RBS wanted Ginetta boss's mortgage back!

[Digga]

Blue Cat said:

burwoodman said:

Roo said:

burwoodman said:

is anyone surprised at this. I'm only surprised Tomlinson had a mortgage.

Why? He's a successful businessman. Why use your money when you can use someone else's.

If he supposedly had 50 or even 100m i could understand it but 500M is the number. It makes no sense.

It depends where his money is - if he is getting 2.5% on his investments and he has a mortgage at 1%, it makes total sense to have a mortgage.

Also a lot of people can be money/asset rich but cash poor.

Absolutely. And then there's the classic rule - surely known to all PH? - that if an asset flies, floats or fks you're better off renting rather than owning.

[burwoodman]

Digga said:

Blue Cat said:

burwoodman said:

Roo said:

burwoodman said:

is anyone surprised at this. I'm only surprised Tomlinson had a mortgage.

Why? He's a successful businessman. Why use your money when you can use someone else's.

If he supposedly had 50 or even 100m i could understand it but 500M is the number. It makes no sense.

It depends where his money is - if he is getting 2.5% on his investments and he has a mortgage at 1%, it makes total sense to have a mortgage.

Also a lot of people can be money/asset rich but cash poor.

Absolutely. And then there's the classic rule - surely known to all PH? - that if an asset flies, floats or fks you're better off renting rather than owning.

OK chaps, i'll agree to disagree. Just hope one day he doesn't wake up broke and wonder why, on paper, when he had half a billion quid, he didn't stick 50M into untouchable family assets(houses, cash and marketable sec).

[Digga]

One thing which, having re-watched Panorama occurs to me, is that it isn't specific whether this was a personal or business mortgage.

[burwoodman]

Digga said:

One thing which, having re-watched Panorama occurs to me, is that it isn't specific whether this was a personal or business mortgage.

The documentary said his business accounts and personal including his mortgage. He managed to keep his mortgage with RBS but had to move all his business accounts.

[trashbat]

I'm a bit surprised that this story comes as news to anyone. It came out at least a year ago:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/nov/25/rb...

What's happened since?

[burwoodman]

trashbat said:

I'm a bit surprised that this story comes as news to anyone. It came out at least a year ago:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/nov/25/rb...

What's happened since?

The Financial Conduct Authority will be releasing their findings in Q1 2015.

[zedstar]

Watching that program is a worrying. The most worrying part for me is when the bank exec justified the liar getting a 500k bonus base on his 'overall' performance. The same arguments were futile when business that were fulfilling every financial obligation they had were put in GRG based on heavily influenced low valuations on properties putting them in breach of just one of their covenants. From what i've heard anyone whos complained to the regulator has been told that the banks didn't do anything wrong.

I'm curious now as to what will happen to customers that were folded on based on the hedging products they were sold. Quite a few customers have been paid back their hedging money, but what happens to the ones who suddenly found that the IRHP break costs (whish the banks now admit they should never have been sold) had put them out of covenant and into GRG and then sold businesses/properties etc. Will they get adequately compensated?

It seems unbelievable that a bank can have a property lowball valued, take possession, buy the property and auction and then sell the property themselves at a very substantial profit and it raises no questions at a regulator level?

I'd love to know more about these customers, were they given adequate verbal warning? Were they interest only and living the high life, not willing to reduce the capital on their loans? Did they put their head in the sand? Are we only hearing one side of the story?

[Digga]

trashbat said:

I'm a bit surprised that this story comes as news to anyone. It came out at least a year ago:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/nov/25/rb...

What's happened since?

Quite. It is a phenomenon I first became aware of in 2006 (when we switched business banks) and, even more so after the GFC.

I think it is the addendum to the plot; the treatment of Tomlinson by RBS and the acknowledgement, on Monday, by RBS that their staff lied to the government panel of MPs.

I do wonder whether, eventually, cases brought by some business owners (i.e. not those who were, in fact, profligate) will be the next PPI hit for banks.

[telecat]

What's new about this. A business I worked in in the 90's got hit in the same way. Asset and Order rich but relying on credit notes to get the order though to Invoice the bank sent in "auditors" to reassure the debtors. They virtually instantly put the company into liquidation. Then of course there is "Traditional Bathrooms". Encouraged to buy a new HQ/Warehouse.Distribution warehouse they then found the Bank devalued this new asset along with two other buildings and forced them into liquidation. They then sold the stock foe £1m ignoring an offer for £1,2m initially with prospects to obtain up to £3m. They ignored the chance and went for the £1m.

[Mrr T]

Digga said:

Mrr T said:

A bold statement unsupported by facts.

Except this apology from a bank which basically admitted to it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30172326

Except the story is that there was an error in the evidence which RBS then corrected.

Digga said:

Mrr T said:

I work in a bank and I nor any one I know would lie, especially to a court or Parliament.

With the greatest of respect, perhaps you are a minion, mixing with minions - but it seems the elite are seldom concerned about telling untruths.
No one is accusing bank tellers and cashiers of pocketing wads of cash. No one is saying the rank and file have any say in the direction these businesses take, but playing "nothing to see here" is not going to help.

I am neither a minion nor fat cat.
However, you still have no evidence to support your accusation.

[burwoodman]

Mrr T said:

Digga said:

Mrr T said:

A bold statement unsupported by facts.

Except this apology from a bank which basically admitted to it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30172326

Except the story is that there was an error in the evidence which RBS then corrected.

Digga said:

Mrr T said:

I work in a bank and I nor any one I know would lie, especially to a court or Parliament.

With the greatest of respect, perhaps you are a minion, mixing with minions - but it seems the elite are seldom concerned about telling untruths.
No one is accusing bank tellers and cashiers of pocketing wads of cash. No one is saying the rank and file have any say in the direction these businesses take, but playing "nothing to see here" is not going to help.

I am neither a minion nor fat cat.
However, you still have no evidence to support your accusation.

Not sure if you're serious. Having worked at many of the big US and European banks I can assure you they are packed full of lying, deceitful sociopaths.

[BGARK]

Digga said:

I do wonder whether, eventually, cases brought by some business owners (i.e. not those who were, in fact, profligate) will be the next PPI hit for banks.

Where and how would you start, I am genuinely interested.

[Digga]

burwoodman said:

Not sure if you're serious. Having worked at many of the big US and European banks I can assure you they are packed full of lying, deceitful sociopaths.

Quite. I have spoken to ex-branch/business managers from various banks, an ex-regional business manager from one of the big banks and also a receiver/turnaround expert from one of the big three accountants. Not one of them contradicted the other and that, plus my own experience, is where I have drawn my opinion from.

As for RBS apologising, it is a joke. There was a clear, deliberate attempt to say what the panel wanted to hear, anyone in doubt can watch the footage on Panorama, using BBC iplayer. It was a lie. Whether he lied unintentionally - claimed greater knowledge than he had - or lied deliberately, knowing the Global division was emphatically not being run as a cost centre is another matter, but lie he did. Bad enough to lie to a major shareholder, but when that body also happens to be HM Govt, it is a disgrace.