|01-19-2009, 12:30 PM||#1 (permalink)|
Join Date: Sep 2007
another bank bailout..
I have to say, the proposals for this bailout are scandalous. Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and Co. have no idea of what they are getting into:
Gordon Brown insisted today he was not handing a "blank cheque" to banks which have taken on bad loans - but refused to say how many more billions the taxpayer would be asked to underwrite.
The Prime Minister was under pressure to spell out the cost to the public purse after announcing a second massive bailout of the banks in an attempt to unblock the flow of credit.
The Treasury is to insure banks against potential losses from "toxic" assets as it tries to restore confidence to the ailing sector.
The premier said the scale of the asset guarantees was yet to be negotiated with individual banks but insisted they would be required to improve lending facilities in return for support.
"It's for the Treasury to decide after an analysis of the banks, in a published way, what is the insurance we are prepared to take on this and what the cap is going to be," he told a Downing Street press conference.
"I think you would be completely misunderstanding the situation if in any way you were suggesting this was a blank cheque. Quite the opposite.
"At every point, conditions are laid and the greatest condition of all is that in return for our support for the banking system they have an obligation to lend to small businesses and to families in this country."
In a bid to increase lending to the country's largest companies, the Prime Minister also announced the Bank of England would be buying up to £50 billion of "high-quality" assets from banks and other financial institutions to improve liquidity.
Further efforts to reinvigorate the stalling mortgage market will include an extension of the credit guarantee scheme.
State-owned Northern Rock is also to slow its strategy of winding down its mortgage book.
And he voiced anger at the "irresponsibility" of bankers, insisting the Government's measures were not to help them but to support those in need of credit.
He said he was "angry" about the record losses racked up by Royal Bank of Scotland - which could hit £20 billion for 2008 - but refused to say whether action should be taken against former chief executive Sir Fred Goodwin or other senior figures.
"It is not for me to talk about what action, for example, the Financial Services Authority or any other authority takes," Mr Brown said.
"Now we know that so much was lost in sub-prime loans in the US and now we know that some of that was related to the purchase of ABN Amro, I think people have a right to be angry that these write-offs are happening and that these write-offs were caused by decisions that were made about international investments that were clearly wrong investments."
Chancellor Alistair Darling is to negotiate legally-binding lending responsibility agreements with each bank in return for the insurance of their assets, the premier said.
The agreement would include "precise and clear quantitative targets" in increased lending levels, he said.
Mr Darling said the Treasury had already been holding talks with "a couple" of banks over the "backstop" insurance for potentially toxic assets.
However, it was not possible to say how much assistance the Government would offer each institution until full audits had taken place.
"Each bank will have to take a decision on whether they want to take out backstop insurance," he added.
Mr Brown said much of the credit squeeze was down to the withdrawal of lending facilities by foreign institutions, saying the main UK banks were maintaining lending.
"I know from meetings up and down the country that many individual borrowers are facing difficulties," he said.
"A principal reason for this is the reduced availability of credit across the economy because of the retrenchment of many overseas banks back to their home markets and the withdrawal of non-banking financial institutions from funding."
The Prime Minister said the "widest possible" international agreement was needed to ensure the world acted in unison and expressed confidence that US President elect Barack Obama was looking at "similar" measures.
"I believe that unless we come together to address these problems in a co-ordinated way, the world is at risk of a damaging spiral of de-globalising.
"It is fuelled by the combination of de-leveraging and national only policy solutions.
"This financial protection could be every bit as damaging to jobs and businesses in every part of the world, as the protectionism in trade has been in the past."
Mr Brown insisted the measures announced today were temporary and vital to support businesses and jobs.
"I came into politics because of the scourge of unemployment in my own home area and I will not sit idly by and let people go to the wall because of the irresponsible mistakes of a few bankers," he said.
"Good businesses must have access to credit, jobs should not be lost needlessly.
"It is because of this that we are taking the action to expand lending that we are outlining today.
"The impact of today's announcements on public finances will be temporary, investments will be held for no longer than is necessary to ensure stability.
"We will protect taxpayers' interests, liabilities will be backed by assets and fees will be charged for the schemes that we are introducing.
"But the costs of doing nothing are simply too great. These are extraordinary times, they require unprecedented action."
Tory MP John Redwood said it was impossible to say whether the latest package would work.
"We can't tell today, because the Government doesn't yet know how many assets it's going to cover, what sorts of assets they're going to be or what it's going to charge for the insurance," he told BBC Radio 4's The World At One.
"It's an extremely difficult thing they are trying to do. If they are too generous with the insurance amounts they charge the banks then the taxpayer ends up with huge losses for no good reason.
"If they are too tough the banks won't find them an attractive scheme, and these are colossal banks with massive obligations worldwide."
He added: "The taxpayer is standing behind these hugely complex financial transactions that could turn out to be very risky in international markets and I just don't know why we would want to go there."
