RBS rescue: The extra £10bn write-off

November 3rd, 2009 4:25pm

So many numbers are flying around that you might not have spotted today’s real news on RBS.

That is, the government has wiped the slate of an estimated £9-£11bn of tax liabilities owed by the giant bank.

In private Treasury officials suggest that the figure is closer to £4.5bn. But the larger figure has come from RBS’s own accounts.

So, not only is the government pumping £25bn of new capital into RBS (as first announced in February). It’s also buying £6bn of new shares in Lloyds Banking Group as part of LBG’s private fund-raising. And it’s creating a contingency rescue fund of £8bn for RBS (which may never be used). Plus the £10bn tax write-off.

That’s close to £50bn of taxpayers’ money.

The Treasury’s defence is a] a lot of the money was announced in the spring, b] RBS will take on more onerous terms such as taking a bigger “first hit” of any losses and c] would your rather let the bank collapse and prompt another financial meltdown?

Even so: These are big numbers. John McFall, chair of the Treasury select committee, told the Commons: “RBS is in a worse state than everyone thought last February.”

Fred Goodwin warns of UK fiscal crisis

September 17th, 2009 4:40pm

Okay, it’s not the same Fred Goodwin. This one works as an analyst at Nomura, apparently.

But the Tories have seized upon Goodwin’s report which suggests “the prospect of a UK fiscal crisis is a clear and present danger”. The report suggests that a fiscal crisis is “far more likely” in the UK than in the US - because the dollar is a reserve currency.

“The UK fiscal dynamics are unsustainable. The fiscal balance is plunging deeply into the red in a spectacular and frightening way. Who will fund it? Without QE (quantative easing) the possibility of failed auctions is not trivial.”

Apparently the government’s mega-programme of gilt issuance (selling bonds) has not yet been fully tested - because it has been exceeded by QE (buying bonds).*

When the government turns net seller we will see whether there truly is a market appetite for UK gilts.

George Osborne described the Nomura report as a “wake-up call” with Britain’s “international reputation” at stake. Privately, however, the Tories must be as worried as the government is - given that the situation may still be with us in eight months.

UPDATE

The exact figures are as follows:

* As of September 10 there has been £145bn of QE (assets purchased by the creation of central bank reserves), of which £143bn has been gilts. The process began on March 11.

* Since that date the Debt Management Office has sold £95bn of gilts.

Is Britain recovering or not?

September 13th, 2009 1:28pm

Expectations are for a Gordon Brown “recovery” speech on Tuesday when he faces the TUC Conference in Liverpool.

For all the (slightly) better economic/financial data out there, there is still an obvious dichotomy that Britain faces. Do you define the downturn by GDP figures (the formal definition of recession beging two quarters of contraction) or on unemployment figures?

With the dole queue set to grow for years to come, it’s a vital question.

Brendan Barber, head of the TUC, made the point this morning on the BBC’s Politics Show:

I don’t think that’s a real recovery until we begin to see unemployment coming down, and I fear that we, we’re a long way off that.

Alan Johnson was on similar ground, albeit in a slightly garbled way:

I don’t think we’re through the worst of the recession, I, I mean it’s a matter, I think Alistair Darling has led us through this, with Gordon Brown, in, in, absolutely calling every single turn of this the right way. When, when we look at this now, there.. I don’t think we can say that we won’t get any more bad labour market figures, I don’t think we can say that we’re in a situation now where manufacturing is going to recover completely, what we can say, I think, is we’ve seen the early signs, in the construction industry, in consumer confidence, in my own constituency here we’ve seen that the, that the increase in unemployment has kind of levelled off. Now I’d like to think that’s the early signs, but I think there’s a long way to go and what I think the British public need to do as we approach the next Election is listen to the various … plans of the parties for how to get through this…

Of course, no minister wants to prematurely call the recovery. Spotting green shoots is a risky business, as Baroness Vadera found out earlier this year.

Precisely how Mr Brown will address this question on Tuesday will be fascinating to watch. I suspect there will be more rather more about how Labour prevented a financial catastrophe than premature optimism about the imminent future.

According to Sky the speech will include this:

Today we are on a road towards recovery - but things are still fragile not automatic and the recovery needs to be nurtured. People’s livelihoods and homes and savings are still hanging in the balance, and so today I say to you: don’t put the recovery at risk.

“Road towards recovery” is a phrase which covers all options pretty well. It could be a swift road - but also a long and winding one with many potential setbacks etc etc

Was It King What Won It?

September 11th, 2009 1:00pm

A brief passage in George Osborne’s last Andrew Marr interview stands out: In it, the shadow chancellor heaps praise at the feet of the world’s central banks for preventing financial meltdown.

“But we say the most effective form of stimulus is monetary policy, is the low interest rates, which both here and around the world I think have been the most effective tool at bringing the world back from the brink of depression.”

A statement of the obvious, you might think. But was Osborne playing up the actions of Mervyn King and others to belittle those of Gordon Brown? A Tory MP suggests that this strain could grow louder as the party seeks to rob Brown of the credit for halting the apocalypse.

For some time now I have been asking the Treasury for an explanation of Alistair Darling’s Budget claim that government actions have saved “up to 500,000 jobs”.

My questions:

1] What research is this based on?

2] Is 500,000 at the upper end of a wider range of estimates; eg “350,000 to 500,000″?

3] How much of the 500,000 is down to political action and how much is due to the actions of the Bank of England - ie quantatative easing and interest rate cuts?

It’s been at least three weeks and the Treasury still hasn’t answered the question. Although they say they may provide more detailed analysis later in the autumn.

Gordon Brown interview with the FT

September 1st, 2009 2:53pm

Gordon Brown has pledged tough action to clamp down on excessive remuneration for bankers as part of an international effort to rectify the systemic weakness that led to the global financial crisis. Read the interview on ft.com

From ARENA August 28, 2009

Is the City of London too big?

From the FT’s Arena blog:

Lord Turner, chairman of the UK’s Financial Services Authority, casts a sceptical light on the role of the City of London in the UK economy in an interview with Prospect Magazine. During the last boom, the financial sector grew as a share of gross domestic product, and ballooned as a share of profits and taxes. Should the government have as a goal to protect the City as a pre-eminent financial centre? Or has the City grown too big for Britain’s good? Lord Turner says the City watchdog should be “very, very wary of seeing the competitiveness of London as a major aim”.  Which British industries - if any - have the potential to replace the City? Does the UK have any choice other than to nourish the financial services industry? Join the debate: click on comment. Continue reading "Is the City of London too big?"

The battle for Cockburn Town

August 3rd, 2009 4:15pm

A rebellion is brewing on the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI), a Caribbean paradise that is bracing for the re-imposition of the British colonial yoke.

After an inquiry found evidence of “systemic corruption” in the island’s government, British ministers decided it was time to move back to direct rule. Preparations are advanced and the British governor is poised to take over, but the final act has been delayed by legal challenges related to the inquiry.

This has given the 32,000 TCI inhabitants some time to man the barricades of the capital, Cockburn Town. Galmo Williams, their new premier, is in fighting mood. Seeing Iain Dale’s post today on the islands reminded me of a statement Williams gave us a couple of months ago. It deserves a wider audience.

PRESS STATEMENT
TO THE FINANCIAL TIMES

OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

The battle for democracy continues to be waged in the far corners of the world, led vigorously by the one of the biggest champions of freedom in history: the United Kingdom. Yet, quietly, almost surreptitiously, a giant step backward is being taken in the Turks & Caicos Islands.

The Turks and Caicos is one of a handful of somewhat anachronistic entities known officially as British Overseas Territories, the last remnants of the great empire over which the sun never set. Sadly, within weeks, the sun will set on the democratic principles for which Britain has fought so adamantly to defend and proliferate for centuries.

The sun will set on the empire when the British:

1. PARTIALLY SUSPEND THE TCI CONSTITUTION FOR 2 YEARS INITIALLY. THIS PERIOD CAN BE EXTENDED OR SHORTENED

2. SUSPEND THE TCI HOUSE OF PARLIAMENT.

3. RULE TCI DIRECTLY THROUGH THE GOVERNOR AND WHOEVER HE CHOOSES TO ASSIST HIM, WHOSE ADVICE HE IS NOT BOUND TO ACCEPT

4. SUSPEND TCI JURY TRIALS AND IMPLEMENT TRIAL BY JUDGE ALONE.

5. ENLARGE THE TCI FRANCHISE WHERE NON-BELONGERS WHO ARE RESIDENT IN THE TURKS ANDCAICOS

6. ISLANDS WILL BE ALLOWED TO VOTE IN OUR GENERAL ELECTIONS.

Yes, I think the British politicians no longer have the moral authority to lecture other countries on corruption.

Reasonable people are asking, given the British problems, should the EU exercise the same powers in Britain? They are saying, British politicians no longer have the moral authority to lecture other countries on corruption or impose what they would never countenance for themselves.

Hon. GALMO W WILLIAMS, MP
PREMIER

June 24, 2009

Would Lehman Sisters have survived?

August 3rd, 2009 3:56pm

Harriet Harman can’t let the gender issue drop (see yesterday’s blog). Now she has called for more women on the boards of financial services groups. Fair enough.

But she has gone further by adding: “Someone said that if it had been Lehman Sisters, instead of Lehman Brothers, there might not have been so much difficulty.”

(Apparently the quote is from Neelie Kroes, EU competition commissioner.)

So is the deputy Labour leader right?

Bank of England “not actually about doing things” says Myners

July 23rd, 2009 10:38am

Lord Myners gives short thrift today to Tory plans to kneecap the Financial Services Authority and transfer many of its powers to the Bank of England.

In an interview with City AM (the freesheet) the City minister says the central bank neither wants nor has the right skills for the job. He portrays the Bank as an ivory tower full of chin-stroking academics.

“They (Tories) have misjudged the competence and culture of the Bank of England. The Bank is a very academic institution. It is not actually about doing things,” he said.

“The Bank is good at looking at the wider picture but it does not want to be supervising and reflecting on individual banks. Do we want the Bank of England distracted by supervising building societies and insurance companies?”

I was going to blog on Monday about the flaws in George Osborne’s plans but Paul Murphy on FT Alphaville beat me to it. And here is another colleague, Paul J Davies, making a similar point.

Ultimately the reason why financial regulation often fails is because the smart guys aren’t working for the FSA or the SEC: they are making millions of pounds/dollars in the banks.

Chief executives of banks didn’t understand some of the financial products cooked up by youths with PhDs in advanced mathematics. How can we expect low-ranking regulators to be on top of these innovations?

This point is made in a shrewd letter to the FT today by Tim Price of PFP Wealth Management:

“As to the likelihood of the Bank attracting a sufficiently experienced and qualified staff, this gets to the absolute heart of the problem. Short of receiving infinite remuneration, no regulator will ever realistically be able to compete with the so-called “talent” on Wall Street and the City, even if that talent amounts to self-enrichment rather than wider wealth creation.”

See the FT’s Arena blog debate: should the FSA be scrapped?