Skip Navigation
 

The £50 Billion British Bank Bailout

Cliff D'Arcy

By

Cliff D'Arcy

From the Fool blog

Local Police Station Is Useless!

Published in Your Money on 8 October 2008

What has the government done? How much extra cash will banks get? At £2,000 per household, will it steady the banking ship?

Last night, the government agreed a rescue package for British banks, revealing the details in a London Stock Exchange announcement at 7:30 today.

What do we get for our money?

The £50 billion bailout consists of:

1. An immediate loan of £25 billion for eight lenders, in order to boost their regulatory capital. 

2. An extra £25 billion, in return for preference shares in these lenders (these shares pay a high, fixed rate of interest and rank ahead of ordinary shares).

3. The Bank of England’s Special Liquidity scheme will be increased from £100 billion to £200 billion. This allows lenders to borrow short term from the Bank by pledging high-quality assets (usually packages of mortgages or other loans).

4. In order to persuade banks to ‘unfreeze’ the inter-bank lending market, up to £250 billion in loan guarantees will be available at commercial rates of interest and for a fee.

This is really important as banks haven't been lending to each other. Now Bank A might now be willing to lend to Bank B as the government will pay back the loan to Bank A if Bank B went bust.

However, bank bosses have to pay a price for these concessions: to join the bailout, they need to agree to a new charter on executive pay and ordinary share dividends. Also, future returns to bank shareholders will be lower, thanks to dividend cuts and the dilution of their stakes. The following lenders have signed up to the scheme:

  • Abbey (owned by Spanish bank Santander)
  • Barclays
  • HBOS (set to be taken over by Lloyds TSB)
  • HSBC
  • Lloyds TSB
  • Nationwide BS
  • Royal Bank of Scotland
  • Standard Chartered

HM Treasury confirmed that other banks and building societies can request to join this safety-net. Then again, global giant HSBC has no need to tap the government for extra capital. HSBC is bigger than all of its UK rivals combined, and is awash with cash, thanks to its strong presence in regions with strong savings traditions, such as the Middle East, Far East and Asia.

Darling does a Buffett

Of course, the government’s new investment in the banks far from guaranteed -- it could make or lose money for taxpayers. If the impending recession is longer and harsher than expected, then banks will be hit hard by bad debts. Thus, we taxpayers could end up bearing substantial losses from our new semi-nationalised banks.

Then again, the government has done something smart: it receives preference shares in the banks. As these rank higher than ordinary shares, they are a safer bet. Indeed, ordinary dividends would have to cease and other shareholders be completely wiped out before taxpayers lose a penny, which is only fair. Thanks to their high, fixed rate of interest, I expect us to do well with these ‘prefs’.

Indeed, the world’s greatest investor, Warren Buffett, recently bailed out two iconic American firms in similar fashion. His cash-rich firm Berkshire Hathaway handed over $5 billion to investment bank Goldman Sachs, plus a further $3 billion to industrial giant GE. However, these cash infusions came at a price: Buffett gets preference shares which, if these firms’ shares recover, could make him 17%+ a year!

But will it be enough?

Who can say? By offering extra capital and vast liquidity to the banks, this may unblock the money markets, reduce inter-bank interest rates, and encourage banks to lend to each other again. In this scenario, credit for businesses and individuals should become cheaper and more widely available. For now, this should stop the immediate panic about the security of British banks, but how will things be in a year’s time?

Nevertheless, the government can play a very long game, holding these assets for years, or even decades, until they recover in value. Sweden bailed out its banks in this way in 1992, and made a profit for Swedish taxpayers. So, while this plan may be a short-term lemon, it could prove to be a long-term cherry.

Finally, with around 25 million UK households, this £50 billion rescue works out at £2,000 per dwelling added to our national debt. Thus, in effect, this partial nationalisation gives us all a stake in these lenders. Hence, we mustn’t allow them to take our money and then lend it back to us at steep rates of interest. That really would take the biscuit!

PS: One piece of good news: the government has guaranteed all £4.5 billion of savings in failed Icelandic bank Icesave (and plans to sue the Icelandic government for withdrawing its savings safety-net). That will be a huge relief to 350,000 Icesavers!

