muckles:
I believe the UK government, therefore us, still own a large stake in RBS
From memory I believe we own about 70%.
As I see it, part of the problem is that the government - any UK government - has no commercial experience. So they tender for a contract and then believe the BS that someone can do X for X price; someone with an ounce of commercial knowledge would know that the bid is structured too cheaply to sustain.
We bid on a government contract once and the company it went to, turned round 3 months later and said they couldn’t make it pay. The government gave them some more money. If they had had a single person who knew the first thing about haulage, they’d have know the rate was too low.
Style over substance every time, coupled with short-termism.
muckles:
Beetlejuice:
RBS should be forced to bail them out.I believe the UK government, therefore us, still own a large stake in RBS, so we’d be doing ourselves in if it were to run into difficultly bailing out a failing company, at very least it will devalue the bank and therefore our shareholding, which the government want to sell in the near future, although it seems to want to sell it at a loss, no doubt to be picked up by their friends in the financial services industry.
Back handers for the boys .
was kidding though mate .Bit of sarcasm 
Beetlejuice:
muckles:
Beetlejuice:
RBS should be forced to bail them out.I believe the UK government, therefore us, still own a large stake in RBS, so we’d be doing ourselves in if it were to run into difficultly bailing out a failing company, at very least it will devalue the bank and therefore our shareholding, which the government want to sell in the near future, although it seems to want to sell it at a loss, no doubt to be picked up by their friends in the financial services industry.
Back handers for the boys .
was kidding though mate .Bit of sarcasm
No problem, 
muckles:
Winseer:
The banks have pulled the rug, and suggested that the Government bails this firm out by guaranteeing the outstanding loan book.Talk about “Wanting your cake and eating it”!
One of the potential deals was the Government bail Carrilion out, like they did for the Banks. I believe if you buy a company you buy its debts, which is why Rover was sold for a £1, but included millions in money owed.
The Conservatives have very sensibly refused to bail out the banks on this one. That’s a good thing, regardless of what Labour argue to the contrary BECAUSE it’s the exact opposite of what Labour (A socialist Government) did in the Banking crisis a decade back.
Winseer:
The banks, a private sector “industry” managed to get even a Socialist government to take money from taxpayers - without any T&Cs being levvied upon them whilst those bailout monies were put to use paying the huge bonuses again.Which “Socialist” government was that?
But yes banks do seem to want special treatment, they take the risk when they lend money that it won’t be paid, which is why they should practice due diligence before lending.Winseer:
Let’s not blame Carillion for what’s happened here.This is yet another Banking sin laid bare.
Why not blame Carrillion, they were running the business and it failed.
The failings of Carillion are that they expected the banks not to pull the rug, because the government would step in and guarantor the banks again like last time. Alas…
The faults then, are not “Systemic” as some pundits have been arguing. Carillion’s rank and file business is sound, and will probably be flogged off as a going concern. It’s the administration tier itself that is at fault, ie high-order management.Unless the banks have been lending more money than they have to bad risks like they did before the financial crash, then what sins have they committed, after all they’re supposed to lend money and expect it to be paid back, that’s how it works.
The banks hadn’t finished the current lending programme, but got cold feet due to a drop in confidence. If the next lot of money had been loaned, the final bust would have been put back a number of months at very least. There is less appetite these days for such risk-taking however. Banks want to chase the rising prices and revenues like the Stock Market as opposed to “Big business that’s too big” yet again.
It doesn’t work when they risk money they haven’t got on dodgy deals with the hope of short term bonuses and it goes ■■■■ up.
Nothing has been done, or even suggested yet - as how to stop the “rewards for failure” culture in big business today. It is big businesses that are relying on government intervention imo that still carry on doing this daft practice, that alas - will keep carrying on, because no one in a suit ever gets to go to jail when it all goes wrong. “Grab the bonus money, and then if the company fails, - I’m alright Jack!”Winseer:
I reckon the government should order the banks to keep on funding Carillion - and revoke their banking licences if they fail to comply.Our government is so weak right now though, that the betting is odds-on that they’ll let the banksters get away with it yet again.
Why should the banks be forced to support a bad risk, that’s how we ended up in the doggy doo last time?
The bad risks the banks supported last time, were sub-prime loans that they could squeeze higher interest rates out of, rather than pristine-credit-worthy borrowers, which they don’t give a hoot about. Flip your loan book over from Middle-class workers to benefit-claiming brudders - and it’s hardly any surprise that systemic default will happen sooner or later. It’s about to happen again with Credit Card books, I strongly suspect.It’s a business failure, the banks should have to ■■■■ up the loss, but the people who’ll suffer most are the small business who see naff all from the liquidation.
What the government needs to do is bring the operation in house, but honour the contracts of the small businesses in this.
