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • trufflestu
    Love rating 1
    trufflestu said

    So we the tax payers have bailed the banks out again.

    How long before Mr or Mrs CEO starts taking their million pound bonus and the people at the top again start creaming off the profits.

    Why hasn't the government gone to these organisations and put limits on bonuses until the money is paid back that they so selfishly played and lost with in the 1st place.

    Banks are a necessary evil, so why aren't they being controlled/marshalled better?

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LittleAcorns
    Love rating 0
    LittleAcorns said

    The drop in the share price of a bank doesn't get reflected in the value of my savings in that bank.

    If the armchair economists had their way and 'let them go bust', my savings in that same bank would disappear.

    Let's not be too clever.

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • kevinaevans
    Love rating 0
    kevinaevans said

    Many people have savings not currently earning them a fortune in interest. Well the very same banks only paid them interest based on their own flawed lending processes! We need to realise savers only profit from lendidng.

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • kevinaevans
    Love rating 0
    kevinaevans said

    Many people have savings not currently earning them a fortune in interest. Well the very same banks only paid them interest based on their own flawed lending processes! We need to realise savers only profit from lending.

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • marilynn1
    Love rating 0
    marilynn1 said

    what has happened to the 29% interest that some of the banks receive from credit cards. Also the banks and building societies who have not passed any of the bank rate fall on. My mortgage went from a fixed rate up to 6.7 so i am paying more than originally. I am a single parent (no benefits) trying to keep my head above water surely they should be made to pass some of this on as i can't change by mortgage at the moment.

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • everybear
    Love rating 0
    everybear said

    All I want to know is how to set up a bank. It sounds a great wheeze. Just think you have no responsibility for your actions. Everyone bales you out if you get it wrong. The Government will support you whatever you do. Also if you behave dubiously, in your business affairs, there is no comeback.

    Please I want instructions as I am just a PAYE taxpayer who has less security in work. My pension will be nothing when, and if, I finally get it and my wage is worth less and less each day.

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LOJON
    Love rating 0
    LOJON said

    In error I posted this in another thread -

    I think this is the most important effect of the announcement yesterday -

    Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) -- U.K. government bonds slumped after Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling announced the second bank rescue in three months, raising the specter of more public borrowing.

    Investors have realised that the government has written a blank cheque to our banks for insuring their bad debt, at the same time Gordon Brown appealed to the banks to 'come clean' - so NOBODY has any idea how big the cheque is that he wrote yesterday. As a result investors have lost faith in the UK as a secure place to invest and bonds continue to fall.

    That is the most important thing to happen over the last 18 months - the world's loss of confidence in our financial capabilities and governance.

    LOJO

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • kittzy
    Love rating 32
    kittzy said

    I'm confused. 2 years ago i took out a fixed mortgage @ 4.9% for 2 years. My LTV was 105,000 (L) 120,000 (V). One year ago my LTV was 105,000 (L)150,000 (V) Today my LTV is 108,000 (L)<-- where do they get this from ( interest only mortgage) 135,000 (V). I was quoted 6.7% for a 2 year fixed!! as supposedly my LTV wasn't as good as it was when clearly it was 15,000 better. so i've let it run on the reduced rate of 4.0% which was the Nationwide's base rate. Obviously my LTV could easily end up much worse and i'm sure it will, but how can they justify these stupid percentages when the BoE baserate is as low as it is. Surely the whole idea is to pass on these savings to the consumers, why are they allowed to charge whatever they want and keep all the savings for themselves.

    Why?

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • fashioncompass
    Love rating 0
    fashioncompass said

    There was a documentary last week with a guy selling big issue. He owned nothing, had no income other than state and had debts of £8000.00 (accrued whilst on state benefit) on credit cards.

    Some bank has probably bought that debt, and it will not be repaid. That debt is probably now owed to the british tax payer. It will not be repaid.

    The man hours and costs involved in retrieving that debt, past present and future, are and will be lost.

