In terms of reacting to bank failures, the contrast between the US and UK 
political systems is interesting. While the US Congress is thrashing out the 
limits to Treasury action and how the 700 billion dollar bailout will be 
scrutinised by the peoples' representatives, the UK Treasury has no such 
problems.

Under the Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008, introduced to deal with 
Northern Rock, the Treasury can act unilaterally to nationalise 
deposit-taking banks, and Parliament must provide it with the money. 
Whatever the cost.

This I hadn't realised. It's not particularly healthy, but seems to have 
passed with little comment.

"The power of the Treasury to make an order under-
(a) section 3 (transfer of securities issued by an authorised UK 
deposit-taker), or
(b) section 6 (transfer of property, rights and liabilities of an authorised 
UK deposit-taker),

is exercisable in relation to an authorised UK deposit-taker if (and only 
if) it appears to the Treasury to be desirable to make the order for either 
or both of the following purposes.

This is subject to subsection (7).

(2) The purposes are-
(a) maintaining the stability of the UK financial system in circumstances 
where the Treasury consider that there would be a serious threat to its 
stability if the order were not made;
(b) protecting the public interest in circumstances where financial 
assistance has been provided by the Treasury to the deposit-taker for the 
purpose of maintaining the stability of the UK financial system."

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080002_en_1

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 12:05:06 +0100, DVH wrote:

> This I hadn't realised. It's not particularly healthy, but seems to have 
> passed with little comment.

The tabloids missed it then?
Did you mean our elected representatives? 
Would they have understood the implications of such
unregulated power in the hands of unelected officials?

Lewis

Well having missed the boat last year with Northern Rock by dithering while 
queues wound round the block in northern towns and a full run developed (the 
first for 150 years) our ineffective and incompetent government decided to 
act and look tough: -

first up HBoS, but Lloyds TSB were ahead of them and all GB could do was 
pusillanimously agree not to interfere with competition regulations etc.

So for B&B GH has stayed in London and struck the first blow.  Looks like he 
will have to give it away to foreigners (Banco Santander) and look like an 
ineffective wimp yet again...



and yes Labour MP's (and probably most of the others) agreed to this in the 
aftermath of the Northern Rock fiasco.

"DVH"  wrote in message 
news:48df64e8$0$517$bed64819@news.gradwell.net...
> In terms of reacting to bank failures, the contrast between the US and UK 
> political systems is interesting. While the US Congress is thrashing out 
> the limits to Treasury action and how the 700 billion dollar bailout will 
> be scrutinised by the peoples' representatives, the UK Treasury has no 
> such problems.
>
> Under the Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008, introduced to deal with 
> Northern Rock, the Treasury can act unilaterally to nationalise 
> deposit-taking banks, and Parliament must provide it with the money. 
> Whatever the cost.
>
> This I hadn't realised. It's not particularly healthy, but seems to have 
> passed with little comment.
>
> "The power of the Treasury to make an order under-
> (a) section 3 (transfer of securities issued by an authorised UK 
> deposit-taker), or
> (b) section 6 (transfer of property, rights and liabilities of an 
> authorised UK deposit-taker),
>
> is exercisable in relation to an authorised UK deposit-taker if (and only 
> if) it appears to the Treasury to be desirable to make the order for 
> either or both of the following purposes.
>
> This is subject to subsection (7).
>
> (2) The purposes are-
> (a) maintaining the stability of the UK financial system in circumstances 
> where the Treasury consider that there would be a serious threat to its 
> stability if the order were not made;
> (b) protecting the public interest in circumstances where financial 
> assistance has been provided by the Treasury to the deposit-taker for the 
> purpose of maintaining the stability of the UK financial system."
>
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080002_en_1
>

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 12:05:06 +0100, "DVH"  wrote:

>In terms of reacting to bank failures, the contrast between the US and UK 
>political systems is interesting. While the US Congress is thrashing out the 
>limits to Treasury action and how the 700 billion dollar bailout will be 
>scrutinised by the peoples' representatives, the UK Treasury has no such 
>problems.

>Under the Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008, introduced to deal with 
>Northern Rock, the Treasury can act unilaterally to nationalise 
>deposit-taking banks, and Parliament must provide it with the money. 
>Whatever the cost.

The US Federal Bank has taken over and sold off several banks recently
without any fuss or congressional debate.  Their powers in this
respect are similar to those granted under the Banking (Special
Provisions) Act 2008.  The 700 billion dollar bailout of the whole US
banking system is in no way comparable to the takeover of a small
ex-building society.

"abelard"  wrote in message 
news:0irud45t6f0023rdd3jg2kvakd57tr3e9a@4ax.com...

> as usual socialism has undermined the economy led by the clown's
>    meddling and greed...

Don't be bloody silly.

It's a lot more to do with the bankers being scared of lending to anyone who 
invested in 'buy-to-let' because the US liquidity market crashed.