PPS: The Bank of England has cut its base rate from 5% to 4.5%.

More: Start saving hard today! | Darling Backs Icesave | Loan Rates Rocket

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

supasap 08 Oct 2008, 12:46pm

so we all, bankers, governments of "left" (Labour) and "right" (Conservative), Democrats and Republicans finally concede through actions as opposed to ideology that free market capitalism does not work..... we need to constrain fear and greed through the great Leviathan of the modern state

peepobaby 08 Oct 2008, 1:44pm

It may steady the banking system but won't improve the creditworthiness of individuals and business and the real value of assets sitting on these banks' balance sheets. This is at the root of the problem. I guess we'll see a short term surge in confidence followed by a slow leakage, if an external event doesn't cause a faster leakage.

murraypaul 08 Oct 2008, 2:40pm

Now would this work for Nationwide? They have no shareholders, so how can the government take preference shares?

johnlad6 08 Oct 2008, 2:45pm

i have over the 50000 limit in Birmingham Midshires in a term account expiring next year.What happens to the excess following the Hbos-LLOyds merger? The Halifax branches in Fleet Street and Hanover Street both say the excess would be lost on the merger, one telephone call to Birmingham Midshires also said it would , but a later call said it was safe !! Can someone please clarify ,.If the Government is ready to guarantee in full the savings in ICELAND , why should savings in domestic bank be worse treated !!

peepobaby 08 Oct 2008, 3:04pm

Nationwide don't need any government money so it doesn't really make any difference to them.

LOJON 08 Oct 2008, 3:50pm

"Hence, we mustn’t allow them to take our money and then lend it back to us at steep rates of interest. That really would take the biscuit!"

You must be a soothsayer, because I bet that is exactly what will happen - we are each 'investing' £2000 in these banks, plus reducing their interest rate by half a percent - but it seems once again the government has not extracted any commitment from the banks to pass on the good news and reduce their Standard Variable Rates, so the man in the street will once again lose out. There will be no more liquidity as we have increased taxes to pay back the £50b plus increased mortgages.....

Surely there must be one economist in the government who can understand this and help the man in the street??

On a (slightly) unrelated point, I do not understand how and why the UK government (read taxpayer) is supporting the failure of foreign banks? When they make a profit it goes to Iceland, when they make a loss we pay for it. Surely this is not in the interests of the vast majority of UK citizens, ie. all those who do not have foreign bank accounts?

LOJO

ThatLindseyGuy 08 Oct 2008, 4:25pm

murraypaul>> Nationwide, rather than paying profits to shareholders in the form of dividends, has reserves which are the property of its members.

Any preference share dividend would be paid to the government before any profits could be transferred to these reserves.

wilsonlm 08 Oct 2008, 4:32pm

I'm also curious to know why Nationwide is part of this plan. I thought (hoped) that as a building Society, they would be immune to the scare-mongering dished out by the media which bought down HBOS & B&B. anyone have any views?

peepobaby 08 Oct 2008, 4:38pm

Nationwide is definitively not part of this plan and not one of the eight banks mentioned. I think they have also stated that they have no need for capital.

The media did not bring down HBOS and B&B. Despite what you may think, the media reports on events. It can't make them but it can speed them up.

bobfruit 08 Oct 2008, 10:59pm

I saw Nationwide's name flashed about this morning as one of those signing up to the plan, but NOT asking for capital. I think it's a show of unity on the part of the financial institutions, so that the ones in need of capital look less needy and won't jitter the market as much.

It looks better if they all sign the agreement, even if they don't use it.

peepobaby 09 Oct 2008, 1:10am

I have some further clarity on the proposal:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/banks-to-lend-you-your-own-money-200810081308/

PrinceoftheHi11s 09 Oct 2008, 7:36am

I feel that the Government should only have backed an already Nationalised Bank, namely Northern Rock, and let the other Banks come for their loans to them. This way the strongest survive and the others fall into their Bonus Wage Packets.
It would encourage the whole of the industry by letting others across the globe realise that there is still confidence in banking with one bank lending to another. Not just a Bail Out!

lindsayk100 09 Oct 2008, 7:41am

Does anyone know how many loan defaults and bankruptcies there have been to cause this fiasco?
In the 90’s we had repossessions galore, businesses going pop every 5 minutes and the banks hardly hiccupped.
I know the problem is global and the banks rely on each other but is this whole thing getting blown out of proportion?
Perhaps a wiser fool than I can explain.

