First Northern Rock, now Bradford & Bingley is to be Nationalised.  Is there 
no end to the burden this government is prepared to put on the taxpayer?

Rule Britannia, Britannia waives the rules.

-- 
Dave (Sgt. Pepper)       Epsom, England
     My photo galleries at  http://www.pbase.com/davecq
    "I will not tolerate intolerance ... Doh!!"

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 09:47:43 +0100, Dave (Sgt. Pepper) slept through:

> First Northern Rock, now Bradford & Bingley is to be Nationalised.  Is there 
> no end to the burden this government is prepared to put on the taxpayer?
> 
> Rule Britannia, Britannia waives the rules.

Weare ALL doomed.

Luke

In article ,
 "Dave (Sgt. Pepper)"  writes:
>First Northern Rock, now Bradford & Bingley is to be Nationalised.  Is
>there no end to the burden this government is prepared to put on the
>taxpayer?
>
>Rule Britannia, Britannia waives the rules.
>

Do you think that it would have been better to let Bradford & Bingley go
bust? I'm not a great admirer of this government, but in this case I
don't think they had much alternative.

I noticed that as recently as Friday B&B were still heavily advertising
on TV. I suppose those ads were paid for in advance, so that it wasn't
possible to pull them.
-- 
John Hall
          "If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come
           sit next to me."
                                 Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 10:46:46 +0100, in the Year of Our Lord, John
Hall, Beloved Prophet of the Lord said:

> In article ,
>  "Dave (Sgt. Pepper)"  writes:
>>First Northern Rock, now Bradford & Bingley is to be Nationalised.  Is
>>there no end to the burden this government is prepared to put on the
>>taxpayer?
>>
>>Rule Britannia, Britannia waives the rules.
>>
> 
> Do you think that it would have been better to let Bradford & Bingley go
> bust? I'm not a great admirer of this government, but in this case I
> don't think they had much alternative.
> 
> I noticed that as recently as Friday B&B were still heavily advertising
> on TV. I suppose those ads were paid for in advance, so that it wasn't
> possible to pull them.

So we bail them all out! They take the gamble we carry the risk! Some
message to send out.

"John Hall"  wrote in message 
news:dh6XS7CGK13IFwyA@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid...
> In article ,
> "Dave (Sgt. Pepper)"  writes:
>>First Northern Rock, now Bradford & Bingley is to be Nationalised.  Is
>>there no end to the burden this government is prepared to put on the
>>taxpayer?
>>
>>Rule Britannia, Britannia waives the rules.
>>
>
> Do you think that it would have been better to let Bradford & Bingley go
> bust? I'm not a great admirer of this government, but in this case I
> don't think they had much alternative.

Why not let it go bust.  Investors' interests are toast anyway given the 
fall in the share price and I imagine that even without the Nationalisation, 
that trading in the shares would soon have been suspended.  Depositors' 
interests are mostly covered by the FSCS guarantee system which the banks, 
not the taxpayer covers.  And in reality, the official receiver would almost 
certainly be able to sell off the deposits side of the business to other 
banks anyway, as well as sell off the toxic mortgages at a knock-down price 
to other banks and building societies.

It seems to me that the only reason the government has intervened yet again 
is to save the 'credibility, good name, and confidence in' the UK banking 
industry.  Well, let's be honest, that's locking the stable after the horse 
has bolted.  Our poorly regulated, badly managed banking industry is already 
a laughing stock and many investors and savers are running around like 
headless chickens wondering which bank will be next.

In my view it would be better to see a few banks get sacrificed on the alter 
of greed and stupidity, to serve as a lesson to the banking world that it 
doesn't pay to take unnecessary risk and nobody will bail you out if you do.

-- 
Dave (Sgt. Pepper)       Epsom, England
     My photo galleries at  http://www.pbase.com/davecq
    "I will not tolerate intolerance ... Doh!!"