-- 
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:11:58 +0100, "William Black"
 wrote:

>
>"abelard"  wrote in message 
>news:0irud45t6f0023rdd3jg2kvakd57tr3e9a@4ax.com...
>
>> as usual socialism has undermined the economy led by the clown's
>>    meddling and greed...
>
>Don't be bloody silly.
>
>It's a lot more to do with the bankers being scared of lending to anyone who 
>invested in 'buy-to-let' because the US liquidity market crashed.

do i bother with you? after all, you're none too bright

the uk has its own central bank and its own currency....
it is one of the world's biggest economies...

just how did this become 'america's fault'?


i realise you're a cult socialist...but is there any chance you
     can get beyond repeating your empty slogans
and instead answer simple questions with reality based reasoning?

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that      []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []   trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"abelard"  wrote in message 
news:us8vd41kcqemki44fiskttu0142r9qe6ip@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:11:58 +0100, "William Black"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>"abelard"  wrote in message
>>news:0irud45t6f0023rdd3jg2kvakd57tr3e9a@4ax.com...
>>
>>> as usual socialism has undermined the economy led by the clown's
>>>    meddling and greed...
>>
>>Don't be bloody silly.
>>
>>It's a lot more to do with the bankers being scared of lending to anyone 
>>who
>>invested in 'buy-to-let' because the US liquidity market crashed.
>
> do i bother with you? after all, you're none too bright
>
> the uk has its own central bank and its own currency....
> it is one of the world's biggest economies...
>
> just how did this become 'america's fault'?

Well,  it's like this:

Banking is an international business.

The major economic power in the world is undoubtedly the USA.

When their economy goes 'tits up' we all get burned.

Stop trying to pretend this is a domestic problem,  it isn't,  everyone, 
even your beloved Cameron,  says so.

-- 
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:53:43 +0100, "William Black"
 wrote:

>
>"abelard"  wrote in message 
>news:us8vd41kcqemki44fiskttu0142r9qe6ip@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:11:58 +0100, "William Black"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"abelard"  wrote in message
>>>news:0irud45t6f0023rdd3jg2kvakd57tr3e9a@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> as usual socialism has undermined the economy led by the clown's
>>>>    meddling and greed...
>>>
>>>Don't be bloody silly.
>>>
>>>It's a lot more to do with the bankers being scared of lending to anyone 
>>>who
>>>invested in 'buy-to-let' because the US liquidity market crashed.
>>
>> do i bother with you? after all, you're none too bright
>>
>> the uk has its own central bank and its own currency....
>> it is one of the world's biggest economies...
>>
>> just how did this become 'america's fault'?
>
>Well,  it's like this:
>
>Banking is an international business.
>
>The major economic power in the world is undoubtedly the USA.
>
>When their economy goes 'tits up' we all get burned.
>
>Stop trying to pretend this is a domestic problem,  it isn't,  everyone, 
>even your beloved Cameron,  says so.

that's not an answer...it's just an assertion....or a series of
     assertions...

how are you 'burned' if you run your life moderately?
by many criteria most are better off year by year by sensible
      measures...more holidays...bigger flatter screens...
      more and more various food(you can even swell up
      like a blimp is you choose)
so some party and are now getting a bit of a hangover....
      what of it...

damn all to do with the usa....
so the americans are also inclined to party....but they ain't stealing
     your house...they're not shopping in surbiton....they're not 
     forcing you to buy big-macs

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that      []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []   trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sep 28, 1:00 pm, "R. Mark Clayton" 
wrote:

> So for B&B GH has stayed in London and struck the first blow.  Looks like he
> will have to give it away to foreigners (Banco Santander) and look like an
> ineffective wimp yet again...

With shares down to 20p it doesn't look as if there was much to give
away.

The truth is nobody wanted it even at that knock down price.

Of course things could have been left to run their course after which
the assets could have been stripped out for a song. The rest would
have been just left behind. Shareholders would have been wiped out
(and at 20p it would appear that they have just about been anyway) as
well as would be depositors.

However, doesn't the government have a liability through the FSA
compensation scheme for what in this case would be a major proportion
of £20bn worth of these?

Better by far to sell off these and a ready customer should be in the
wings ready to take over these in these cash strapped times.

That leaves the £40-50 bn worth of mortgages which in the present
climate are unsaleable.

This is £40-50bn. worth of risk which should not be seen as £40-50bn
worth of losses.

Under the worst scenario, every mortgage holder will default and the
properties upon which they are secured will be sold off. Most of the
risk will be recovered.

But of course the the worst scenario is not going to happen is it?

Sometimes the action that you would wish to make is not the action you
have to take.