PrinceoftheHi11s 09 Oct 2008, 7:46am

I find the Global Banking Industry are all like Sheep. Waiting for one to act and then they all join in.
All these measures that are being taken by Governments are the same. Imagine a roof over a house with all banking inside. A high level is where we were and now with all doing the same thing we are at a lower level. Same roof!!!
Someone needs to open the Skylight and lead. Come on HM Government--Lead by example and show mettle not just cowering in the corner waiting for someone else to make the move. Ba11s are what is required!!

meagherp 09 Oct 2008, 8:05am

This bailout is a massive electoral bribe that is designed to get Labour re-elected in may 2010. By then the effect of the some 30% GDP injection will have boosted the economy and the huge inflation that will follow will just be starting - note NO, rpt NO reduction in public spending to compensate is being undertaken by this spendthrift gang-we are being shafted big time...and our children too..

debtwagon 09 Oct 2008, 9:03am

What nonsense, meagherp. All political parties are supporting the bailout, which is widely agreed amongst all the experts as being essential. I'm glad to see the banks being reined in and partial public ownership will bring benefits in the long run. One thing I am curious about: Mr. Darling said on Newsnight last night that the money will come from borrowing. Who's doing the lending? Anybody know?

jazzcaz 09 Oct 2008, 9:23am

To johnlad6 -- Hmm I am not sure that the Government's Icesave guarantee extends to monies over the £50,000 limit. As I understand it, we are to lose the excess. The whole banking system is corrupt. Ordinary people who have worked hard all their lives and who have been prudent enough to save for their retirement should not lose their life savings (which they placed in a supposedly risk free environment)to help fund corrupt bankers.

mdp898 09 Oct 2008, 9:24am

I do not understand how and why the UK government (read taxpayer) is supporting the failure of foreign banks?

LOJO - Our government is not supporting the failure of a foreign bank, but is supporting UK investors in a foreign bank. It has to do this because the Icelandic government has reneged on its responsibilities by excluding foreign investors from its compensation scheme.

372seanbautista 09 Oct 2008, 9:30am

ATTENTION!!! WAKE UP!!!ECONOMIC CRISIS CAN BE OVERCOME!!!

This may be the most important documentary you will ever see regarding the current global economic crisis. It is a low budget production but very informative and gives a possible solution to all our financial problems.

Watch it with an open mind and you will see that what they are trying to tell us rings a sinister air of truth! It's a very long presentation but be patient and you will gain a wealth of knowledge into the history of banking and who really pulls all the financial strings.

If you find this documentary informative the forward the weblink onto your family friends collegues and MP's. Lets open this whole thing up and take our power back!

Just copy and paste the link below into your browser:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936

If this doesn't work then google search
"MONEY MASTERS"

mirosa08 09 Oct 2008, 9:31am

I have read that the american bankers who led their customers to ruin have done very well from the rescue packages, and will maintain their level of bonuses. What is being done to avoid this aberration in the UK, other than a vague statement that there should be (note the conditional) 'regulation'?

LOJON 09 Oct 2008, 9:33am

mdp898 - so if you invested 51k in a UK bank you will get 50k back when it folds - if you invest that same 51k in a foreign bank you will get 51k back - or any amount, UNLIMITED! Please explain why the UK government is supporting investors in foreign banks more than people who invest here, in the high street??