Dave (Sgt. Pepper) wrote:
> First Northern Rock, now Bradford & Bingley is to be Nationalised.  Is 
> there no end to the burden this government is prepared to put on the 
> taxpayer?
> 
> Rule Britannia, Britannia waives the rules.
> 

It seems to me that some of the objectives of Marxism are being 
achieved. Now for land, shipping transport and the means of production 
and distribution!

....Oh, we don't do production do we? Plenty of distribution but much of 
it is produced in China. Such irony. ;-)

-- 

Chris

We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form 
up into teams, we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life 
that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising; and a wonderful 
method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing 
confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation.

NOT Petronius Arbiter	(in 210 B.C. or at any time)


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 080927-0, 27/09/2008
Tested on: 9/28/2008 12:21:09
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2008 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 12:21:09 +0100, in the Year of Our Lord, mower
man, Beloved Prophet of the Lord said:

> Dave (Sgt. Pepper) wrote:
>> First Northern Rock, now Bradford & Bingley is to be Nationalised.  Is 
>> there no end to the burden this government is prepared to put on the 
>> taxpayer?
>> 
>> Rule Britannia, Britannia waives the rules.
>> 
> 
> It seems to me that some of the objectives of Marxism are being 
> achieved. Now for land, shipping transport and the means of production 
> and distribution!
> 
> ....Oh, we don't do production do we? Plenty of distribution but much of 
> it is produced in China. Such irony. ;-)

Never mind. It can only get worse!

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 09:47:43 +0100, "Dave \(Sgt. Pepper\)"
 wrote:

>First Northern Rock, now Bradford & Bingley is to be Nationalised.  Is there 
>no end to the burden this government is prepared to put on the taxpayer?

Whilst I have some sympathy with this view, it's really not quite as
simple as this, Dave.

The problem is that the "they" who've caused the problem aren't the
same "they" as those who'd suffer if these banks were to be allowed to
go under. It's the senior management who've been less than cautious...
but they've been gambling with other people's money: the customers'
and shareholders'.

Now, I'm not too worried about shareholders in principle, but the
trouble is that a lot of shareholders don't even realise that they
are, since their holding is indirect (through pension funds, unit
trusts, investment trusts and suchlike). These are the "little
people", people like you and me. Would you be so keen on letting B&B
go under if you knew that your pension fund would collapse as a
result?

Customers, though, are the real problem. How would you like it if,
through no fault of yours, you lost the savings that you had with your
bank? The savings built up over a lifetime?

Even though they've caused the problem, the senior managers and
traders would get away with their profits even if their banks were
allowed to collapse.

The real problem is that the Financial Services Authority has been
asleep at the wheel. They've got so bogged down in the detail of how
the financial institutions deal directly with their customers that
they've completely lost sight of the big picture: what the
institutions do with our money once they have it.

Too much attention is paid by senior managers to the short-term gains
associated with share prices, and so bonuses for traders are based on
these. This is at the expense of long-term profitability (associated
with dividends).  The need is to reverse this polarity, but that's
probably more easily said than done.

Nonetheless, the problem in this case, as with Northern Rock and HBOS,
lies with the senior managers of those banks, and not with the people
who'd pay the price if they were allowed to collapse.

By the way, the Tories' idea (which I heard on this morning's news) of
giving the Bank of England more regulatory powers is laughable. The
FSA already has sufficient regulatory responsibility and power (some
of which it acquired from the Bank of England). It's not a lack of
authority that's the problem, but the fact that it isn't used!

I do wonder if a lot of this trouble can't be traced back to the
demutualisation of the building societies in the 80s. Was that really
a good idea? 

Peter.