"Lewis Carlisle"  wrote in message 
news:1crxvwswmp46f$.dlg@help.the.afflicted...
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 12:05:06 +0100, DVH wrote:
>
>> This I hadn't realised. It's not particularly healthy, but seems to have
>> passed with little comment.
>
> The tabloids missed it then?
> Did you mean our elected representatives?
> Would they have understood the implications of such
> unregulated power in the hands of unelected officials?
>
So you'd rather have retail banks going bust and savers losing their money?

On Sep 28, 12:05 pm, "DVH"  wrote:

> This is subject to subsection (7).
>
> (2) The purposes are-
> (a) maintaining the stability of the UK financial system in circumstances
> where the Treasury consider that there would be a serious threat to its
> stability if the order were not made;
> (b) protecting the public interest in circumstances where financial
> assistance has been provided by the Treasury to the deposit-taker for the
> purpose of maintaining the stability of the UK financial system."

Well there you are then!

If there is no instability in the bank system today there never has
been or never will be.

In times of emergency or crisis governments take on all sorts of
powers.

In the not too distant past land, buildings, industries, ships, gold
to name but a few that come to mind have been requisitioned by
governments in the national interest.

That's what governments do. That's what's expected of them.

Nigel Worm wrote:
> 
> On Sep 28, 12:05 pm, "DVH"  wrote:
> 
> > This is subject to subsection (7).
> >
> > (2) The purposes are-
> > (a) maintaining the stability of the UK financial system in circumstances
> > where the Treasury consider that there would be a serious threat to its
> > stability if the order were not made;
> > (b) protecting the public interest in circumstances where financial
> > assistance has been provided by the Treasury to the deposit-taker for the
> > purpose of maintaining the stability of the UK financial system."
> 
> Well there you are then!
> 
> If there is no instability in the bank system today there never has
> been or never will be.

A double negation :-)

> In times of emergency or crisis governments take on all sorts of
> powers.

Parkinson's law to the extreme: The time spent on a decision is
inversely proportional to the money involved.

"William Black"  wrote in
news:gbo9a4$pgr$1@registered.motzarella.org: 

> 
> "abelard"  wrote in message 
> news:us8vd41kcqemki44fiskttu0142r9qe6ip@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:11:58 +0100, "William Black"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"abelard"  wrote in message
>>>news:0irud45t6f0023rdd3jg2kvakd57tr3e9a@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> as usual socialism has undermined the economy led by the clown's
>>>>    meddling and greed...
>>>
>>>Don't be bloody silly.
>>>
>>>It's a lot more to do with the bankers being scared of lending to
>>>anyone who
>>>invested in 'buy-to-let' because the US liquidity market crashed.
>>
>> do i bother with you? after all, you're none too bright
>>
>> the uk has its own central bank and its own currency....
>> it is one of the world's biggest economies...
>>
>> just how did this become 'america's fault'?
> 
> Well,  it's like this:
> 
> Banking is an international business.
> 
> The major economic power in the world is undoubtedly the USA.
> 
> When their economy goes 'tits up' we all get burned.
> 
> Stop trying to pretend this is a domestic problem,  it isn't, 
> everyone, even your beloved Cameron,  says so.
> 




Here is a interesting map about the global tenacles of the credit crisis


It's about the propery foreclosed by Deustche Bank in Cleveland Ohio. 


And this is of October 2007.



http://foreclosingcleveland.wordpress.com/2007/10/26/map-deutsche-bank-
properties-in-cleveland/ 



"The most active forecloser and biggest title-holder of foreclosed 
properties in Cleveland is Deutsche Bank, a German corporation which has 
no office I can find in Cleveland or even in Ohio, and which does 
virtually no lending here.

"At the beginning of this week (October 22), according to the County 
Auditor, Deutsche Bank held title to 570 properties in the city — up from 
532 one month earlier."

"abelard"  wrote in message 
news:05avd4dhvn59qdehoted2ehoie4gpa0l4p@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:53:43 +0100, "William Black"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>"abelard"  wrote in message
>>news:us8vd41kcqemki44fiskttu0142r9qe6ip@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:11:58 +0100, "William Black"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"abelard"  wrote in message
>>>>news:0irud45t6f0023rdd3jg2kvakd57tr3e9a@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>> as usual socialism has undermined the economy led by the clown's
>>>>>    meddling and greed...
>>>>
>>>>Don't be bloody silly.
>>>>
>>>>It's a lot more to do with the bankers being scared of lending to anyone
>>>>who
>>>>invested in 'buy-to-let' because the US liquidity market crashed.
>>>
>>> do i bother with you? after all, you're none too bright
>>>
>>> the uk has its own central bank and its own currency....
>>> it is one of the world's biggest economies...
>>>
>>> just how did this become 'america's fault'?
>>
>>Well,  it's like this:
>>
>>Banking is an international business.
>>
>>The major economic power in the world is undoubtedly the USA.
>>
>>When their economy goes 'tits up' we all get burned.
>>
>>Stop trying to pretend this is a domestic problem,  it isn't,  everyone,
>>even your beloved Cameron,  says so.
>
> that's not an answer...it's just an assertion....or a series of
>     assertions...
>
> how are you 'burned' if you run your life moderately?
> by many criteria most are better off year by year by sensible
>      measures...more holidays...bigger flatter screens...
>      more and more various food(you can even swell up
>      like a blimp is you choose)
> so some party and are now getting a bit of a hangover....
>      what of it...
>
> damn all to do with the usa....
> so the americans are also inclined to party....but they ain't stealing
>     your house...they're not shopping in surbiton....they're not
>     forcing you to buy big-macs

