Taxpayer to protect £500Bn of bad loans

From the BBC

BBC said:
Taxpayers may become liable for £500bn worth of bad loans and investments made by Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group, the BBC has learned.

It would be part of the government's Asset Protection Scheme, under which taxpayers insure banks against future losses from such assets.

RBS has a Thursday deadline to agree terms, while Lloyds has until Friday.

The idea is to draw a line under bad assets to free up cash that the banks can lend to companies and individuals.

BBC business editor Robert Peston says that if the deal is completed it will take the total support by British taxpayers to the banks to £1.3 trillion.


Ok i could console myself with lending money to the banks to get them lending again. But that isnt enough to get them going, we are now taking on over on trillion pounds worth of their failings to get them working again. Am i correct in saying this underwriting means that the government gets a profit from it? We had better get a very good deal for this! :x
 

Karl_uk

Old-Salt
Pacifist_Jihadist said:
From the BBC

BBC said:
Taxpayers may become liable for £500bn worth of bad loans and investments made by Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group, the BBC has learned.

It would be part of the government's Asset Protection Scheme, under which taxpayers insure banks against future losses from such assets.

RBS has a Thursday deadline to agree terms, while Lloyds has until Friday.

The idea is to draw a line under bad assets to free up cash that the banks can lend to companies and individuals.

BBC business editor Robert Peston says that if the deal is completed it will take the total support by British taxpayers to the banks to £1.3 trillion.


Ok i could console myself with lending money to the banks to get them lending again. But that isnt enough to get them going, we are now taking on over on trillion pounds worth of their failings to get them working again. Am i correct in saying this underwriting means that the government gets a profit from it? We had better get a very good deal for this! :x

Well Browns organising things isn't he so of course the British tax payer will get a completly spiffing deal..........

Oh wait........

**** it.... :evil:
 

msr

LE
Pacifist_Jihadist said:
Ok i could console myself with lending money to the banks to get them lending again. But that isnt enough to get them going, we are now taking on over on trillion pounds worth of their failings to get them working again. Am i correct in saying this underwriting means that the government gets a profit from it? We had better get a very good deal for this! :x

Try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriting

Short answer: we won't necessarily get a good deal.

msr
 

Grey24-7

Old-Salt
So long as the true value of the assets is what is underwritten I don't see a problem, finding the true value of these derived assets is a big, difficult job
 
Don't worry lads... My round, I'll get this one in and you lot can pay for the taxi back to camp.
 
Once you go beyond Millions, 6 zero's most folk cannot appreciate, Billions let alone Half a Trillion or the reputed 2 Trillion that El Gordo has lumbered UK for the rest of all our lives.

john
 

zubrzycki

War Hero
would it not be fair to say that we should drop these banks entirely and let them fend for themselves??

we will just start running everyones wages through paypal instead. ;)
 
zubrzycki said:
would it not be fair to say that we should drop these banks entirely and let them fend for themselves??

we will just start running everyones wages through paypal instead. ;)

Put those wages through the Post Office.
Let the banks sink into their own mess and saves the Royal Mail at the same time.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
I still think it would have been far cheaper and better for the economy to give everyone 20 grand. A lot of people would have paid off their credit cards, bank overdrafts, a chunk of their bank loans or put deposits down on mortgages, or gone on holiday, or big fat spending sprees, or into savings, thjis making the entire economy including the banks awash with money for at least a year.

We'd all be better off, the banks would be better off, the economy and businesses would be better off and we'd start working our way out of recession.

Instead, these twallecks give it to the banks that lost the money in the first place so they can start LENDING money again?!?!?!? It's THEM TW@TS LENDING MONEY that got us all in this deep sh!t in the first place (and people borrowing it obviously), but the gobment would not only that they start doing it again, and more of it, they are also LENDING THE BANKS OUR MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!

Really, it just beggars belief.
 
'that El Gordo has lumbered UK for the rest of all our lives' - and our children, Jonwilly, and our grandchildren. As far as I can see, toxic debts means just that, debts that nobody expects to be repaid.

However much Brown and his two propagandists, Lord Peter Wimsey and the mendacious Alastair try to dress it up as, that's exactly what will happen. Also, once the smart boys in the City realise that financial guru Gordon has basically written them a blank, signed cheque, they'll be dumping anything that they can into this 'toxic bank'.

The problem with politicians running banks (or anything else for that matter) is that most of them have never had a proper job and haven't a clue what they are doing.
 

Ord_Sgt

RIP
RIP
Ha ha and to think we were worried when they threw 50 billion at Northern Rock.
 

4(T)

LE
Biped said:
I still think it would have been far cheaper and better for the economy to give everyone 20 grand. A lot of people would have paid off their credit cards, bank overdrafts, a chunk of their bank loans or put deposits down on mortgages, or gone on holiday, or big fat spending sprees, or into savings, thjis making the entire economy including the banks awash with money for at least a year.

We'd all be better off, the banks would be better off, the economy and businesses would be better off and we'd start working our way out of recession.

Its hard to think about a downside to this idea - apart from the difficulty of achieving a fair distribution. Giving every household about £20k would, as you say:

- wipe out a huge proportion of personal debt
- probably eliminate house repossessions for quite a while
- refill the retail banking coffers (because of debt repayment or surplus cash deposits)
- encourage real spending back into the economy (ie as opposed to the risible VAT cut of 2.5 %)
- give a massive kick to morale where it matters - working taxpayers
 
jagman said:
mnairb said:
Give money back to taxpayers? FFS, do you want Cyclops to have a heart attack?

Yes please

It´s agood idea, which is why the government didn´t want to do it.

After all,who is going to give an unemployed ex MP a governship or position on the board? A working tax payer or one of the banking conglomerates?

It would also probably not include tax payers, by the time they had paid all the bankers and chavs "joe average" would get FA except a bill for more money on the inevitable overspend.

And seeing gordo collapse whilst holding his wallet... er heart, would be good to see.
 

big_mac4824

Old-Salt
What the treasury has effectively done is to allow the banks to get rid of their toxic bonds, they will simply hid it,and considering it will be public officials looking into this we have'nt a hope in hell of finding out.
Liabor have done their best to facilitate the banks top earners, this will carry on.

the underwriting of banks have basically allowed them to covertly get rid of their bad loans, it will come out in 5 yrs or so!
 

Latest Threads

Top