    This was a worst case but how many global cases are there like this where empty pots will be chased.

    This is not a credit crunch as the spin wants us to have it is a recession/ depression, call it what you like, and the worst we have seen.

    Britain plc is bankrupt and instead of handing to the liquidators, brushing ourselves down and starting again with a new order, learning from our mistakes, we (and many other countries) are trying to cling on to what was, and get it all going again. A psychiatrist would call this "more of the same".

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • hzplj9
    Love rating 2
    hzplj9 said

    My felings are that the banks screwed up as they are the 'financial wizards'. They should pay the price and go bust. If you or I did this we would be classed as criminals. We the taxpayers are going to bail them out to save us all. Yeh, right. Pull the other one it rings. If Brown loses the next election and Cameron gets in is he going to do what Maggie did and sell everything to rob the taxpayer again?

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • DrWealth
    Love rating 0
    DrWealth said

    I agree with RogerGLewis regarding the 'consiracy versus idiocy' argument for bankers. It's idiocy and cock-ups all the way, combined with breathtaking arrogance.

    The problem is, occasionally there are some clever so-and-so's who come up with instruments like CDOs, and the imbeciles at the top of these organisaions thought they needed to hold some CDOs themselves! Akin to being in the business of making timebombs to give to other people but liking the ticking sound so much they decided to keep one.

    I agree the whole thing is somewhat global, but the UK I fear will fare a lot worse than the US, or other Eurozone countries, thanks to Brown - see 'idiocy' and 'arrogance' above. Ruining the pension funds sent thousands of people heading for property - so then they were borrowing silly money for vastly overpriced houses, with no real knowledge or experience - thinking they'd suddenly become millionaires when their property value went up, and borrowing against it for cars and cruises.

    The real UK debt spiral started with Brown's pillaging of pensions by stealth tax.

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • DrWealth
    Love rating 0
    DrWealth said

    Oh, as for recession/depression, we can pump in money and feel the pain for 5 years as we lose 25% of our companies and unemployment goes to 7 million.

    Or we can be Darwinian - stop bailing out fly-by-night badly-managed, debt-ridden companies, flush them out of the system (albeit painfully) this year - leading to the loss of 25% of companies and 7 million on the dole - and then get onto the recovery.

    It isn't the government's job to regulate ridiculous bonuses and payouts to management - that's the shareholders' job, and if the bank becomes insolvent because of it, bye-bye! They should go bust and disappear. They are businsses after all, and I don't believe the government should bail any of them out - not their job.

    The banking sector simply needs to consolidate - perhaps to end up with the 'super' big four. Bad for competition and choice for the punter, but surely better than getting lumbered with hyper-tax for the next three generations to fund the bailouts!

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • andylecap
    Love rating 0
    andylecap said

    There are plenty of other banks, Co-operative Bank, Triodos, Smile, Building Societies, Credit Unions, Barclays, HSBC. Maybe it is time to allow to allow HBOS, Northern Rock and RBS to die peacefully rather than trying to prolong their life on a drip feed of debt. Finally, if all this does fail, Euro here we come.

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • DrWealth
    Love rating 0
    DrWealth said

    Andylecap - have you noticed how the new BoE banknotes resemble Euro notes in their colour schemes and style?! Maybe this was all a cunning plan all along - destroy sterling so we are compelled to switch to the Euro. Nah! They're not clever enough!

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • cypeman
    Love rating 0
    cypeman said

    all very interesting but.. luckily i have job security and need to change my car, i know it sounds selfish but i have been holding off waiting for loan rates to drop. are they ever going to in the near future?

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LOJON
    Love rating 0
    LOJON said

    cardewman it gets much, much worse -

    "Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), apparently lent Leonid Blavatnik £2.5 Billion to help shore up the finances of his troubled chemicals company LyondellBasell."

    Seizure of assets and lengthy jail terms all round for bank directors will not bring the money back, but will ensure this does not happen again for 50 years.