Imbecile.

An no longer worth taking any notice of.

You've lost the plot son.

-- 
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

abelard wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 12:30:12 +0100, jake  wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 12:05:06 +0100, "DVH"  wrote:
>>
>>> In terms of reacting to bank failures, the contrast between the US and UK 
>>> political systems is interesting. While the US Congress is thrashing out the 
>>> limits to Treasury action and how the 700 billion dollar bailout will be 
>>> scrutinised by the peoples' representatives, the UK Treasury has no such 
>>> problems.
>>>
>>> Under the Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008, introduced to deal with 
>>> Northern Rock, the Treasury can act unilaterally to nationalise 
>>> deposit-taking banks, and Parliament must provide it with the money. 
>>> Whatever the cost.
>>>
>>> This I hadn't realised. It's not particularly healthy, but seems to have 
>>> passed with little comment.
>>>
>>> "The power of the Treasury to make an order under-
>>> (a) section 3 (transfer of securities issued by an authorised UK 
>>> deposit-taker), or
>>> (b) section 6 (transfer of property, rights and liabilities of an authorised 
>>> UK deposit-taker),
>>>
>>> is exercisable in relation to an authorised UK deposit-taker if (and only 
>>> if) it appears to the Treasury to be desirable to make the order for either 
>>> or both of the following purposes.
>>>
>>> This is subject to subsection (7).
>>>
>>> (2) The purposes are-
>>> (a) maintaining the stability of the UK financial system in circumstances 
>>> where the Treasury consider that there would be a serious threat to its 
>>> stability if the order were not made;
>>> (b) protecting the public interest in circumstances where financial 
>>> assistance has been provided by the Treasury to the deposit-taker for the 
>>> purpose of maintaining the stability of the UK financial system."
>>>
>>> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080002_en_1 
> 
>> It may be for the "best" - but it is still legaized theft. It is now
>> almost as if to be a shareholder is to be a criminal. (I don't have
>> any shares btw). I think it it would be very interesting if the
>> shareholders took this issue to the EU Court of Human Rights.
> 
> the biggest theft is from the taxpayers
> as usual socialism has undermined the economy led by the clown's
>     meddling and greed...
> 
> 'new' labour are milking the profits/surpluses.....both from companies
>     and individuals....
> 
> where now is any resilience?
> where is the motive for people to work?
> 
> another £50 billion at risk....most of £1000 per person....
> 
> someone 'borrowed' that money....someones gave that money
>      to 'home' 'owners'...the 'home' 'owners' have spent it on gold
>      taps, the lottery or to immigrate....
> 
> those who borrowed the money often won't be able to pay it back
> or won't pay it back even it they can....
> 
> b&b is heavily into buy to let....
> much of that was speculating on price rises...
> 
> what now?
> take a few months rent and run before the system catches up?

HA's will buy them up since they will be needing millions of cheap homes 
for the newly unemployed and broke...

> 
> it's amazing to see the constant whine that the government should
>      'do something'...
> they did..

> 
> the clown's client state has bred a mass of....clients....
> instead of citizens...

But the people think they are being taken care of - they are - just not 
in the way they would like to think!

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:45:48 +0100, Maria 
wrote:

>abelard wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 12:30:12 +0100, jake  wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 12:05:06 +0100, "DVH"  wrote:
>>>
>>>> In terms of reacting to bank failures, the contrast between the US and UK 
>>>> political systems is interesting. While the US Congress is thrashing out the 
>>>> limits to Treasury action and how the 700 billion dollar bailout will be 
>>>> scrutinised by the peoples' representatives, the UK Treasury has no such 
>>>> problems.
>>>>
>>>> Under the Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008, introduced to deal with 
>>>> Northern Rock, the Treasury can act unilaterally to nationalise 
>>>> deposit-taking banks, and Parliament must provide it with the money. 
>>>> Whatever the cost.
>>>>
>>>> This I hadn't realised. It's not particularly healthy, but seems to have 
>>>> passed with little comment.
>>>>
>>>> "The power of the Treasury to make an order under-
>>>> (a) section 3 (transfer of securities issued by an authorised UK 
>>>> deposit-taker), or
>>>> (b) section 6 (transfer of property, rights and liabilities of an authorised 
>>>> UK deposit-taker),
>>>>
>>>> is exercisable in relation to an authorised UK deposit-taker if (and only 
>>>> if) it appears to the Treasury to be desirable to make the order for either 
>>>> or both of the following purposes.
>>>>
>>>> This is subject to subsection (7).
>>>>
>>>> (2) The purposes are-
>>>> (a) maintaining the stability of the UK financial system in circumstances 
>>>> where the Treasury consider that there would be a serious threat to its 
>>>> stability if the order were not made;
>>>> (b) protecting the public interest in circumstances where financial 
>>>> assistance has been provided by the Treasury to the deposit-taker for the 
>>>> purpose of maintaining the stability of the UK financial system."
>>>>
>>>> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080002_en_1 
>> 
>>> It may be for the "best" - but it is still legaized theft. It is now
>>> almost as if to be a shareholder is to be a criminal. (I don't have
>>> any shares btw). I think it it would be very interesting if the
>>> shareholders took this issue to the EU Court of Human Rights.
>> 
>> the biggest theft is from the taxpayers
>> as usual socialism has undermined the economy led by the clown's
>>     meddling and greed...
>> 
>> 'new' labour are milking the profits/surpluses.....both from companies
>>     and individuals....
>> 
>> where now is any resilience?
>> where is the motive for people to work?
>> 
>> another £50 billion at risk....most of £1000 per person....
>> 
>> someone 'borrowed' that money....someones gave that money
>>      to 'home' 'owners'...the 'home' 'owners' have spent it on gold
>>      taps, the lottery or to immigrate....
>> 
>> those who borrowed the money often won't be able to pay it back
>> or won't pay it back even it they can....
>> 
>> b&b is heavily into buy to let....
>> much of that was speculating on price rises...
>> 
>> what now?
>> take a few months rent and run before the system catches up?
>
>HA's will buy them up since they will be needing millions of cheap homes 
>for the newly unemployed and broke...

god knows......
you're suggesting there'll be still more nationalisation of course...

there must be some superannuated ex commie leader we could fly in
    as the clown's advisor...
although why we'd then need the clown i cannot imagine...

>> it's amazing to see the constant whine that the government should
>>      'do something'...
>> they did..

>> the clown's client state has bred a mass of....clients....
>> instead of citizens...
>
>But the people think they are being taken care of - they are - just not 
>in the way they would like to think!

sigh...yeah....

regards

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that      []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []   trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Nigel Worm"  wrote in message 
news:81584527-e789-4e80-83a0-114130bf2376@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 28, 12:05 pm, "DVH"  wrote:

> This is subject to subsection (7).
>
> (2) The purposes are-
> (a) maintaining the stability of the UK financial system in circumstances
> where the Treasury consider that there would be a serious threat to its
> stability if the order were not made;
> (b) protecting the public interest in circumstances where financial
> assistance has been provided by the Treasury to the deposit-taker for the
> purpose of maintaining the stability of the UK financial system."

> Well there you are then!
>
>
>
> If there is no instability in the bank system today there never
> has been or never will be.
>
> In times of emergency or crisis governments take on all sorts
> of powers.
>
> In the not too distant past land, buildings, industries, ships,
> gold to name but a few that come to mind have been requisitioned
> by governments in the national interest.
>
> That's what governments do. That's what's expected of them.

I'm amused  to see that when it's a question of upholding the law, you 
rotate 180 degrees :-)

Last week we had some badinage about how these banks ought to be left to 
their own devices. But today everything's hunky dory.

I think the powers in the Act are too broad, too vague, and haven't been 
discussed enough. I hope it's OK to think that!

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 10:25:12 -0700 (PDT), Nigel Worm
 wrote:

>On Sep 28, 1:00 pm, "R. Mark Clayton" 
>wrote:
>
>> So for B&B GH has stayed in London and struck the first blow.  Looks like he
>> will have to give it away to foreigners (Banco Santander) and look like an
>> ineffective wimp yet again...
>
>With shares down to 20p it doesn't look as if there was much to give
>away.
>
>The truth is nobody wanted it even at that knock down price.
>
>Of course things could have been left to run their course after which
>the assets could have been stripped out for a song. The rest would
>have been just left behind. Shareholders would have been wiped out
>(and at 20p it would appear that they have just about been anyway) as
>well as would be depositors.
>
>However, doesn't the government have a liability through the FSA
>compensation scheme for what in this case would be a major proportion
>of £20bn worth of these?

2100 bn liability if everyone in the country had 35k in savings.
They're not all at the same bank and a lot would be cancelled out by
having mortgage debts too. 
So how much has NR costs us? B&B? And who-ever else falls out of the
tree in the next few weeks.