New bailout 'is not a blank cheque' - UK Politics, UK - The Independent
in 2007, the Northern Rock was nationalised with a loan of over £25 billion from the taxpayers. last October the government announced a bailout package of £37 Billion. we were told such action was necessary to prevent the collapse of the entire banking sector. saving the banks in this way would help boost lending to individuals and businesses, as well as helping stabilise the economy, we were told.
however, such claims failed to materialise. the banks became too focused on paying back on the preference shares the government had invested in that they made little money available for lending. as a result, businesses and individuals continued to struggle to access credit, the housing market remains in chaos with first-time buyers unable to establish a foothold.
and so today we are being fed more bs about how a second bailout package is necessary. this is coming from a government that has repeatedly flip-flopped from one idea to the next in recent weeks. only days ago there was talk of creating a new bank that would take on all the toxic debts up to £50 billion. now it is a second bailout.
I can understand that there may be no precedents in recent history to draw upon as these are exceptional circumstances... but they’ve had several months now (in fact, since 2007. Northern Rock should have been a big red flag) to devise clear strategies, and study what other countries are doing. I understand Switzerland and Japan have implemented measures that were much more effective, but don’t quote me on that. it is obvious the government never devised a plan ‘b’ back in October, they just crossed fingers whilst hoping for the best. another concern about the first bailout is nobody even knows where the £37 billion actually went, as the figures, balance sheets, etc; have not been disclosed to the public.
Brown and Darling are promising that full audits will be carried out on each bank and any agreements entered into will contain strict conditions. there are concerns that some banks may be unwilling to disclose just how much bad debt they really have.. so the true costs to the taxpayer may never be known. but with the Royal Bank of Scotland about to announce losses of £20 billion – the largest in British Corporate history – it would appear that early estimations of the cost to underwrite all the bad debt could top £100 billion may well be accurate.
maybe I’m too cynical, but I expect this latest bailout to have little effect and in another few months we’ll be looking at a third attempt.. or perhaps the nationalisation of every bank. Gordon Brown surely can’t resist calls to prosecute those responsible for much longer. there has to be a full public investigation into all of this, as the gravity of the situation is much greater than we could ever had imagined.
|01-27-2009, 08:19 PM||#3 (permalink)|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Western NY
Unless there is strict regulation of the money there is no way I could support another bailout. It pisses me off when I see execs playing golf on a company retreat immediatly after receiving bailout cash.
|01-28-2009, 09:26 PM||#4 (permalink)|
and you know what also? they bought it from France....GASP! but you also have to realize that they didnt just order this jet this year, i think the waiting list is at least two years. im sure they've put money up before to ensure they want it and if they cancelled it im sure they would of had to pay a huge restocking fee, although it wouldnt be 50 million lol. also, i dont know if you would think of this, probably not, but do you know what it takes to have a jet? you dont just wake up and say hmmm i think ill go to the bahamas. then walk out to the hanger, open the door, turn the key to the jet, and fly off. i bet citi now has to layoff quite a few of their airline staff. thus cutting more jobs. now i dont know how many there are as far as workers but thats a way to look at it.
|01-29-2009, 05:15 AM||#5 (permalink)|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Only British blaady Columbia!!!
cynicism be damned gez.... your fears are reasonable. we are being gang raped, butt fukked and sodomised all at the same time.
I strongly recommend the current issue of 'Private Eye'.... (poor americans should wish they had such an epic journal giving true inside scoops!)
one article i have read, regards how the recipients of these masses of public funded bailouts are themselves, allowed by the government and financial authorities, to shore up their funds and profits in tax havens!
the public pay into a tax fund, which is then privatised into these mismanaged merchants of toxic debt, who then reap massive profits, on which they barely pay a penny of tax back into the public revenues!
as someone watching international exchange rates very closely, i am accutely and painfully aware of how dramatic the value of sterling has fallen!
i refuse to believe that captains of industry and politics are so incompetent as to allow this to occur against their will. i am not one for tin foil hats, but this facade of uselessness i think is obscuring a predetermined and desired for agenda.
parity with the Euro is merely a stepping stone. and why did Brown sell half of the UK's gold reserves for under half of its true value?
'....the Conservatives, who claim that by signalling the gold sale in advance, the Government drove down the price of gold to a 20 year low.
Philip Hammond, shadow secretary to the Treasury, said: "Gold traders confirm that it was because the Government announced in advance that it was planning to sell such a large quantity of gold that the markets became depressed.
"The low price Gordon Brown got for selling our gold wasn't caused by bad luck. It was a staggering display of economic incompetence that has landed taxpayers with a £7 billion black hole."
Just coz you don't understand it
Doesn't mean it makes no sense!
|02-01-2009, 08:59 AM||#6 (permalink)|
Join Date: Sep 2007
just how bad would it be if the Euro reaches parity with the Pound? I've listened to a couple analysts talk of parity as if an apocalypse is looming!
hopefully the Tories will keep pressurising Brown for accountability, and get the Lib Dems on board while they're at it (highly unlikely, I know). David Cameron has posed the right questions so far, but Brown is proving to be a slippy bugger denying any responsibility.
I shall try to find a copy of Private Eye. isn't that the most sued magazine on the planet? haha.