    LOJO

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Moneysimpleton
    Love rating 0
    Moneysimpleton said

    Here we (all of us this time) go again. I was caught in the Lloyd's debacle in 1990. Names were dismissed as greedy rich toffs and got no sympathy. In fact as this time it was due to incompetence, corruption and greed. Vast sums were lost and not one culprit was indicted. LOJON it will be the same this time I fear. Will Sir Fred have his knighthood rescinded (that would really hurt him) and have to pay anything back - even a token amount?

    I think not.

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • TaxPayer101
    Love rating 0
    TaxPayer101 said

    Well Cardewman you say "I know of a case of a man who borrowed £200,000 from one of our now nationalised Banks......my friend is quietly confident that he will win and that the Bank will have to write off the debt"

    Sounds like you are very proud that your friend is defrauding the taxpayer of £200,000. As his friend I suppose you are also happy to contribute your share in taxes also ?

    Let us all hope the court takes a more sensible view of your friend's actions.

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • pugwashtizzie
    Love rating 0
    pugwashtizzie said

    Gordon Brown appealed to the banks to 'come clean'. In other words he (and everyone else) hasn't a clue of the amount of bad debts in the books of our banks. May I ask what the external auditors have been doing then? The balance sheet is supposed to show a true reflection of an entity's financial situation and if it does not do so the external auditors have to insist that the figures are amended. This requires a bank to make provisions for bad and doubtful debts (and show the amount in their balance sheet)and charge the amount to their Profit & Loss Account. Simple and straightforward bookeeping. The likes of Price Waterhouse should return the fees they have charged and sack the staff responsible for their incompetence (probably everybody in their organisation). No, perhaps that would be too lenient - they should go to jail instead.

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • kybosh909
    Love rating 6
    kybosh909 said

    I would be very interested to see if the Gov are pushing Bradford and Bingley as they are with Northern Rock. BBG have been playing the same game. I received a letter last week informing me that when my fixed rate comes to an end in September, they probably wont be able to offer me a rate at all, not even their SVR. Also they are waivering the early repayment fee if you redeem by june.

    So how does that work then? i have a 25 year contract with them, if they cant give me an SVR then what do they do? cancel my contract? is that legal?

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • animarl
    Love rating 0
    animarl said

    Cypeman,

    Why are you waiting for loan rates to drop? You own part of the banks (presuming you're a taxpayer) you should get it for free.

    I've never been in debt in my life and have always paid my dues. In the last two years I took out my first loan for a car (mainly because the banks told me I didn't exist if I didn't owe somebody). They keep telling us we own the banks so why do we have to pay back money to a company that we own? I'm paying to bail them out, WHY should I pay them any more?

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • pjpunter7
    Love rating 0
    pjpunter7 said

    Here are a few radical thoughts that are usually swept under the carpet and will mostly be rejected:

    Any system that is based on folk having to get into debt is doomed longterm.

    Besides the fact that few people actually produce anything in modern life and, many , including businesses, live in the world of never-never,

    there is also the major problem to face of

    the cost of war.

    The UK hasn't paid for the trouble in the South Atlantic yet!

    Add the cost of all the operations since then up until and including the on-going and the future, and it is clear to see that the tab is mighty high!

    A depressed and brokenb economy will struggle to pay for all this.

    Then, take away all the loss of revenue that the rulers will face, when trying to meet these bills ( ie there will be less tax taken bc of unemployment and failed businesses), and is obvious that ends are not going to meet.

    Time to change the set up for a better one, imo. The old way has failed and cannot work, so we haven't much to lose by trying to be sensible.

    Finally, rather than waste good money on jailing the banking criminals, it would be better to fine them and tax them, while, at the same time, offering tax- breaks to anyone who does productive or socially-beneficial work.

    The highest rate of tax should be applied to the following wasters:

    Politicians

    Civil Servants

    Bankers and Financiers

    Their pals, the Property-Developers 9 to whom they gave the "lost" money

    Solicitors and Accountants ( who allow the nonsense to go on, and do alright out of the merry-go-round.