>
>Better by far to sell off these and a ready customer should be in the
>wings ready to take over these in these cash strapped times.
>
>That leaves the £40-50 bn worth of mortgages which in the present
>climate are unsaleable.
>
>This is £40-50bn. worth of risk which should not be seen as £40-50bn
>worth of losses.

But that risk gets bigger is house prices are allowed to fall.

How do you suggest lending more money without creating more sub-prime
toxic mortgages? FTB can't afford to get on the "ladder" because the
prices are just too high.
Are interest rates only  1/3 of what they were during the previous
crash, but prices 3 times higher?

You can only prop up the house selling pyramid for so long.
>
>Under the worst scenario, every mortgage holder will default and the
>properties upon which they are secured will be sold off. Most of the
>risk will be recovered.
>
>But of course the the worst scenario is not going to happen is it?
>
>Sometimes the action that you would wish to make is not the action you
>have to take.
>
>
>
-- 
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
http://www.holidayunder100.co.uk

mogga wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 10:25:12 -0700 (PDT), Nigel Worm
>  wrote:
> 
> >On Sep 28, 1:00 pm, "R. Mark Clayton" 
> >wrote:
> >
> >> So for B&B GH has stayed in London and struck the first blow.  Looks like he
> >> will have to give it away to foreigners (Banco Santander) and look like an
> >> ineffective wimp yet again...
> >
> >With shares down to 20p it doesn't look as if there was much to give
> >away.
> >
> >The truth is nobody wanted it even at that knock down price.
> >
> >Of course things could have been left to run their course after which
> >the assets could have been stripped out for a song. The rest would
> >have been just left behind. Shareholders would have been wiped out
> >(and at 20p it would appear that they have just about been anyway) as
> >well as would be depositors.
> >
> >However, doesn't the government have a liability through the FSA
> >compensation scheme for what in this case would be a major proportion
> >of £20bn worth of these?
> 
> 2100 bn liability if everyone in the country had 35k in savings.
> They're not all at the same bank and a lot would be cancelled out by
> having mortgage debts too.
> So how much has NR costs us? B&B? And who-ever else falls out of the
> tree in the next few weeks.
> 
> >
> >Better by far to sell off these and a ready customer should be in the
> >wings ready to take over these in these cash strapped times.
> >
> >That leaves the £40-50 bn worth of mortgages which in the present
> >climate are unsaleable.
> >
> >This is £40-50bn. worth of risk which should not be seen as £40-50bn
> >worth of losses.
> 
> But that risk gets bigger is house prices are allowed to fall.
> 
> How do you suggest lending more money without creating more sub-prime
> toxic mortgages? FTB can't afford to get on the "ladder" because the
> prices are just too high.
> Are interest rates only  1/3 of what they were during the previous
> crash, but prices 3 times higher?
> 
> You can only prop up the house selling pyramid for so long.

Yes, I knew it was coming long time ago. Politicians did nothing about
spiralling house prices because the electorate felt smug about sitting
on increasing fortunes. The problem was brushed under the carpet.

On Sep 28, 11:48 pm, "DVH"  wrote:
> "Nigel Worm"  wrote in message
>
> news:81584527-e789-4e80-83a0-114130bf2376@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 28, 12:05 pm, "DVH"  wrote:
>
>
>
> > This is subject to subsection (7).
>
> > (2) The purposes are-
> > (a) maintaining the stability of the UK financial system in circumstances
> > where the Treasury consider that there would be a serious threat to its
> > stability if the order were not made;
> > (b) protecting the public interest in circumstances where financial
> > assistance has been provided by the Treasury to the deposit-taker for the
> > purpose of maintaining the stability of the UK financial system."
> > Well there you are then!
>
> > If there is no instability in the bank system today there never
> > has been or never will be.
>
> > In times of emergency or crisis governments take on all sorts
> > of powers.
>
> > In the not too distant past land, buildings, industries, ships,
> > gold to name but a few that come to mind have been requisitioned
> > by governments in the national interest.
>
> > That's what governments do. That's what's expected of them.
>
> I'm amused  to see that when it's a question of upholding the law, you
> rotate 180 degrees :-)

Hardly!

> Last week we had some badinage about how these banks ought to be left to
> their own devices. But today everything's hunky dory.

Everything's anything but "hunky dory"

The government had two options:

Option one was to nationalise the business, break it up, sell off the
saleable parts and make arrangements for the rest! That option exposes
the exchecquer to £40-50bn worth of risk not expenditure.

Option two was to allow nature to run its course. B & B would probably
have become insolvent in which case most of the £20. worth of
customer deposits would have become the liability of the exchecquer
under the FSA deposit guarantee scheme.

Disregarding completely the effect that this latter action would have
on the system as a whole, given the choice I would in any case throw
my preference behind the first option but you pays your money and you
takes your pick!