Thanks, LOJO

complyman 09 Oct 2008, 9:43am

The Lloyds TSB HBOS merger should secure depositors money. The £50K limit on compensation only kicks in if one of them goes bust. The merger is designed to prevent that so all your BM money will be safe even if it exceeds £50K unless the merger fails and HBOS really does go to the wall. If BM staff are telling you different jonlad6 then that goes to the heart of this crisis incompetence!

hpyatt 09 Oct 2008, 9:44am

Lojon

By their effective nationalisation they have supported all UK depositors in that it is now extremely unlikely that any British bank will go bust. They will only go bust if the government goes bust - now in Iceland they were saying exactly the same thing just a couple of weeks ago !

ricanold 09 Oct 2008, 10:03am

I would like to see at the next election, all potential M.P.s undertaking that in the event of them becoming cabinet members, that they promise never to take jobs with any financial institution. Furthermore, because much of this crisis can be laid at the door of pension companies and their poor governance of the companies they control, that in future pension companies and investment companies, have no more than 30% of the voting rights in a listed company. Small shareholders have a better instinctive feel for what is fair.

Filipuk 09 Oct 2008, 10:06am

Just checked my Icesave Accoount as the £15k I transferred out on Sunday hadn't reached the destination account. Although I checked the staement on Monday, which showed it as processed and was assured by the call centre guy that it would go through, the statement shows it as having been reversed. Anyone else had this problem? Academic given the Chancellors pledge to honour all deposits, but makes me very wary of keeping other money in 'foreign' banks such as ICICI. Comments?

TricksRK 09 Oct 2008, 10:21am

Since we are now effectively "shareholders" in these banks, surely we should all be entitled to decide how they operate: i.e. to attend the AGMs and vote against the obscenely and grossly inflated salaries/bonuses of the people that purport to run them!

bobfruit 09 Oct 2008, 10:40am

Filipuk: lots of people have had this problem, both with IceSave and Kaupthing Edge. Transactions were marked as processed, but then seemingly put in a holding pot, which was then tipped back into the respective bank.

I'd take that at the moment over the situation where my money's somewhere in the BACS ether. :o/ Anyone had their BACS (or CHAPS) transaction come through yet? I read that money being transferred isn't covered by the FSCS. I wonder what happens to it?

FooQueen 09 Oct 2008, 10:41am

I'd love to have some savings in need of protection! Instead I can contribute to people with more money than I have. Gee, thanks Gordon.

Hardtruth 09 Oct 2008, 11:27am

No Supasap the free market is a fundamental force in nature that is as old as man. Socialism and socialists (new dogmas) believe they can control this but they cannot. They'll keep trying though because they will never get it.

missinterpret 09 Oct 2008, 12:06pm

DStar79 is right,I listen to the podcasts from Alex.Gordon Brown has mentioned the New World Order and seems mighty pleased with himself now we are in this deep deep do-do.Brings a whole new meaning to conspiracy theory for me.....

deestream 09 Oct 2008, 12:27pm

Re Icesave query from Filipuk - I had the same experience - I transferred money out of my Icesave account on Sunday. Their web page showed the money had gone, but yesterday it appeared back in my Icesave account. Presumably any processing payments were cancelled on Sunday night/Monday morning.

DP130132 09 Oct 2008, 12:36pm

When will we see the "small print" of the Governments guarantees???
If Equitable guarantees are anything
to go by, could by 5 - 8 years!!!

Ofolaller 09 Oct 2008, 1:10pm

In the heat of the Icesave (Landisbanki) collapse, someone phoned a chatshow (R5Live) to describe his deeply distressing case. His elderly parents had sought his advice where to investigate their funds (a lot, I think about 200k). He'd looked at various internet savings offers and decided on Landisbanki Guernsey, offering presumably a similarly atrractive deal to Landisbanki UK's (Icesave's) deals. (He is a Briton living in Sweden, hence the offshore situation.)

While everyone with Icesave UK was cautiously sighing with relief that their Icesave funds seemed to be assured by a combination of Iceland's small protection, the FSA (UK) top-up protection and finally the Treasury's complete backing, he (as presumably others like him)was miserable, having heard that there is no compensation at all for Channel Island account holders.

