Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: RBS Sell off - a more balanced view

  1. #1
    HEXUS.timelord. Zak33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    I'm a Jessie
    Posts
    35,176
    Thanks
    3,121
    Thanked
    3,173 times in 1,922 posts
    • Zak33's system
      • Storage:
      • Kingston HyperX SSD, Hitachi 1Tb
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Nvidia 1050
      • PSU:
      • Coolermaster 800w
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress FT01
      • Operating System:
      • Win10
      • Internet:
      • Zen FTC uber speedy

    RBS Sell off - a more balanced view

    I'm bored of the Press whining about the "loss to the tax payer"

    and then Reuters stands up and better explains it
    https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-rb...-idUKKCN1J11B2

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Thompson- Reuteurs
    Hand-wringers should get a grip. The RBS bailout – for a total of 45.5 billion pounds – is a sunk cost. Rescuing the hapless lender’s then-shareholders from being wiped out was an indirect consequence of salvaging UK economic stability in the teeth of the worst financial crisis in a generation. The fact that the share price is just above half what the government paid back then is immaterial
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Thompson- Reuteurs
    It is also probably more than RBS is worth, at least in the medium term, given it is only expected to make a lowly 3 percent return on tangible equity this year

    Quote Originally Posted by Advice Trinity by Knoxville
    "The second you aren't paying attention to the tool you're using, it will take your fingers from you. It does not know sympathy." |
    "If you don't gaffer it, it will gaffer you" | "Belt and braces"

  2. #2
    Admin (Ret'd)
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    18,481
    Thanks
    1,016
    Thanked
    3,208 times in 2,281 posts

    Re: RBS Sell off - a more balanced view

    Quote Originally Posted by Zak33 View Post
    I'm bored of the Press whining about the "loss to the tax payer"
    I'm bored of about 90% of press, and probably 95% of "media" coverage. They seem to be more about exaggerating, sensatioising and bigging up the story, and tgat's when they're not trying to invent the story entirely.

    Brexit coverage has beeb uniformly dire, and mostly is speculation about what government MIGHT be about to do, or about what a POSSIBLE strategy MIGHT result in.

    Terrorism coverage is even worse, rarely being more than a mix of "opinion" from so-called experts, usually based on unconfirmed early data, mixed in with a whole load of speculation, then covered in repeat after repeat of whatever footage they can get. What the morons don't seem to realise, or perhaps worse, do realise but don't care, is they're doing PRECISELY what terrorists want.

    Instead, what we ought to get is a bland news statement, terrorist attack at <insert location>, about X belueved dead or injured, we'll announce more facts when we actually have some.

    Instead, they scramble every helicopter in 100 miles trying go get footage, and interview everybody they can find that knows somebody that walked past that location last week. Okay, I exaggerate a bit, but not much. I watched one jnterview with someone who "saw what hapoened" only to be told by that person "No. I work over the road and normally would have been there but I was off work, at home, that day". Huh? Why didn't that end up on the cutting room floor?

    What about Panorama? "Who was to blame for Grenfell?"

    I still don't know. About a third of the program was the shocking footage of the fire. Well, horrible as it was, we've all seen it 100 times because it's happened a year ago and was shown non-stop for days at the time. Then, another large chunk was spent on 2 or 3 victims. But that adds NOTHING to who was to blame, and while we can feel horrible about what they're going through, it ignores the seversl hundred other survivors and was purely about emotional manipulation. Oh, and then doorstepping various people and being astonished when they either walk off or refuse to comment because of on-going investigations including police investigations that may lead to prosecutions.

    Their justification for the ambushes? Their letters hadn't bern answered. Maybe because they're not a Summons from a feudal king. It doesn't justify hectoring some poir sod when he's out for a walk with his wife and young kids, uou poisonous oafs. Pester some CEO! but don't harrass kids.

    And don't get me started on Newsnight. Will someone PLEASE tell Evan Davis that question is supposed to be brief and succinct, and what's really of potential intetest is the answer, not you droning on with something worthy of Shakespearean soliloquoy, followed by you saying "I mean" then droning on restating the same damn question a different way.