> I think the powers in the Act are too broad, too vague, and haven't been
> discussed enough. I hope it's OK to think that!

It's OK to think what the hell you like ! But ...

Governments take and use powers. That's what government means and
that's what government does and there are plenty of past precedents.
Remember what happened to the privately owned Coal, Rail, Road
Haulage, Iron and Steel, Gas and Electricity industries? During the
war, what about all that privately owned land compulsorily purchased
to build airfields and military bases? All those fishing boats and
other ships requisitioned by the navy? All those private individuals
who had their very lives requisitioned to serve in the armed forces?

By those comparisons this is small meat.

At times like this folk in the main expect governments to act. Well it
acted! Whether it acted appropriately we shall have to wait and see.

"R. Mark Clayton"  wrote in message 
news:mpKdnXHcm-9Y7ELVnZ2dnUVZ8qbinZ2d@bt.com...
> Well having missed the boat last year with Northern Rock by dithering 
> while queues wound round the block in northern towns and a full run 
> developed (the first for 150 years) our ineffective and incompetent 
> government decided to act and look tough: -
>
> first up HBoS, but Lloyds TSB were ahead of them and all GB could do was 
> pusillanimously agree not to interfere with competition regulations etc.
>

Actually it was GB that asked Lloyds to merge with HBOS.

On Sep 29, 9:44 am, Nigel Worm  wrote:
> On Sep 28, 11:48 pm, "DVH"  wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Nigel Worm"  wrote in message
>
> >news:81584527-e789-4e80-83a0-114130bf2376@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com..> > On Sep 28, 12:05 pm, "DVH"  wrote:
>
> > > This is subject to subsection (7).
>
> > > (2) The purposes are-
> > > (a) maintaining the stability of the UK financial system in circumstances
> > > where the Treasury consider that there would be a serious threat to its
> > > stability if the order were not made;
> > > (b) protecting the public interest in circumstances where financial
> > > assistance has been provided by the Treasury to the deposit-taker for the
> > > purpose of maintaining the stability of the UK financial system."
> > > Well there you are then!
>
> > > If there is no instability in the bank system today there never
> > > has been or never will be.
>
> > > In times of emergency or crisis governments take on all sorts
> > > of powers.
>
> > > In the not too distant past land, buildings, industries, ships,
> > > gold to name but a few that come to mind have been requisitioned
> > > by governments in the national interest.
>
> > > That's what governments do. That's what's expected of them.
>
> > I'm amused  to see that when it's a question of upholding the law, you
> > rotate 180 degrees :-)
>
> Hardly!
>
> > Last week we had some badinage about how these banks ought to be left to
> > their own devices. But today everything's hunky dory.
>
> Everything's anything but "hunky dory"
>
> The government had two options:
>
> Option one was to nationalise the business, break it up, sell off the
> saleable parts and make arrangements for the rest! That option exposes
> the exchecquer to £40-50bn worth of risk not expenditure.
>
> Option two was to allow nature to run its course. B & B would probably
> have become insolvent in which case most of the £20. worth of
> customer deposits would have become the liability of the exchecquer
> under the FSA deposit guarantee scheme.
>
> Disregarding completely the effect that this latter action would have
> on the system as a whole, given the choice I would in any case throw
> my preference behind the first option but you pays your money and you
> takes your pick!
>
> > I think the powers in the Act are too broad, too vague, and haven't been
> > discussed enough. I hope it's OK to think that!
>
> It's OK to think what the hell you like ! But ...
>
> Governments take and use powers. That's what government means and
> that's what government does and there are plenty of past precedents.
> Remember what happened to the privately owned Coal, Rail, Road
> Haulage, Iron and Steel, Gas and Electricity industries? During the
> war, what about all that privately owned land compulsorily purchased
> to build airfields and military bases? All those fishing boats and
> other ships requisitioned by the navy? All those private individuals
> who had their very lives requisitioned to serve in the armed forces?
>
> By those comparisons this is small meat.
>
> At times like this folk in the main expect governments to act. Well it
> acted! Whether it acted appropriately we shall have to wait and see.

We don't have to wait and see how much the previous owners got in
their final pay packets.

Any one have a link or some idea what that amounted to?

As for B&B. I am surprised that China hasn't acquired it. How come
Spain have got the money to get all this future business in Britain?

British finance has been the mainstay of its gross national product
has it not? Likewise the US banks are the economy of that country.

So what happened this time, that could not happen to Britain prior to
WW 2 and prior to the present tyranny in the US, is that the banks
can't bounce. It is the end of empire.

There are no jewels in the crown to bail us and them out.

And as regards shoddy business practice, it appears that nothing was
learned about trading on stuff that can just melt away when Nick
Leeson and that other bloke did for their banks.

One man in each case. But we never got to hear of the other men also
doing bad business and any cover-ups and hidden facts in order not to
cause more of a crisis.