"Peter"  wrote in message 
news:edqud4t2l4baabsjkkhl9ricbv7q5ordob@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 09:47:43 +0100, "Dave \(Sgt. Pepper\)"
>  wrote:
>
>>First Northern Rock, now Bradford & Bingley is to be Nationalised.  Is 
>>there
>>no end to the burden this government is prepared to put on the taxpayer?
>
> Whilst I have some sympathy with this view, it's really not quite as
> simple as this, Dave.
>
> The problem is that the "they" who've caused the problem aren't the
> same "they" as those who'd suffer if these banks were to be allowed to
> go under. It's the senior management who've been less than cautious...
> but they've been gambling with other people's money: the customers'
> and shareholders'.
>
> Now, I'm not too worried about shareholders in principle, but the
> trouble is that a lot of shareholders don't even realise that they
> are, since their holding is indirect (through pension funds, unit
> trusts, investment trusts and suchlike). These are the "little
> people", people like you and me. Would you be so keen on letting B&B
> go under if you knew that your pension fund would collapse as a
> result?
>
> Customers, though, are the real problem. How would you like it if,
> through no fault of yours, you lost the savings that you had with your
> bank? The savings built up over a lifetime?
>
> Even though they've caused the problem, the senior managers and
> traders would get away with their profits even if their banks were
> allowed to collapse.
>
> The real problem is that the Financial Services Authority has been
> asleep at the wheel. They've got so bogged down in the detail of how
> the financial institutions deal directly with their customers that
> they've completely lost sight of the big picture: what the
> institutions do with our money once they have it.
>
> Too much attention is paid by senior managers to the short-term gains
> associated with share prices, and so bonuses for traders are based on
> these. This is at the expense of long-term profitability (associated
> with dividends).  The need is to reverse this polarity, but that's
> probably more easily said than done.
>
> Nonetheless, the problem in this case, as with Northern Rock and HBOS,
> lies with the senior managers of those banks, and not with the people
> who'd pay the price if they were allowed to collapse.
>
> By the way, the Tories' idea (which I heard on this morning's news) of
> giving the Bank of England more regulatory powers is laughable. The
> FSA already has sufficient regulatory responsibility and power (some
> of which it acquired from the Bank of England). It's not a lack of
> authority that's the problem, but the fact that it isn't used!


I do have a great deal of sympathy with these views too Peter.  The bottom 
line for me though is that a bank is a business, and like any business it 
can fail, and be allowed to fail ... that's life.  The fact that the 
failures we are seeing are the result of incompetent managers thinking that 
you could endlessly manufacture profits out of thin air only serves to make 
it more important to make an example for the future.  Yes, it is regrettable 
that lots of innocent people get caught up in the aftermath, but again, 
that's life.


> I do wonder if a lot of this trouble can't be traced back to the
> demutualisation of the building societies in the 80s. Was that really
> a good idea?


I think that is most definitely a very significant factor.  Allowing 
once-sensible managers of mutual building societies that existed to serve 
their members responsibly, loose to play in the big world of ever more 
daring risk taking and chasing large bonuses, was always going to be a 
recipe for disaster.  The only reason the disaster hasn't come sooner is the 
reluctance of lenders and home buyers alike to acknowledge that the bubble 
had to burst sometime.

-- 
Dave (Sgt. Pepper)       Epsom, England
     My photo galleries at  http://www.pbase.com/davecq
    "I will not tolerate intolerance ... Doh!!"

In article <1wwsdutn8wc29$.dlg@suck.my.harddick>,
 Kevin  writes:
>On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 10:46:46 +0100, in the Year of Our Lord, John
>Hall, Beloved Prophet of the Lord said:
>
>> In article ,
>>  "Dave (Sgt. Pepper)"  writes:
>>>First Northern Rock, now Bradford & Bingley is to be Nationalised.  Is
>>>there no end to the burden this government is prepared to put on the
>>>taxpayer?
>>>
>>>Rule Britannia, Britannia waives the rules.
>>>
>>
>> Do you think that it would have been better to let Bradford & Bingley go
>> bust? I'm not a great admirer of this government, but in this case I
>> don't think they had much alternative.
>>
>> I noticed that as recently as Friday B&B were still heavily advertising
>> on TV. I suppose those ads were paid for in advance, so that it wasn't
>> possible to pull them.
>
>So we bail them all out! They take the gamble we carry the risk! Some
>message to send out.