    Of course, indignant members of these professions and their lackeys will protest about how we all need these wasters, but

    the simple truth is that humanity can and will be better off without them.

    Sadly, as all the aforementioned groups hold the whip-hand, none of my scheme is likely to come to be.

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • KESSY777
    Love rating 0
    KESSY777 said

    Well what do you say about the banks and the debacle they've produced ?

    Ther're having to have the extent of their losses squeezed out of them a drip at a time . The people in the banks who knew the size of the losses and knew that they were buying "products" (i.e. dodgy mortgages all bundled up in opaque paper) should be discharged forthwith including those cocky buggers pontificating on the television about what the government should do about it all. What happened to the security banks usually extract from us mere mortals -they truss us up like turkeys - now they're the turkeys and we need a turkey shoot .What they've done is just about treasonous .

    As one writer said all the ank lending business s should be chanelled through someone like northern rock ( but an institution with brains as opposed to what nothern rock was like )But yes , they need the juicy business they've had taken away from them , and the remainder hopefully banned from anything other than bog standard banking (preferably including hedge fund trading - like they want to do in Germany )Some areas like Essex are looking to set up alternative banks and whilst this is a frmidable task , if something doesn't happen soon the banks will wreck the economy for their own selfishness

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • OPeterO
    Love rating 0
    OPeterO said

    Forgive me.. I've been trying to hold down a job so that I have some chance of paying my mortgage.. Have I missed something fundamental here?

    I'm given to understand that as well as having given the keys to inhabitants of a collection of banking asylums, we've now offered to indemnify them against the consequences of any bad decisions they may make?

    I think the inhabitants of the asylums may already have figured out that it's now in THEIR vested interest to get as many people as possible to default on loans, lines of credit and mortgages. No problems now if this happens. Just get the UK tax payer to guarantee the resulting "bad debt". Reduces debt provision on the balance sheet and saves a stack of costs in terms of having to service and come to “arrangements” with those genuine souls struggling to keep afloat.

    Before anyone starts with the take responsibility for your own situation line… There are plenty of innocent people who have a perfectly reasonable mortgage and modest outgoings. Already some of these people find themselves on the wrong end of a redundancy notice and a decreasing chance of finding suitable alternative employment. Even if they are “flexible” about what work/pay they look for they still may struggle to make mortgage payments. The situation will only get worse as the depression deepens and lengthens. Encouraging repossessions won’t help matters and will impose further cost burdens on our welfare provision.

    Why on earth don’t Gordon and his chummies realise that consumer confidence will be key to helping us out of the depression, albeit that’ll be some time in the future. Would it not have made some sense to reward the banks for helping to keep mortgage payers in their own homes? At least this would reduce the number of repossessions. In a sensible property market and surrounding economic conditions repossessions are a necessary fact of life. Allowing repossessions to become rampant in the current economic climate will only serve to add fuel to a fire that is arguably already burning out of control. Paying the banks to precipitate the situation is rather like giving a child matches AND petrol. i.e. The consequences are both obvious and sadly inevitable.

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Gerry114
    Love rating 0
    Gerry114 said

    I am trying to open a savings account to place the little company cash at a slightly better rate (above 0.6%) that Barclays is offering on Corporate Treasury Accounts. Any ideas?

    Wow, the amount of due diligence required to open this account. I think they are now checking my great great granddad’s credit score and I am not even a shareholder in this company… and all of this just to place money on deposit with these guys!

    So why was it acceptable to lend money to every tramp and his mate without any checks?

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Gerry114
    Love rating 0
    Gerry114 said

    I am trying to open a savings account to place the little company cash at a slightly better rate (above 0.6%) that Barclays is offering on Corporate Treasury Accounts. Any ideas?