Nick Leeson must have had colleagues in the same boat. Nobody walks
away empty handed though, do they: >

http://www.nickleeson.com/?gclid=CJHJjLfUgJYCFRdqQgodrjq8FQ

"M.I.5¾"  wrote in message 
news:48e09872_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>
> "R. Mark Clayton"  wrote in message 
> news:mpKdnXHcm-9Y7ELVnZ2dnUVZ8qbinZ2d@bt.com...
>> Well having missed the boat last year with Northern Rock by dithering 
>> while queues wound round the block in northern towns and a full run 
>> developed (the first for 150 years) our ineffective and incompetent 
>> government decided to act and look tough: -
>>
>> first up HBoS, but Lloyds TSB were ahead of them and all GB could do was 
>> pusillanimously agree not to interfere with competition regulations etc.
>>
>
> Actually it was GB that asked Lloyds to merge with HBOS.
>

Really?, well perhaps he did, but not before LTSB had spent months planning 
this take over, not before HBoS share price more or less collapsed, not 
before the crisis meant that GB would be desperate for a white knight (on a 
black horse!) to get HBoS out of the fire.

Looks rather more like that the master of the situation was Sir Victor Blank 
the chairman of Lloyds TSB: -

He knew where was the right place.
He knew when was the right time.
He knew what GB was going to ask him (probably because the idea had been 
planted in his head).
and he already knew the answer...

You forget that GB is a new Labour politician and well practiced in the art 
of spin.  In this case he made out that it was his idea to do the merger, 
and that he was proactive in reaching a solution.  The reality is that it 
was Lloyds and GB just had to knuckle under, but was allowed to use the 
situation to his advantage...

"R. Mark Clayton"  wrote in message 
news:hq6dnajSut9l8nzVnZ2dnUVZ8vWdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "M.I.5¾"  wrote in message 
> news:48e09872_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>
>> "R. Mark Clayton"  wrote in message 
>> news:mpKdnXHcm-9Y7ELVnZ2dnUVZ8qbinZ2d@bt.com...
>>> Well having missed the boat last year with Northern Rock by dithering 
>>> while queues wound round the block in northern towns and a full run 
>>> developed (the first for 150 years) our ineffective and incompetent 
>>> government decided to act and look tough: -
>>>
>>> first up HBoS, but Lloyds TSB were ahead of them and all GB could do was 
>>> pusillanimously agree not to interfere with competition regulations etc.
>>>
>>
>> Actually it was GB that asked Lloyds to merge with HBOS.
>>
>
> Really?, well perhaps he did, but not before LTSB had spent months 
> planning this take over, not before HBoS share price more or less 
> collapsed, not before the crisis meant that GB would be desperate for a 
> white knight (on a black horse!) to get HBoS out of the fire.
>

It was widely reported at the time because it was said in the presence of 
reporters.  GB said to VB, "It would be helpful if Lloyds were to merge with 
HBOS" (give or take a word or two).

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:15:31 +0100, in the Year of Our Lord, M.I.5¾,
Beloved Prophet of the Lord said:

> "R. Mark Clayton"  wrote in message 
> news:mpKdnXHcm-9Y7ELVnZ2dnUVZ8qbinZ2d@bt.com...
>> Well having missed the boat last year with Northern Rock by dithering 
>> while queues wound round the block in northern towns and a full run 
>> developed (the first for 150 years) our ineffective and incompetent 
>> government decided to act and look tough: -
>>
>> first up HBoS, but Lloyds TSB were ahead of them and all GB could do was 
>> pusillanimously agree not to interfere with competition regulations etc.
>>
> 
> Actually it was GB that asked Lloyds to merge with HBOS.

Maurice will be after you.....!

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:22:11 +0100, Kevin  wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:15:31 +0100, in the Year of Our Lord, M.I.5¾,
> Beloved Prophet of the Lord said:
>
>> "R. Mark Clayton"  wrote in message
>> news:mpKdnXHcm-9Y7ELVnZ2dnUVZ8qbinZ2d@bt.com...
>>> Well having missed the boat last year with Northern Rock by dithering
>>> while queues wound round the block in northern towns and a full run
>>> developed (the first for 150 years) our ineffective and incompetent
>>> government decided to act and look tough: -
>>>
>>> first up HBoS, but Lloyds TSB were ahead of them and all GB could do was
>>> pusillanimously agree not to interfere with competition regulations etc.
>>>
>>
>> Actually it was GB that asked Lloyds to merge with HBOS.
>
> Maurice will be after you.....!

Shuttup troll.

-- 
http://www.petersparrots.com    http://www.insanevideoclips.com    http://www.petersphotos.com

"Dear IRS:  I would like to cancel my subscription.  Please remove my name from your mailing list." -- Joe Cockler