This sounded a bit unlikely to me (I seem to remember, for example, that when the Irish government announced complete protection for their six major banks, they explicitly included offshore branches of those banks). So I did some browsing and it appears that, indeed, there is no protection to people with offshore banking accounts in the Channel Islands. It appears that there is a miserly scheme for those people who have offshore accounts with Isle of Man branches of banks (75% of savings up to a max of 15,000 pds stg) but not for CI branches, even of the same institutions. Often it is just pot luck whether a person's offshore account is held in IoM or CI.

Does anyone have any further information about the offshore status? It has tended to be overlooked in all the recent excitement. It would be handy if some expert could write an article about this.

Ofolaller 09 Oct 2008, 1:20pm

Anyone know the situation with Co-op Bank? Are they entirely independent? Do they operate as a mutual society (unreconstructed building society). Or are they just a sensible commercial bank.

Also anyone know where the Ecology Bank stands?

What ever happened to the Midlands Bank? (Sorry, been out the country for a while.)

voleshafter 09 Oct 2008, 1:54pm

Ofolaller - Midland became part of the HSBC group in the eighties I believe. As far as I know Co-Op trade as a commercial bank.

My personal experience is I initiated a CHAPS transfer from Kaupthing Edge on Tuesday 7th in the evening which immediately debited my account. As as today it still hasn't reached my target account (with smile). Afer a twenty minute wait I just managed to get through to KE's phone operators who told me that as far as they are currently aware all BACS or CHAPS transfered will happen but there is a backlog and it's going to take some unknown time to work through these.

I am therefore worried about previous comments questioning the status of monies "in transit" and would be grateful if anyone could provide any insight to this.

TONYRINSE 09 Oct 2008, 2:27pm

voleshafter dont worry if you used CHAPS and paid the £20 it will get there today,i i did the same,i took my whole balance out of kaupthing and it showed up in under 24 hours,at my nominated account

voleshafter 09 Oct 2008, 2:57pm

TONYRINSE

when did you initiate your CHAPS transfer?

My unease is that I did mine on Tuesday evening when the position with KE was becoming clear (and grim), therefore maybe I'm stuck in limbo?

thomasak001 09 Oct 2008, 3:43pm

I wish I had £50K savings to worry about, but I sympathise with those who do.

Several things worry me about this deal and the various actions / inactions leading up to it.

Gordon Brown keeps saying that this is a problem imported from America. I guess if he keeps saying it enough then a good proportion of the electorate will start to believe it. Whilst the idea / stupidity itself may have been imported, the oversight of massive debt build-up, hyper house infaltion and unregulated reckless lending is down to him and his bank cronies and is home grown to a huge extent.

Can we trust the asset values of these banks we are to invest in? I suspect that the same people who filled their boots in the good times are doing everything they can to hide their mistakes. Can we trust the very people who let this happen to ensure the safe investment of our money?

I'm not qualified to judge, but at least this package does seem to have some sensible objectives, better at least than buying up worthless assets with little guarantee of repayment. At long last we seem to be one step ahead of the curve, but why has it taken so long? A lack of honesty and too much back covering I suspect as I said, but maybe we have reached a point where there is nowhere else to hide. Maybe at last we have the raw facts.

I would liked to have seen some assurance built into our investment. For example, any assets that get written down within 3 years are taken back to the point of our investment and the investment increased accordingly, plus back payments.

There was and still is too much double talk in these proposals. Why are there no specifics? What does "satisfactory assurances on executive pay and bonuses mean?" Satisfactory to whom? These open ended statements are fine from people you trust, but this is the labour government who have lied to us and deceieved us with double talk for the last 10 years. I wouldn't trust them to give me change for a fiver. They are massively implicated in this fiasco and hiding behind open statements and blaming America just gives them opportunity to weedle out of owning up to their part in this.

Is it just me, or is anybody else tired of hearing "we will do whatever is necessary"? Smacks of a man who hasn't a clue saying he will react to events after they've happened. Where's the vision? How can we trust this when reaction has been seen to be so slow?

I want to hear some SMART talk - Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Timely. At Question Time, David Cameron asked for a guarantee that Bank executives would get no bonus this year. Who, What, When - Right or wrong, these specifics are tangible, can be judged by mere mortals - the sort of transparency / red meat the tax payer deserves. Of course, Gordon Brown just dismissed this in his arrogance as banker bashing. In my view, some bashing of bankers is well past time (although denying them more gravy seems very mild bashing) and we can have a go at the politicians too. MP's should lead the cost savings by accepting an immediate 10% pay cut.