    Wow, the amount of due diligence required to open this account. I think they are now checking my great great granddad’s credit score and I am not even a shareholder in this company… and all of this just to place money on deposit with these guys!

    So why was it acceptable to lend money to every tramp and his mate without any checks?

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • shikisha
    Love rating 3
    shikisha said

    "The first is to begin to replace the lending capacity lost by the withdrawal of foreign banks and other institutions, and the second is to remove the barriers that are preventing UK banks from expanding their lending." Darling in the HofC.

    The barrier is 12% on the preference shares he forced the banks to issue for their money. Foreign banks are withdrawing because the US Treasury is charging only 5% This will kill the City's place in the financial world and rob Brown of the major source of national income over the last ten years.

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Mike10613
    Love rating 599
    Mike10613 said

    Barclay's phonedme and asked me if I wanted a Barclay card because I have an "excellent" credit rating! They weren't interested last year, lst year they wanted spendthrift idiots who would owe them a small fortune on their cards without even considering what other cards they had or whether they could pay it back. I'll keep my current account with Barclays. I shall keep my credit card and savings with another bank that pays 3.15% interest which is much better than Barclays. If the banks want to get cash in; ignore the Bank of England and raise interest rates for savers. Then money will pour in. Lend that money to people who use credit cards and loans responsibly. Give mortgages to people with equity in their homes and wanting to move house. Those people with sub prime mortgages ona low rate of interest for a couple f years - give them longer on a low interest rate; maybe 5 years gradually increasing the rate. New buyers culd be given the same sort of treatment, a sort of loss leader on the first 5 years of a mortgage for first time buyers only. If the banks stimulate the bottom end of the housing market gently they will see house prices stabilise and not boom and bust.

    The big question is what will the government do to avert a disaster. They have sold off gold reserves, cut interest rates to the detriment of the disabled and elderly and the prudent. They need to raise the tax on gasoline while the oil rate is low and scrap the ridiculous car tax disk. Then people may just use their cars less and we would have less congestion. Of course the DVLA would be much cheaper to run too - although a few pen pushers emailing jokes all day may lose their jobs. Jobcentre plus is over staffed and ridiculous. The benefits system is a mess with the Welfare reform Act and tax credits. Crime is about to spiral out of control as the depression hits hard and the small firms go out of business. So small firms need tax breaks not low interest rates that encourage debt. Large companies need regulation - proper auditors and verified accounts. A director responsible for small shareholders and small shareholders need to be able to invest without getting ripped off on commisions. The LSE needs strict regulation from government. OFCOM, OFGEM (The lights are on but no one's home) need to get their act together and start regulating. Most of our energy supply industry has been bought up by foreign companies thanks to staff at OFGEM playing with their pencils and painting their nails.

    The traders on the LSE base buying and selling more on gossip heard in Starbucks or whereever they buy overpriced coffee and they can't be bothered to read balance sheets and profit and loss accounts and make logical decisions based on fact; not cognitions. I''m reading "The new Paradigm for financial markets" by George Soros. He did rather well when Britain pulled out of the ERM! I think he makes good points in his book. Carl Marx predicted the breakdown of capitalism because of greed and unregulation - maybe we are in the first stages of that. We need regulation by government and shareholders. Any salary increase, bonus or stock option for directors should be a matter for a shareholders vote by law.

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Rachel40
    Love rating 0
    Rachel40 said

    Many of us bought shares in banks. They used to be known as solid Granny Shares.

    What I want to know is whether I might as well wave my savings goodbye.

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • dotcombubble
    Love rating 0
    dotcombubble said

    Let's imagine we are Bankers. We finance election campaigns therefore probably have influence on the people we help to achieve power. We run the wholesale money markets and have influence on the retail banks that we supply with funds. Now imagine that we brainstorm and run through business models for differing scenarios. Now one scenario runs through where the wholesale banks and retail banks can reap billions in fees, charges and interest from the labours of the public. The scenario plays out to a massive collapse as the money to fund this scenario was basically made from thin air (debts repackaged as assets to lever more debt). Then the scenario poses the question "What would society do to the system that it had relied on as the apparent route to their own wealth if this system was shown to almost self destruct" Well, as society has become so dependant on this system then it would not be allowed to fail. Therefore the scenario presents the opportunity to gain vast wealth by running at and then above red line. Then the very societies that fuelled this engine with the value of their labour would be led heads nodding in agreement to save the very system that has stripped their wealth.

