Originally Posted by Closet_Jibber

When you put it like that it makes me want to stick my head in a vice. Technically what they are saying is that they could have afforded to double the defence budget. Instead they chose to try and shave £20 million off it.

Makes me want to stick your head in a vice too :D

Roll on the general election. Nothing is going to change until the government changes.

Originally Posted by Awol

Originally Posted by Agent_Smith

Originally Posted by Awol

Okay, here's a radical thought. Instead of throwing money at them regardless of the cost, and especially if there is a risk in doing so, why not just close the bloody things down?

Can you imagine James Dyson getting 32,000,000,000 when times get tough? And that is just one of the payments they've received.

If you close them down, who pays all of the pensions, savings and investments that the general public have with them?

I think I answered that in a subsequent post, the freehold of 1650 Nat West branches must be worth a quid or two.

Reference your other point about RBS lumping all the business together to compel the govt. to guarantee it all, is that a fact or is it just speculation?

Anyway, good to hear from you again Smithy.

Nah. The total value of freeholds in the entire RBS group is only £4bn - and Natwest (branches) will be a small share of that.

I'd be really surprised if the freeholds weren't securitised or structured into a sale and leaseback vehicle for tax optimisation........ergo, can't be disposed of because of the separation of legal and beneficial ownership.

Originally Posted by Banker

I'd be really surprised if the freeholds weren't securitised or structured into a sale and leaseback vehicle for tax optimisation........ergo, can't be disposed of because of the separation of legal and beneficial ownership.

That would immediately draw into question substance over form - there must be some possibility of a future transfer of economic benefits for it to be recorded as an asset. But then I trained when people actually seemed to give a crap about accounting standards. I am extremely rusty.

Originally Posted by Booty

£2k to avoid a run on the banks and another Great Depression is a sum I am happy to stump up.

Maybe you are Booty, but my kids aren't too happy about stumping up two grand each.

I'd take a bit more than the failure a few bloated, complacent and inefficient banks to cause a rerun of the 1930s.

Originally Posted by Awol

Originally Posted by Booty

£2k to avoid a run on the banks and another Great Depression is a sum I am happy to stump up.

Maybe you are Booty, but my kids aren't too happy about stumping up two grand each.

I'd take a bit more than the failure a few bloated, complacent and inefficient banks to cause a rerun of the 1930s.

It is all a futile effort and delaying the inevitable, is like putting a band-aid on cancer.

Originally Posted by ctauch

Originally Posted by Awol

Originally Posted by Booty

£2k to avoid a run on the banks and another Great Depression is a sum I am happy to stump up.

Maybe you are Booty, but my kids aren't too happy about stumping up two grand each.

I'd take a bit more than the failure a few bloated, complacent and inefficient banks to cause a rerun of the 1930s.

It is all a futile effort and delaying the inevitable, is like putting a band-aid on cancer.

You're a cheerful f*cker this morning Ctauch.

Originally Posted by Banker

Originally Posted by Booty

A lot of people do tend talk about 'the banks' as though they are some sort of distant entity, with which we ordinary folk have no connection. The truth is, as has already been mentioned, that most of us have some sort of financial relationship with the high street banks and it is in all our interests that they remain solvent. £2k to avoid a run on the banks and another Great Depression is a sum I am happy to stump up.

Ladies and Gentlemen...........we have a winner. :D

Where do you get £2k from ?

The UK will probably be £1trillion in the shyte by the time this is sorted - divided by 60m population is £16.k every man woman and child. No wonder the Govt is happy to let immigrants in to get the population up to 70million - b#st#rds!

Odo

Originally Posted by Awol

You're a cheerful f*cker this morning Ctauch.

I have started stockpiling food, gold, bullets and shoe polish. I'm hedging my bets, and if it all turns up roses I'll paint myself black and and melt down my gold for a nice new grill.

Originally Posted by Awol

I think I answered that in a subsequent post, the freehold of 1650 Nat West branches must be worth a quid or two.

Reference your other point about RBS lumping all the business together to compel the govt. to guarantee it all, is that a fact or is it just speculation?

Anyway, good to hear from you again Smithy.

It's well documented that in the years following the repeal of the Glass Steagall act that banks around the world chose to lump their casino banking in with the high street money in an attempt to protect it if it all went tits up.

In repealing the act, it allowed former high street banks to move into the investment arena, somewhere they had no great experience.

The perfect example was RBS. Under Fred the shred, the moved wholeheartedly towards becoming an investment bank with a high street bank bolted onto the side purely for effect. Buying bank after bank, moving into new an uncharted (for them) markets, they grew to big to fast. Things took a down turn, they lost the gamble.

As things stand, RBS have over 2000Billion of assets, and 1900Billion in liabilites. Not bad for a bank that started out providing pensions, and savings...