I feel sorry for those small businesses in the supply chain who won’t get paid - bearing in mind that Carillion is well-known for kicking it’s invoice settlements down the road around 4 months or so. THIS is something (deliberately delaying settlement) that should be brought to an END forthwith by government. Banks lend money and take risks. Small Businesses are unable to borrow as cheaply as big business, so why the bloody hell should small businesses be effectively forced to extend 4 months interest-free credit which they can ill-afford to a large outfit that COULD afford to pay their damned bills on the nail?
(Strange how no government, Left, Right, or Center this past decade - has come up with a viable set of laws to combat this abuse of small firms by the big ones!)
Winseer:
muckles:
One of the potential deals was the Government bail Carrilion out, like they did for the Banks. I believe if you buy a company you buy its debts, which is why Rover was sold for a £1, but included millions in money owed.The Conservatives have very sensibly refused to bail out the banks on this one. That’s a good thing, regardless of what Labour argue to the contrary BECAUSE it’s the exact opposite of what Labour (A socialist Government) did in the Banking crisis a decade back.
There was never any chance of anybody bailing out the banks as the banks aren’t at risk, as they haven’t lent so much money to Carrilion that it would pull them under.
The financial crash, banks were bailed out as the consensus of opinion was that if they went under then it would lead to a bigger crisis than the crash of the 1920’s.
The US Republican administration also bailed their financial system, you could hardly accuse them of being socialist.
The New Labour Government was never a socialist government; they continued the same policies introduced by the previous Conservative governments, such as continued privatisation of public services and light regulations of the financial industry, which allowed them to take the risks that caused the problems.
Winseer:
muckles:
Winseer:
Let’s not blame Carillion for what’s happened here.Why not blame Carrillion, they were running the business and it failed.
The failings of Carillion are that they expected the banks not to pull the rug, because the government would step in and guarantor the banks again like last time. Alas…
The faults then, are not “Systemic” as some pundits have been arguing. Carillion’s rank and file business is sound, and will probably be flogged off as a going concern. It’s the administration tier itself that is at fault, ie high-order management.
If they failed because they expected support then it proves how inept the management were.
The more people look into Carillion’s activities the more it’s quite obvious it was a poorly run company and failure was inevitable, regardless if parts of it are profitable, it trades as a whole company.
muckles:
Winseer:
Unless the banks have been lending more money than they have to bad risks like they did before the financial crash, then what sins have they committed, after all they’re supposed to lend money and expect it to be paid back, that’s how it works.The banks hadn’t finished the current lending programme, but got cold feet due to a drop in confidence. If the next lot of money had been loaned, the final bust would have been put back a number of months at very least. There is less appetite these days for such risk-taking however. Banks want to chase the rising prices and revenues like the Stock Market as opposed to “Big business that’s too big” yet again
So you’re saying they should have kept funding them so they could go under in a few months owing even more money?
You do know the stock market trades is one of the ways “big business” raises money?
Winseer:
muckles:
Winseer:
I reckon the government should order the banks to keep on funding Carillion - and revoke their banking licences if they fail to comply.Why should the banks be forced to support a bad risk, that’s how we ended up in the doggy doo last time?
The bad risks the banks supported last time, were sub-prime loans that they could squeeze higher interest rates out of, rather than pristine-credit-worthy borrowers, which they don’t give a hoot about.
Yes they got into trouble, because the were lending more money than they had to people who were likely to default,
So by what logic should you tell them to do the same for a company that was failing and would therefore default on its payments?
Winseer:
muckles:
It’s a business failure, the banks should have to ■■■■ up the loss, but the people who’ll suffer most are the small business who see naff all from the liquidation.
What the government needs to do is bring the operation in house, but honour the contracts of the small businesses in this.I feel sorry for those small businesses in the supply chain who won’t get paid - bearing in mind that Carillion is well-known for kicking it’s invoice settlements down the road around 4 months or so. THIS is something (deliberately delaying settlement) that should be brought to an END forthwith by government. …
why the bloody hell should small businesses be effectively forced to extend 4 months interest-free credit which they can ill-afford to a large outfit that COULD afford to pay their damned bills on the nail?
(Strange how no government, Left, Right, or Center this past decade - has come up with a viable set of laws to combat this abuse of small firms by the big ones!)
The governments we’ve had for the last few decades have all followed Neo-liberal economic polices, part of which is the principle that government interferes as little as possible in the market. The have viewed big business and the financial industry as a partner to be courted, not legislated against.
The Scottish news kept banging on about the Aberdeen by pass. I was up at Stonehaven to day and they were actually working on the thing. The job has been going on for years, no wonder they are zbd
albion:
As I see it, part of the problem is that the government - any UK government - has no commercial experience. So they tender for a contract and then believe the BS that someone can do X for X price; someone with an ounce of commercial knowledge would know that the bid is structured too cheaply to sustain.We bid on a government contract once and the company it went to, turned round 3 months later and said they couldn’t make it pay. The government gave them some more money. If they had had a single person who knew the first thing about haulage, they’d have know the rate was too low.
Style over substance every time, coupled with short-termism.
sounds remarcabkey like tbe going ons with the east coast mainline re Virgin/stagecoach handing back the franchise after a huge bailout so nothing new here