    Now, bankers, go forth and use your influence to initiate the changes to implement this scenario. The scenario could have been running for 25-30yrs the question is what is going to happen in the next year or two of this scenario?

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • meanmachine1
    Love rating 0
    meanmachine1 said

    All this bail out does is let the fat cats get fatter. Now that they have got the Government on the run all they will do is an Oliver Twist and keep asking for more.

    On a recent ballot, general Joe public voted by 70% that the banks should not be bailed out.

    Let the banks go to the wall and then buy them up cheap from the administators. Thats called business and its what the fat cats are doing by letting viable companies go to the wall and then getting them cheap.

    As for insuring the bank's dodgy loans why does it apply to loans made abroad?. Charity begins at home.

    What happened to the vast billion profits that all the banks were crowing about only six months ago? Which holes have they hidden that in?.

    If the Banks want to raise money they should increase their saving interest rates just like they have done to their loan rates. Its a tough world out there. If they cant stand the heat they should be chucked out of the kitchen.

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • samsworld
    Love rating 0
    samsworld said

    It appears that the most important thing for Gordon Brown and the government is to appear to be people of action. Never mind what action, just highly visible public action to tackle the current economic problems. So just rely on Keynesian economics and try and flood the economy with liquidity in the form of government/tax payer loans - without any real analysis of likely results. Their actions are just in the HOPE that the economy will turn around by late 2009. But if it doesn't, as many economists are forecasting, we will be in an even worse position than if they did nothing - we would still be in the grips of a deep recession with high unemployment and many bankruptcies - and we will have in addition a massive national debt and a very weak currency standing us in an even weaker position internationally - may even have to be bailed out by IMF again.

    The Conservatives for their part supported this initially, but more recently have felt they should distinguish themselves from the government and propose something different - hence the government supported loans idea which the government have adopted. But the main reason is to BE DIFFERENT, again no wide debate at all on what really ought to be done.

    The view that it is morally wrong to have a spending binge and living on yet further borrowed money to get us out of recession, when it has been this that has brought us to this position has been expressed many a time but is rarely taken into account in seeking a solution. But it is not only morally wrong (punishing the prudent and rewarding the profligate) but fiscally wrong as well and against the principles of capitalism. The cycles of the economy, failing businesses and the replacement of these by new more suitable ones are part of the natural system by which capitalism is self-regulatory - and with the current activities of US and UK governments we are turning into a centrally controlled and owned system, not dissimilar to communism.

    The government was correct in saving banks to the extent that savers deposits were secured, but not to give them more, in any form, either cash handouts, loans, insurance guarantees, in order to get them to lend to businesses. Not only has this not worked, as the banks try to repair their balance sheets caused by mass deleveraging rather than lend it to customers, but it prevents the banks from changing the models by which they work - so they will continue to reward speculative short term gain project clients and their employees who bring in such business (by way of bonuses) at the expense of clients with businesses that are long term sustainable and good for the economy. Many such clients have already found, and will continue to find financing from banks impossible, so the overall government action will fail. The only result of the government action will therefore be to lengthen the recession, as the downturn will be more gradual compared to them doing nothing, and result in a worse national debt, and prevent reform in the state propped up and partly owned banking system. To get money to the real economy the loan guarantee scheme or part government part private funding should be equally given to NEW would be banking entrepreneurs - such as the Dragons of Dragons Den and similar people with a proven record of business acumen. When the established banks see newcomers lending money to businesses then they will be forced to change - at the moment they can hold the government to ransom, sit on the money because of their balance sheets and wait for the next handout. With more dynamic newcomers on to the scene existing depositors also will be in a position to gradually move their funds over, again forcing the hand of the existing banks. The government must set the CLIMATE for businesses to be able to thrive and not intervene directly (through demanding the banks change or through state ownership).