The aim is not to bail B&B out but to bail out their customers, surely,
who through no fault of their own faced the possibility of losing their
savings.
-- 
John Hall
          "If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come
           sit next to me."
                                 Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)

In article ,
 "Dave (Sgt. Pepper)"  writes:
>Why not let it go bust.  Investors' interests are toast anyway given
>the fall in the share price and I imagine that even without the
>Nationalisation, that trading in the shares would soon have been
>suspended.  Depositors' interests are mostly covered by the FSCS
>guarantee system which the banks, not the taxpayer covers.

Doesn't that only cover the first 35,000 GBP, which isn't a very large
amount these days?

>  And in reality, the official receiver would almost certainly be able
>to sell off the deposits side of the business to other banks anyway, as
>well as sell off the toxic mortgages at a knock-down price to other
>banks and building societies.

You could be right, but wouldn't it be taking a gamble? How many banks
these days could afford to buy, even at a knock-down price?
>
>It seems to me that the only reason the government has intervened yet
>again is to save the 'credibility, good name, and confidence in' the UK
>banking industry.  Well, let's be honest, that's locking the stable
>after the horse has bolted.  Our poorly regulated, badly managed
>banking industry is already a laughing stock and many investors and
>savers are running around like headless chickens wondering which bank
>will be next.
>
>In my view it would be better to see a few banks get sacrificed on the
>alter of greed and stupidity, to serve as a lesson to the banking world
>that it doesn't pay to take unnecessary risk and nobody will bail you
>out if you do.

Would it only be a few, though? Once it was known that the government
wouldn't intervene, mightn't there be a total collapse in confidence,
leading to a domino effect?
-- 
John Hall
          "If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come
           sit next to me."
                                 Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)

In article ,
 mower man  writes:
>Dave (Sgt. Pepper) wrote:
>> First Northern Rock, now Bradford & Bingley is to be Nationalised.
>>Is  there no end to the burden this government is prepared to put on
>>the  taxpayer?
>>  Rule Britannia, Britannia waives the rules.
>>
>
>It seems to me that some of the objectives of Marxism are being
>achieved. Now for land, shipping transport and the means of production
>and distribution!
>
>....Oh, we don't do production do we? Plenty of distribution but much
>of it is produced in China. Such irony. ;-)
>

This isn't Michael Foot's Labour Party any more. You can accuse it of
many things, but I don't think that Marxism is one of them.
-- 
John Hall
          "If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come
           sit next to me."
                                 Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 14:05:41 +0100, John Hall
 wrote:

>This isn't Michael Foot's Labour Party any more. 

I'm not convinced that there is any Labour Party any more. I find the
policies of the party in power (which uses that name)
indistinguishable from those of the previous (Conservative)
government.

Peter.

"John Hall"  wrote in message 
news:dh6XS7CGK13IFwyA@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid...
> In article ,
> "Dave (Sgt. Pepper)"  writes:
>>First Northern Rock, now Bradford & Bingley is to be Nationalised.  Is
>>there no end to the burden this government is prepared to put on the
>>taxpayer?
>>
>>Rule Britannia, Britannia waives the rules.
>
> Do you think that it would have been better to let Bradford & Bingley go
> bust? I'm not a great admirer of this government, but in this case I
> don't think they had much alternative.
>
>
Yes, then and only then will the current generation of barrow boy bankers
learn the lesson by being put permanently out on the street where they 
belong

Then the well established industry of receivership can do their job,
and sort out the mess.

All this tax payers money chucking is doing, is delaying the inevitable 
crash
and making it worse when it does happen.

Steve Terry

In article ,
 Peter  writes:
>On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 14:05:41 +0100, John Hall
> wrote:
>
>>This isn't Michael Foot's Labour Party any more.
>
>I'm not convinced that there is any Labour Party any more. I find the
>policies of the party in power (which uses that name)
>indistinguishable from those of the previous (Conservative)
>government.

