Cable Forum - View Single Post

Osem · 03-12-2009, 11:05

Yes, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out..

The government's done a lot of tough talking over the years and rarely backed it up. Now they, correction, WE own 70% of RBS we have a lot to lose if RBS stops making profits, namely getting all the billions of our money back at some time. Aside from RBS's much needed contribution to HMG's fast diminishing tax recepits, all Darling and Brown have to lose is face and no doubt their team of spinners is busily trying to come up with some means by which to limit their embarrassment if it all goes pear shaped.

I'm no expert on the subject but, as I understand it, there are legal issues of corporate governance at the root of the Board's stance and, if that's the case and the Board is acting in line with those, it rather begs the question why didn't Darling know he'd be putting them in an impossible position by demanding the right to veto the bonus payments. Of course he may well have known in which case it's just possible he's playing a game which is intended to make the banks look bad in the eyes of the public and HMG look like the good guys doing their utmost to bring those greedy bankers to heel....

Sadly for us taxpayers, whilst we'd all like to see those at fault for the banking crisis (inxcluding HMG and the regulators who failed so miserably) get their comeuppance, that chance is gone. As Fred the Shred will tell you, the money's been made and paid and anyone who tries to claim otherwise is either delusional or a cynical politician trying to save his own skin. As I see it, all that will be achieved by turning RBS into a publicly owned non-performer is that we will have less chance of ever getting our money back. In the meantime those banks not encumbered by public ownership and the whims of politicians will be rubbing their hands with glee as they rake in the profits and sign up the star performers.

03-12-2009, 11:05	#9
Osem Inactive Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Right here! Posts: 22,315	Re: RBS Board to play "Call my Bluff"?.... Yes, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.. The government's done a lot of tough talking over the years and rarely backed it up. Now they, correction, WE own 70% of RBS we have a lot to lose if RBS stops making profits, namely getting all the billions of our money back at some time. Aside from RBS's much needed contribution to HMG's fast diminishing tax recepits, all Darling and Brown have to lose is face and no doubt their team of spinners is busily trying to come up with some means by which to limit their embarrassment if it all goes pear shaped. I'm no expert on the subject but, as I understand it, there are legal issues of corporate governance at the root of the Board's stance and, if that's the case and the Board is acting in line with those, it rather begs the question why didn't Darling know he'd be putting them in an impossible position by demanding the right to veto the bonus payments. Of course he may well have known in which case it's just possible he's playing a game which is intended to make the banks look bad in the eyes of the public and HMG look like the good guys doing their utmost to bring those greedy bankers to heel.... Sadly for us taxpayers, whilst we'd all like to see those at fault for the banking crisis (inxcluding HMG and the regulators who failed so miserably) get their comeuppance, that chance is gone. As Fred the Shred will tell you, the money's been made and paid and anyone who tries to claim otherwise is either delusional or a cynical politician trying to save his own skin. As I see it, all that will be achieved by turning RBS into a publicly owned non-performer is that we will have less chance of ever getting our money back. In the meantime those banks not encumbered by public ownership and the whims of politicians will be rubbing their hands with glee as they rake in the profits and sign up the star performers.