I will never trust Gordon Brown until he confesses his part in this and says "sorry". Given how he is still selling the myth that 10 years' prosperity is down to his good management, I won't hold my breath.

Good luck to all savers out there. Yours seems to be the only real money.

bobfruit 09 Oct 2008, 3:43pm

voleshafter: come join us on:

http://www.fool.co.uk/news/your-money/savings/2008/10/08/kaupthing-savings-bought-by-ing-direct.aspx

for the latest news on the Kaupthing Edge/IOM/KSF news.

yocoxy 09 Oct 2008, 4:49pm

I wonder if selling property and buying shares amid the dire 'property crash' warnings of the last year or two seems like such a good idea now?

goodtyneguy 09 Oct 2008, 5:07pm

This is only the first of a series of bailouts unless they do what is natural in a capitalist "free" market i.e allow the banks to go bankrupt. The problem is because of the shadow banking system or the casino type environment these banks have been operating in. Using our hard earned money they "bet the farm" in the form of an alphabet soup of speculative investments, CDO's MBS's over the counter CDS's etc. and they lost the bet!
The reason they have to keep the majority of the banks afloat is because of the outstanding credit default swaps (bets) which are estimated to be in the order of $6,000,000,000,000 That's 6 trillion. It is only estimated, no one knows because these are private bets between financial institutions outside any regulated market or exchange. These instruments are spread in an intricate web throughout the world, if one big holder goes down it will intiate a chain reaction which will bring the worlds banking system down. The consequences for the world economy will be apocalyptical. Expect this crises to bankrupt a number of countries including the UK, then see how their guarantees stand up!

In order to finance the series of bailouts the money printing presses will continue to flood the country with pounds. This will dilute the value of every pound in existance or another way of looking at it, it will create the mother of all inflation i.e. hyperinflation. Anyone holding cash will have their store of value wiped out, this will occur in every country around the world. Currencies will fail as money, one of the qualities of money is that it should be a store of value.
The winners will be the ones that protect their wealth with precious metals once used as money i.e gold and silver. That's if you can get some before the panic, bullion and coin dealers are already struggling to keep up with demand from the smart money!

debtwagon 09 Oct 2008, 7:17pm

I look forward to this "apocalypse". Then we would see the end of people like Buffett. Slimeballs and conmen. Ultimately all money is fiction and the real wealth is in physical assets, which have not changed. If the playing field is totally levelled, is that such a bad thing?

ojibwei 09 Oct 2008, 7:29pm

It is all well and fine for Brown to blame the US, reality is the EU caused this, now socialists want to nationalise and controll us (think about Ben killing BMC) the EU is at least socialist, do you really think this was an accident? looks like apart of a long term plan for the fourth reich to me!!

debtwagon 09 Oct 2008, 8:45pm

Please, ojibwei, expand on this "reality" for me. I'm fascinated to know how those nasty socialists have deliberatly engineered the credit crunch.

mikefour 09 Oct 2008, 9:00pm

You're spot on. I couldn't agree with you more. You've got the pulse of the situation. Are they all sheep, or what?

goodtyneguy 10 Oct 2008, 4:42am

debtwagon said: "I look forward to this "apocalypse". Then we would see the end of people like Buffett".
Buffet never participated in the various exotic financial instruments like credit default swaps which are threatening to bring the worlds bankng system down. In fact he warned against them describing them as "weapons of financial mass destruction" he predicted that they would implode some day. If you want to point the finger of blame you should be pointing in the direction of Greenspan for his loose monetary policy after the dot.com bust (i.e interest rates at 1%) and Brown for a similar loose monetary policy. Then there is wall street and city of london banksters who were making fortunes out of this ponzi scheme. How about the rating agencies who were rating all the securitised debt packages as "triple A" and then what about the SEC (USA's equivalent of the FSA)and the FSA who are "supposedly" regulators. Now let's talk about the US treasury secretary Hank Paulson who during the housing boom was the CEO of Goldman Sucks and of course he did n't know how this was going to end, of course not! I feel sure that this will go down as one of the biggest frauds in history preceeding the biggest depression. Tip -if you want to make money over the next few years invest in companies that manufacture anti depressants.

