How much could we make out of RBS?

How much could we make out of RBS?

Author
Discussion

ringram

14,700 posts

249 months

Wednesday 24th November 2010
quotequote all
Indeed. The failed RBS employees seem to be winning over the rest of the population..

DonkeyApple

55,408 posts

170 months

Wednesday 24th November 2010
quotequote all
ringram said:
Indeed. The failed RBS employees seem to be winning over the rest of the population..
?

Last time I looked RBS weren't going around threatening the break the legs of clients who didn't borrow from them. biggrin

The simple fact remains that people borrowed far more than they should have, lost all discipline and common sense and now that it's all going wrong they are desperate to blame others for their own stupidity.

You only have to look at the number of people having to buy cars on finance to see just how utterly moronic and rather sad the population of this country is.

Unfortunately, it's people like me who have to bail these schmucks out and have to help them pay their car loans, their credit card bills and their mortgage. They are very lucky that not everyone in this country is an irresponsible, self serving muppet.

ringram

14,700 posts

249 months

Wednesday 24th November 2010
quotequote all
No but they were stupid enough to run their business as a ponzi scheme which only had one ending.
Neither party comes out smelling sweet.

auditt

715 posts

185 months

Wednesday 24th November 2010
quotequote all
Aint all the economies like one big massive ponzi scheme, loads of money to prop them up till the goverment decides to pull all the money out meaning investors get burnt>?

birdcage

2,840 posts

206 months

Wednesday 24th November 2010
quotequote all
How much would they/we get for Coutts?

Trophy asset.....

DonkeyApple

55,408 posts

170 months

Wednesday 24th November 2010
quotequote all
birdcage said:
How much would they/we get for Coutts?

Trophy asset.....
It's an interesting question.

A lot of clients moved away in 08. I suspect it's not as strong a brand as it was. Still, it would be an easy sell and you'd kind of be surprised if feelers haven't beenout in the market to see if there was a buyer at a fair price.

auditt

715 posts

185 months

Thursday 25th November 2010
quotequote all
Im a private Natwest customer but when i tried for a coutts account

NOPE

frown

ringram

14,700 posts

249 months

Friday 26th November 2010
quotequote all
Further to previous comments with regards to spreads...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333163/No...

"First-time buyers face a huge rise in the cost of their mortgages at Britain’s biggest lender.

Halifax has revealed plans to raise its loan rates from January for all new borrowers.

In a further blow, the lender – part of Lloyds, which is 41 per cent owned by the taxpayer – is also scrapping a promise that its standard variable rate deal will never be more than three percentage points above the Bank of England’s base rate."

NoelWatson

11,710 posts

243 months

Friday 26th November 2010
quotequote all
ringram said:
Further to previous comments with regards to spreads...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333163/No...

"First-time buyers face a huge rise in the cost of their mortgages at Britain’s biggest lender.

Halifax has revealed plans to raise its loan rates from January for all new borrowers.

In a further blow, the lender – part of Lloyds, which is 41 per cent owned by the taxpayer – is also scrapping a promise that its standard variable rate deal will never be more than three percentage points above the Bank of England’s base rate."
You commenting on shoddy journalism?

ringram

14,700 posts

249 months

Friday 26th November 2010
quotequote all
No just the relative increase in spread..

NoelWatson

11,710 posts

243 months

Friday 26th November 2010
quotequote all
ringram said:
No just the relative increase in spread..
Relative to what?

ringram

14,700 posts

249 months

Friday 26th November 2010
quotequote all
To their previous and base and the earlier comments that spreads were relatively higher now than recent history.
Why so many questions Sir?

NoelWatson

11,710 posts

243 months

Friday 26th November 2010
quotequote all
ringram said:
To their previous and base and the earlier comments that spreads were relatively higher now than recent history.
Why so many questions Sir?
How do you know what they are funding at (it certainly isn't base)?

ringram

14,700 posts

249 months

Friday 26th November 2010
quotequote all
Well deposit rates, wholesale funding at libor etc.
So yeah, thats not exactly base in all cases for sure, though lots of deposit rates are pretty close to base and maybe even lower.

NorthernBoy

12,642 posts

258 months

Saturday 27th November 2010
quotequote all
ringram said:
Indeed. The failed RBS employees seem to be winning over the rest of the population..
What's this supposed to mean? The "failed" staff, those responsible for the loss, have pretty much all gone. They lost their jobs.

The profitable, successful staff stayed, and are now generating good operating profits for the owners, us.

Don't you want to pay them enough that they keep doing so?

ringram

14,700 posts

249 months

Saturday 27th November 2010
quotequote all
Immoral argument. Therefore invalid.
Do failed companies get to have profitable pieces propped up by the tax payer?
No. So why should a failed bank?
Let other sound banks pick up the profitable pieces as per Lehman's, Bear Sterns, HBOS etc.
RBS should have been consigned to history. To say otherwise is an affront to the capitalist system.
Its a politically corrupt and failed policy. Bailouts are wrong, period.
If you like politically funded companies I suggest North Korea may be more to your liking. Or perhaps that mindset has won and we now live in a corrupt and failed state.

NorthernBoy

12,642 posts

258 months

Saturday 27th November 2010
quotequote all
That's possibly the stupidest posts I've read in a while. One of the most petulant, too.

You are confusing whether the bank should have been saved with what should be done now. They are two separate issues.

As for North Korea being more to my liking, I think that I'll stick to being a banker in London for now and, like many "failing" others, continue to subsidize people like you, even as you shake your little fists and stamp your little feet at the injustice of it all.

birdcage

2,840 posts

206 months

Saturday 27th November 2010
quotequote all
ringram said:
Immoral argument. Therefore invalid.
Do failed companies get to have profitable pieces propped up by the tax payer?
No. So why should a failed bank?
Let other sound banks pick up the profitable pieces as per Lehman's, Bear Sterns, HBOS etc.
RBS should have been consigned to history. To say otherwise is an affront to the capitalist system.
Its a politically corrupt and failed policy. Bailouts are wrong, period.
If you like politically funded companies I suggest North Korea may be more to your liking. Or perhaps that mindset has won and we now live in a corrupt and failed state.
Would you advocate that everyone with savings or money in RBS lose all their cash?

And we could end up turning a profit, naive post

NorthernBoy

12,642 posts

258 months

Saturday 27th November 2010
quotequote all
birdcage said:
Would you advocate that everyone with savings or money in RBS lose all their cash?

And we could end up turning a profit, naive post
It is close to certain that we will reap a far, far bigger return by keeping them than by closing them. The ongoing losses are the marking down of existing assets for which there is no decent bid. Close RBS or keep it open, those assets are the taxpayers' now, as are the losses or profits which they will continue to accrue.

Ringram is being either hopelessly naive, or a bit dim if he imagines that we operate in a capitalist society, which operates on purely capitalist principles. Our economy is mixed, with elements of capitalism and socialism. The state can always intervene, or not, in industry, and there's nothing differently here. To paint this as some kind of immoral act is just idiocy. It's also hypocrisy, too, if he's ever benefitted from "socialist" policing, NHS, roads, or education.

Fortunately even the last government had a better understanding of economics than Ringram does, and they well understood that letting the bank fail was far worse than keeping it afloat.

fido

16,805 posts

256 months

Saturday 27th November 2010
quotequote all
ringram said:
Bailouts are wrong, period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_plc - Heath government, 1973.