    Still, at least it's not Kirsty looking down her nose at yet another victim .... err, interviewee.

    What I find hilarious is when they say "We invited <someone> on but they declined/weren't available". I'm not surprised. Anyone with an IQ above that of a small carrot would decline your Star Chamber. Unlesx they have a new book/movie/etc to promote.

    Jeez, I need something for my blood pressure. Or a stiff drink.

  3. #3
    ALT0153™ Rob_B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    6,737
    Thanks
    468
    Thanked
    1,055 times in 687 posts

    Re: RBS Sell off - a more balanced view

    Why not both?


    RBS was always a sunk cost, it, like almost all other financial institutions screwed up (some good stories there, cheers Fred) and got screwed too. It wasn't a standard 'investment' by the government and anyone who thinks it was really need to think about what would have happened if they weren't bailed out.

    My outside with selling is always ' why now '? At the moment it will be to provide some money to divert attention from some other issue (NHS anyone?) and that's not right..

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    282
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked
    19 times in 17 posts

    Re: RBS Sell off - a more balanced view

    So was it just a case of the government, almost accepting that it's changes in regulation had led to the financial crash and need for a bailout. As you say the banking institutions of the UK couldn't be allowed to fail, so the government effectively nationalised them(and as it says in article still owns 64% of RBS), if they agreed to reform. Essentially UK taxpayers are paying for government failures and consequent banking failures, as they sell the shares over a long period of time at a loss. Not sure if it's a diversion, just long term subsidising.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    282
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked
    19 times in 17 posts

    Re: RBS Sell off - a more balanced view

    Saracen>media rehab.

    The media is all smoke and mirrors. I think with Brexit most people could see all the lies and negativity, and in some ways they voted against deceit. Grenfell will be blamed on several companies; Studio E, Rydon, Harley curtain wall facades. And terrorism is the new normal. I predicted years ago that the UK will simply have to adapt; more defence systems around gov or public buildings. The problem that governments have is they can only adapt and change slowly due to bureaucracy. I see the UK data regulator is now responding to Cambridge Analytica fallout.

  6. #6
    HEXUS.timelord. Zak33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    I'm a Jessie
    Posts
    35,176
    Thanks
    3,121
    Thanked
    3,173 times in 1,922 posts
    • Zak33's system
      • Storage:
      • Kingston HyperX SSD, Hitachi 1Tb
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Nvidia 1050
      • PSU:
      • Coolermaster 800w
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress FT01
      • Operating System:
      • Win10
      • Internet:
      • Zen FTC uber speedy

    Re: RBS Sell off - a more balanced view

    Quote Originally Posted by johnroe View Post
    Essentially UK taxpayers are paying for government failures
    that is a perfect description of Government and Voting.

    you vote for the party less likely to ruin everything for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Advice Trinity by Knoxville
    "The second you aren't paying attention to the tool you're using, it will take your fingers from you. It does not know sympathy." |
    "If you don't gaffer it, it will gaffer you" | "Belt and braces"

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    282
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked
    19 times in 17 posts

    Re: RBS Sell off - a more balanced view

    Quote Originally Posted by Zak33 View Post
    that is a perfect description of Government and Voting.

    you vote for the party less likely to ruin everything for you.
    That's exactly how I vote these days, which party will do less damage. Also the Cons are in a way more honest(I know they will favour the elite, corporations, etc) . I wasn't even whining above, just stating the obvious. It seem looking at; financial crisis, housing crisis, NHS crisis, foreign war crisis; the British taxpayer is paying for the government to just divert money into massive loss makers. (Hey, for those that care: I didn't even wield my political axe over those in power at the time).

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,526
    Thanks
    504
    Thanked
    468 times in 326 posts

    Re: RBS Sell off - a more balanced view

    Considering the majority of the media and politicians believe in the orthodox view that taxes fund government spending it doesn't come as a surprise that their screaming blue murder because the government is selling of its shares.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •