Why can't the government keep RBS?

Soldato
Joined
29 Jun 2004
Posts
12,957
RBS announced it will take a further 2 years to return a profit. The majority of RBS is state owned. The view is the government will sell its shares when they are higher than what they bought it for.

However, what's wrong with keeping the share which the government owns in RBS, and effectively letting the government inherit a percentage of future RBS profits? In effect it'll become a majority state owned bank, with some shares on the stock market. Surely that will return a larger return on investment over 10 or so years.
 

Deleted member 66701

D

Deleted member 66701

Because wealth generators owned by the government doesn't exactly fit in with Tory ideals does it?
 
Associate
Joined
27 Jan 2009
Posts
1,507
It's lost £2 billion this year yet it's paid the people who can't do their jobs over £1 billion in bonus .... why don't we all dial 999 to report a crime .....
 
Commissario
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
33,023
Location
Panting like a fiend
It's lost £2 billion this year yet it's paid the people who can't do their jobs over £1 billion in bonus .... why don't we all dial 999 to report a crime .....

IIRC a fair chunk of that is due to problems in previous years coming home to roost (that 2 billion is about what they loaned governments alone, but they are also facing PPI payouts in large amounts from misselling over a number of years).

A loss at a company, even a big loss does not mean the people currently running it are doing a bad job - some of the people getting bonuses have probably made the company tens of millions, or reduced losses significantly.

From what I remember RBS is currently the lowest paying of the major UK banks for many of it's money making staff (IE those working in the likes of investment and corporate banking*), and if I'm remembering correctly there was someone on TV earlier who pointed out it had already lost a lot of the best staff because of the already lower wages.
They've also had their Insurance section make it back into profit, so it's not as simple as saying "they've made a loss, no one should get a bonus", as parts of it ARE making a profit, the problem is that they've got costs that are out of the hands of the staff at the moment, which are causing them to make a loss (so potentially the losses could have been much worse if the parts of the business that are making a profit were not).

It's like British Gas.
Apparently they've had a 30% fall in profits last year.
But Centrica (who own BG) as a group made very slightly better profits (showing that BG's profits probably don't make a big portion of Centrica's profits as a whole).

With any large business working in multiple sectors parts of it can be making a profit, whilst the business as a whole makes a loss, or parts of it can be making less profit (or a loss) whilst the business as a whole makes a profit.



As to the original question.

The government owning RBS could, in theory distort the market to a degree.



*Personal banking (IE high street/personal accounts), basically don't make much money at all.
 
Associate
Joined
11 Apr 2009
Posts
996
Location
Leeds, UK
I work in the motor insurance sector of RBS and we have to be sold off before December 2013, what rubs salt into the wounds more, we've made profits of over £90million this year after 18months of restructuring and as already said the profits will start to roll in for us now, yet we will be overloaded due to EU legislation.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Sep 2007
Posts
2,886
Not too sure on the economy as a whole, but I work in IT for a major bank, and have a few trader friends. All I can say is from what I have overheard at work, is traders love uncertainty, well, certain departments within the bank, the more uncertainty, the more possibility to profit. I remember hearing hearty chuckles when it was revealed we entered Iraq and Afghanistan, why not? Oil per barrel probably increased ten fold.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Jan 2004
Posts
20,959
I work in the motor insurance sector of RBS and we have to be sold off before December 2013, what rubs salt into the wounds more, we've made profits of over £90million this year after 18months of restructuring and as already said the profits will start to roll in for us now, yet we will be overloaded due to EU legislation.

Explains why my Adrian flux renewal in 2011 was not with RBS anymore and swapped to another.
 
Caporegime
Joined
19 May 2004
Posts
31,540
Location
Nordfriesland, Germany
However, what's wrong with keeping the share which the government owns in RBS, and effectively letting the government inherit a percentage of future RBS profits? In effect it'll become a majority state owned bank, with some shares on the stock market. Surely that will return a larger return on investment over 10 or so years.

It distorts the banking market to have government heavily involved in major banking players, produces questionable incentives for banking legislation within governance, damages the value and independence of non-government shares and overly politicises the business decisions of the bank.

It would be possible to run a national bank, I think, but that bank shouldn't look like RBS.
 
Caporegime
Joined
22 Nov 2005
Posts
45,276
It distorts the banking market to have government heavily involved in major banking players, produces questionable incentives for banking legislation within governance, damages the value and independence of non-government shares and overly politicises the business decisions of the bank.

It would be possible to run a national bank, I think, but that bank shouldn't look like RBS.

sounds like the usual tory bs gotta keep those snobs happy and let them sell it to a friend or give some nice contracts to their eton mates
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Aug 2005
Posts
3,955
Location
Beds
There could be a very good reason to sell RBS once it's share price rises - it helps to reduce the rather large pile of government debt!
 
Caporegime
Joined
21 Apr 2004
Posts
33,225
Location
Bristol
However, what's wrong with keeping the share which the government owns in RBS, and effectively letting the government inherit a percentage of future RBS profits? In effect it'll become a majority state owned bank, with some shares on the stock market. Surely that will return a larger return on investment over 10 or so years.

I think the feeling is that a private bank will be more successful than a public owned bank, as with many other services and businesses. As Werewolf said RBS already has some of the lowest wages in the sector and is suffering because of it. Trying to run a company on the politics of envy is a difficult game.
 
Back
Top Bottom