goodtyneguy 10 Oct 2008, 5:07am

thomasakoo1 said "Can we trust the asset values of these banks we are to invest in? I suspect that the same people who filled their boots in the good times are doing everything they can to hide their mistakes. Can we trust the very people who let this happen to ensure the safe investment of our money?"

As you may be aware banks will not lend to other banks so what conclusions can you draw from that with regard to their asset values? If banks with all their experts will not lend to other banks what are we doing lending them money (well not me anyway)? The banks are holding on their balance sheets so called assets in the form of securitised debt packages, think sub prime mortgages and other mortgages in default. In order to look as if they are still solvent they are valueing these things above their true value. As the US and UK housing values fall so do these assets and more and more of them are being defaulted upon further compounding the losses. There is leverage of up to 30 to 1 involved which magnifies losses. Add to this the credit default swap contracts which are becoming due (which I talk about above) then you can see why the banks are hoarding cash to pay out on these. Furthermore banks are in the business of lending, when they don't do this they don't make money. The money the government is pumping money is a complete waste of taxpayers cash as ultimately it will go to pay off the banks bad bets but the scale of this thing will bankrupt the UK government a la Iceland.

yorick58 10 Oct 2008, 6:01am

I am fed up with this site. It posts alarmist and contradictory information every day. Motley Fool, only 2 weeks ago, was pushing accounts with Kaupthing......luckily (for me) I never actually transferred any money. I was looking to invest only a modest amount, but it is my daughter's university money, and I've been saving years for it.

I have a feeling that no-one at Motley Fool knows any more than the "man in the street", but its writers have to write any old rubbish in order to pay the mortgage. Shame, because I used to read it every day.

Sorry MF, but in my eyes you've lost all credibility, you're going on my banned-sites list.

jamesunsen 10 Oct 2008, 10:53am

TricksRK
09 Oct 2008, 10:21am
Since we are now effectively "shareholders" in these banks, surely we should all be entitled to decide how they operate: i.e. to attend the AGMs and vote against the obscenely and grossly inflated salaries/bonuses of the people that purport to run them!

So when am I going to get my shares then?

And what did Gordon Brown buy with our pension money when he was chancellor?

debtwagon 10 Oct 2008, 11:25am

goodtyneguy, thanks for your response. Buffett mey be innocent, but as you point out there are lots of slimeballs out there. So I think, on balance, I'm still looking forward to the apocalypse. These people need to be got rid of. BTW, I'm still wanting an answer to this: If the bailout is being financed by Govt borrowing, who's doing the lending? Bill Gates? China? The Martians?

goodtyneguy 10 Oct 2008, 9:49pm

"I'm still wanting an answer to this: If the bailout is being financed by Govt borrowing, who's doing the lending? Bill Gates? China? The Martians?"
Mostly Sovereign wealth funds, China, Japan and Saudi in the main.
If you want to cut out all the spin and BS the sheeple get bombarded with I would recommend you sign up to the free newsletter at marketoracle.co.uk/ Nadeem Walayat the editor tells it as it is. Take note an you will be well ahead of the curve and with out meaning to be disrespectfull I think it will open your eyes. If you want to get the low down on why this crises has arisen I recommend you listen to Peter Schiff at europac.net He may come across as arrogant and opinionated but believe me he prediced this crise accurately years ago. Good Luck.
PS I have no affiliations to these recommedadtions. This crises and the hardships and social repercussions for society is off the radar for most people, protect yourself.

minidriver2007 11 Oct 2008, 5:19pm

The "rescue" package is designed to prop up the banks in the first instance and stop them falling over, not the man in the street. He won't need propping up if he can rely on his bank!

Join the conversation

Instructions

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: <b>bold</b>, <i>quoted text</i>. All other tags will be removed from your post.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.