    To hand loans/money to new entrepreneur banks who don’t have the balance sheet problems and get them to lend will take time, as they will have to be vetted and they will in general be smaller than existing banks – although you could probably get Tesco’s to form a more sizable bank. This will likely result in a much steeper decline into recession, but as a result, when we do recover, we will be financially much stronger and will have corrected many more of the wrongs of the profligate boom years.

    What is needed now is MUCH MORE REAL DISCUSSION in depth and evaluation of all options available.

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • devunderslash
    Love rating 0
    devunderslash said

    I am quite confused about the whole "giving banks billions of pounds to help the people" situation. Surely with a population of just over 61 million you could give every member of the population 1 million pounds each and make them available to those that only have bank accounts. Therefore surely spending would resume and the incredibly greedy banks will have money in the accounts of their customers? Or am I confused about the whole recession thing?

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • CRman100
    Love rating 0
    CRman100 said

    Things are a bit tight after Xmas with the Bank of Mum & Dad, I don't get paid until Friday. Do you think I could apply for a Govt. bailout??????

    Report on 20 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • supasap
    Love rating 19
    supasap said

    As someone who studied economics albeit ages ago I thought it pertinent that Noddy Holder from Slade fame posed some childlike questions on the crisis on Have I got News for You programme...... he said "all this lost money..... who had it and where has it gone"..... to which the more educated Ian Hislop replied "well I think you'll find it didn't really exist" which prompted Noddy to say "well what's the problem then" ........ resulting in guffaws of laughter but how many on the panel or audience or on TMF could argue against such simplicity

    Report on 21 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • ss770640
    Love rating 1
    ss770640 said

    let the banks fail, let umemployment rise. this is the only cheap way to rectify this mess. i would rather have this than pay even more tax in the future!

    Report on 21 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • RogerGLewis
    Love rating 2
    RogerGLewis said

    Human costs are no less expensive than financial costs, indeed probably more so, ss770640.

    Report on 22 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • DiverNic
    Love rating 0
    DiverNic said

    I think it's sink or swim, If the banks go under then they were obviously unsuitably run. Press reset and start again.

    With some gone the remaining banks may act a little more responsibly once they realise we won't bail them out. The shoe should definately be on the other foot.

    Report on 22 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • janesk
    Love rating 0
    janesk said

    Its all down to greed. Started in the 70s with Thatchers, "I'm alright Jack" attitude, then of course all the state owned groups were sold off to make millions in the treasure chests. Its now time to reap what you sow, its thirty years but now its ripening into chaff, you've had the wheat in the past. Hopefully now its the year of the OX, things might very slowly start to improve. Though I think it will take nearly the same length of time to recover to were we are now. Maybe the Governmebt should bring all these sold off groups back under the government rule. Perhaps then the utilites will be for the people not for the profit. And some OAPs will survive into the next decade. Notice how gas prices are going down inApril when winter is nearly finished, determined to get that last bit of profit, never mind if folk die of cold or lack of food. What was it Scrooge (A Christmas Caro;) said, "Is there no workhouse, orphanages, and if they, its less to worry about (Or words to this effect) Thats what this country has come to.

    It wont be "God Bless Us All" It'll be "God Help Us All" ..........

    Report on 26 January 2009  |  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 27Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 27 months (3.5% 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). BT fee is reduced from 3.9% to 3.5% (T&Cs apply).

Barclaycard 25Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 25 months (2.4% 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). BT fee is reduced from 3.5% to 2.4% (T&Cs apply)

Halifax BT 25 Month MasterCard

0% for 25 months (2.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 19.0% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV1