The Government was forced to take bigger stakes in the banks than it originally intended because of a dramatic slump in banks’ share prices last week. It also increased the amount of money it demanded the banks raise in an attempt to rebuild shattered confidence in the financial system.
RBS and HBOS are expected to lead the way with proposals involving the issue of ordinary shares, underwritten by the Government. Existing investors will be able to buy the new shares but the Government will step in and buy them if the appetite is weak.
RBS wants the Government to underwrite a £15 billion-plus cash call to investors, while HBOS is requesting up to £12 billion. RBS is looking to raise a further £5 billion by issuing preference shares that do not carry voting rights. If the Lloyds TSB takeover does not happen, the sum required by HBOS would mean something close to a majority stake for the taxpayer there as well.
Any shares taken by the Government will be placed in a newly created bank reconstruction fund that would hold the stock until market conditions improve. Ordinary shares give ministers voting rights and senior figures representing the Government will go on the boards.
The proposals come less than a week after the Government unveiled a £500 billion package aimed at recapitalising the banks and encouraging firms to lend to each other again.
Gordon has to borrow money to buy anything he has to borrow billions he has NO money left in the pot and the interest accrued will wipe out any gains it will be added on to the future tax payers bill
Servicing ( interest payments) the governments debt is estimated at a cost of £29,100,000,000 for 2007/08 this is pre billions of ££££££ bail out
No I heard him say with my own ears that our economy is in good shape and his plan is the best and everyone is gonna adopt it and we simply have no choice. * takes breath *
Gordon will have no choice but to increase government debt levels by colossal amounts and to raise taxes, he won't be around for the second part because the spin is his eye sight is letting him down and the he is having trouble carrying out his duties, in other words he wants to leave the increase tax can for someone else to carry.
What about backdating windfall taxes for all these banks during the boom years. Of course, the money wouldn't be there anymore so the individuals who took large bonuses in the last 10 years will have to be pursued.
Originally posted by Skylab: What about backdating windfall taxes for all these banks during the boom years. Of course, the money wouldn't be there anymore so the individuals who took large bonuses in the last 10 years will have to be pursued.
Good luck with what on the surface of it looks like a cunning plan.
Originally posted by Skylab: What about backdating windfall taxes for all these banks during the boom years. Of course, the money wouldn't be there anymore so the individuals who took large bonuses in the last 10 years will have to be pursued.
Good luck with what on the surface of it looks like a cunning plan.
Collecting taxes is never an easy plan. The rich would merely move their money were the taxman can't touch it.
Originally posted by Skylab: What about backdating windfall taxes for all these banks during the boom years. Of course, the money wouldn't be there anymore so the individuals who took large bonuses in the last 10 years will have to be pursued.
Good idea, we can pursue all those with mortgages too, they've profited massively and contributed to the problem too.
Originally posted by Skylab: What about backdating windfall taxes for all these banks during the boom years. Of course, the money wouldn't be there anymore so the individuals who took large bonuses in the last 10 years will have to be pursued.
Good idea, we can pursue all those with mortgages too, they've profited massively and contributed to the problem too.
Yeah like anyone who done good should give all their dough to anyone who done bad. We all like have the same modest property, modest salary and modest wife. Only joking they can have the modest wives and we the babes.
Brown's socialist dream takes another step forward. Is there any other way he could have nationalised the banks, except coerce them into ever-riskier lending like he did?
Originally posted by ho_ho_ho: Brown's socialist dream takes another step forward. Is there any other way he could have nationalised the banks, except coerce them into ever-riskier lending like he did?
And destroy his chances for re-election? I doubt that was the masterplan...
They have reverted to nationalisation because the Spivs broke capitalism. That is all.
Originally posted by ho_ho_ho: Brown's socialist dream takes another step forward. Is there any other way he could have nationalised the banks, except coerce them into ever-riskier lending like he did?
And destroy his chances for re-election? I doubt that was the masterplan...
They have reverted to nationalisation because the Spivs broke capitalism. That is all.
Destroy his chances? He already did that over the previous decade and more, now he has a legacy of being the man that nationalised the banks, an impossible dream for socialists like himself for many a year.
This is a longterm tax payer investment I take it, those interest payments servicing the current government/OUR debt, the interestb payments to service government debt is estimated at a cost of £29,100,000,000 for 2007/08 this is pre billions of ££££££ bail out pre colossal bank nationlisation, those interest payments looking more likely to out strip any later benefits
from opening link
quote:
Any shares taken by the Government will be placed in a newly created bank reconstruction fund that would hold the stock until market conditions improve.
quote:
Servicing ( interest payments) the governments debt is estimated at a cost of £29,100,000,000 for 2007/08 this is pre billions of ££££££ bail out
There's clearly going to be a new trend of female "celebrities" who hooked up with glitzy alpha male "entrepeneuers" (often in "property development") who will suddenly find the bloke has no worth.
Already happening in the US, Germany and elsewhere.
The Government was forced to take bigger stakes in the banks than it originally intended because of a dramatic slump in banks’ share prices last week.
What does this actually mean?
Does it mean they pumped more money in? Or does it mean that because of the slump in value of the shares, they ended up with a bigger share for the same money?
C4 Forums 