Indeed. We've reached a situation where there seems to be no more
difference between them than there is between the two main American
political parties.
-- 
John Hall
          "If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come
           sit next to me."
                                 Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)

John Hall wrote:
> In article ,
>  mower man  writes:
>> Dave (Sgt. Pepper) wrote:
>>> First Northern Rock, now Bradford & Bingley is to be Nationalised.
>>> Is  there no end to the burden this government is prepared to put on
>>> the  taxpayer?
>>>  Rule Britannia, Britannia waives the rules.
>>>
>> It seems to me that some of the objectives of Marxism are being
>> achieved. Now for land, shipping transport and the means of production
>> and distribution!
>>
>> ....Oh, we don't do production do we? Plenty of distribution but much
>> of it is produced in China. Such irony. ;-)
>>
> 
> This isn't Michael Foot's Labour Party any more. You can accuse it of
> many things, but I don't think that Marxism is one of them.

How well aware I am of that. I should have said what I really meant - 
that some of the claimed objectives of Marxism are being achieved - by 
capitalists.

-- 

Chris

We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form 
up into teams, we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life 
that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising; and a wonderful 
method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing 
confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation.

NOT Petronius Arbiter	(in 210 B.C. or at any time)


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 080927-0, 27/09/2008
Tested on: 9/28/2008 20:00:39
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2008 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

"John Hall"  wrote in message 
news:ktoItuBZD43IFwFC@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid...
> In article ,
> "Dave (Sgt. Pepper)"  writes:

>
>>  And in reality, the official receiver would almost certainly be able
>>to sell off the deposits side of the business to other banks anyway, as
>>well as sell off the toxic mortgages at a knock-down price to other
>>banks and building societies.
>
> You could be right, but wouldn't it be taking a gamble? How many banks
> these days could afford to buy, even at a knock-down price?

I think there are quite a few John.  For the bigger banks, liquidity is not 
a real problem.  There is plenty of money still out there with the big 
players, ready to snap up the small fry if the price is right.  In fact, 
there is a great deal of rumour gaining momentum in financial circles, that 
it is the larger financial institutions who have been conspiring to squeeze 
out the embarrassing failures like Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley by 
sitting on their cash and refusing to lend inter-bank.

Unfortunately, the end result will not be good news for the consumer ... but 
what is these days.  Less players in the market means less competition, and 
whether you are a prospective saver or borrower, you will end up paying more 
as a result.

-- 
Dave (Sgt. Pepper)       Epsom, England
     My photo galleries at  http://www.pbase.com/davecq
    "I will not tolerate intolerance ... Doh!!"

"mower man"  wrote in message 
news:ScSdnf0ux8o59ULVnZ2dnUVZ8hmdnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> ....Oh, we don't do production do we? Plenty of distribution but much of 
> it is produced in China. Such irony. ;-)
>

Indeed, such irony.  Not much bronzy or goldy left either ... Gordon the 
Prime Instigator sold it all off at give-away prices in another failed 
attempt to cover up his losses whilst he was masquerading as a chancellor.

-- 
Dave (Sgt. Pepper)       Epsom, England
     My photo galleries at  http://www.pbase.com/davecq
    "I will not tolerate intolerance ... Doh!!"

Dave (Sgt. Pepper) wrote:
> 
> "mower man"  wrote in message 
> news:ScSdnf0ux8o59ULVnZ2dnUVZ8hmdnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>
>> ....Oh, we don't do production do we? Plenty of distribution but much 
>> of it is produced in China. Such irony. ;-)
>>
> 
> Indeed, such irony.  Not much bronzy or goldy left either ... Gordon the 
> Prime Instigator sold it all off at give-away prices in another failed 
> attempt to cover up his losses whilst he was masquerading as a chancellor.
> 

And before then, the blessed Margaret gave the family silver away for a 
song. Then killed our industries too.

-- 

Chris

We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form 
up into teams, we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life 
that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising; and a wonderful 
method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing 
confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation.

NOT Petronius Arbiter	(in 210 B.C. or at any time)


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 080927-0, 27/09/2008
Tested on: 9/29/2008 00:46:28
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2008 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com