Greedy bankers.

[David Johnson]

"a bank that failed through the environment that it worked in collapsing - right or wrong it was still a victim of the slump that hit everywhere."

If this statement is true, which it isn't, how do you explain that RBS required ?45 billion of UK taxpayer recapitalisation and Barclays required 0?

[william]

all down to environment - Barclays did not have the exposure that RBS inherited from ABN Amro...

If RBS had gone then we would be in a mess that the UK.inc would have taken years to recover from. RBS wasnt saved as trhey wanted to save RBS - RBS was saved as they needed to save the UK.

[andy at handiwork]

'...If RBS had gone then we would be in a mess that the UK.inc would have taken years to recover from.'


As opposed to the mess we ARE in that WILL take years to recover from, I suppose.

[jimslip]

william wrote:


> If RBS had gone then we would be in a mess that the UK.inc
> would have taken years to recover from. RBS wasnt saved as
> trhey wanted to save RBS - RBS was saved as they needed to save
> the UK.

Whether we were "Saved" or not by bailing out these crooked sheisters is one thing, the main question is having "saved" the bastards in the first place why didn't they get a proper businessman like an Alan Sugar type to negotiate the management's contracts? Why? Because politicians and civil servants know jack shit about business and the bankers knew that not only having managed to in effect help themselves to ?Billions tax payers money, but by bamboozling the stupid fuckers in charge of us with the old, "If you dont pay us ?Millions we'll all go to Dubai", cosdwallop, they could also ensure that they would never be penalised or controlled in any way, by any of our pathetic governements.

It doesn't take a genius to run a normal bank that serves business and the people, it's basic operation is extremely simple. The only time you need to pay millions is when you are running a high risk investment bank and you need to find the most crooked, nasty, immoral sheisters on Earth to run it, then yes you've got to pay up. If we'd had Captain Mainwaring types running our banks instead of reckless, greedy, "Suits" we'd never have ended up in the shit.

[David Johnson]

"right or wrong it was still a victim of the slump that hit everywhere."

"all down to environment - Barclays did not have the exposure that RBS inherited from ABN Amro..."

Your two statements above are completely contradictory. In the first you suggest that RBS went bust because they were a victim of the slump that hit everywhere.

This is clearly incorrect. The reason that RBS went bang and others such as Barclays and HSBC did not need any recapitilisation money, was that RBS made a catastrophically poor business decision in buying ABN Amro amongs other mistakes. This was not due to the banking slump but instead down to incompetence on the part of RBS management who did not do a satisfactory level of due diligence to understand what they were buying and what was a true value for ABN Amro.

RBS were a victim of their own unbelievable senior management incompetence much more than a "victim of the slump that hit everywhere".

[william]

I dont believe its a contradiction - the slump did hit and it affected a lot of banks - with RBS it was poisoned by the toxic debt held by ABN Amro - if they had not touched ABN RBS would be in a much better position.

it was a bad decison in the latter part of Mr. Fred's leadership....

Oh how he will wish he had listened and that he had taken stock of the situation instead of trying to out do the other banks that had expressed an interest.....

If only.

[RoddersUK]

They should have sold it to the Salmond wallah for a quid or two. "Here you are Alec, the Royal Bank of Scotland for Scotland. Salmon would have scratched out the word Royal and used it as his own bank for Scotland.
Just a pipe dream, but boy, what a way to shaft the fat little jock gobshyte.

[bernard72]

Barclays did require a large cash input but rather then go to the UK Goverment they sold shares to the middle east.
I remember that the owner of Man City bought a huge chunk of shares and the next day the price dropped and the papers made big headlines about him losing about ?400 million in a day.
They didn't mention that when he sold the shares about 3 months later he made a fortune.

[bernard72]

[David Johnson]

What matters is RBS required ?45 billion from the government i.e. the taxpayer. The value of this has dropped substantially due to the further collapse in the RBS share price.

Barclays did not require capitalisation from the taxpayer. Whether they decided to get funding from other investors is entirely irrelevant to this thread which is about Joe Public getting hammered whilst bankers are still on the gravy train.