<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why RBS shares fell</title>
	<atom:link href="http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/01/22/why-rbs-shares-fell/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/01/22/why-rbs-shares-fell/</link>
	<description>Incisive and topical campaigns and commentary on today&#039;s issues and tomorrow&#039;s problems</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 13:47:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Carter</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/01/22/why-rbs-shares-fell/#comment-10340</link>
		<dc:creator>Carter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:33:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=2694#comment-10340</guid>
		<description>excuse my ignorace and total irrelevance to the discussion, but are the Govt not going against the usual flow of Bust and Boom. They are doing so by spendig in a recession rather that saving, so we can spend non stop, and once again find ourselves in yet another recession.
I was only informed on this briefly but it seems like the plan is to get into more debt (not on purpose, just the way things go) so that in the future it is less likely to happen again. Is that not correct?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>excuse my ignorace and total irrelevance to the discussion, but are the Govt not going against the usual flow of Bust and Boom. They are doing so by spendig in a recession rather that saving, so we can spend non stop, and once again find ourselves in yet another recession.<br />
I was only informed on this briefly but it seems like the plan is to get into more debt (not on purpose, just the way things go) so that in the future it is less likely to happen again. Is that not correct?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/01/22/why-rbs-shares-fell/#comment-10339</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:35:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=2694#comment-10339</guid>
		<description>Hi John,

Please could you comment on my thoughts as to why the RBS share price and banks are at rock bottom. And why banks were balied out.

1) Around 30-40% of Britiains Economy runs through RBS IT systems and infrastructure every day (ie CHAPS, BACS, Business payments, big money transfers, Peoples wages, business banking etc). If RBS was allowed to fold this would all go with it, causing mayhem. This should never been allowed to happen and vital services such as the above should be run by independent people (just my opinion)

2) RBS owns other banks such as Coutts (Which I believe has very prestigious clients) and Adam &amp; Co. If RBS was allowed to fail then as far as I am aware depositors with these banks would also have lost all deposits above a certian amount. Basically a lot of welathy and &#039;important&#039; people will have lost a lot.

3) RBS employs 150,000+ people. That is a lot of people to be made unemployed all at once.

4) Banks as we know are the real govt&#039;s of countries, whether that be the central banks or normal banks (Federal Reserve, BOE etc). And Govt leaders would have been put under extreme pressue to bail them out.

5) Federal reserve and BOE lend money to Govts at interest, so the latest bailout monies given by the Fed and BOE will in theory make them lots of money in interest in the future.

6) Somehting fishy going on with RBS shares. My guess is that in the future RBS shares will spike at somepoint and the Govt will cash in then selling them to private investors (probably middle eastern/Chinese) who will then have a majority stake in the company. Or perhaps another bank will purchase the shares.

7) Do we think the whole bankingfinance collapse was an accident. We have to remember that there are a lot of intelligent people in this industry. If yes then purely comes down to greed and shortsightedness on a massive scale. If not then why is this happening, is it a master plan from the capitalist elite?

Maybe some of these comments are far fetched, but something to think about.

Reply: No-one was suggesting in Parliament or banking circles letting RBS go under. The row was over the way of keeeping it going - loans or equity, longer term or shorter term, guarantees or purchase of shares etc. The shares have been depressed becuase investors cannot be sure of the extent of the losses.  Taxpayers will only make an overall profit if the liabilities are well managed and the losses stopped.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi John,</p>
<p>Please could you comment on my thoughts as to why the RBS share price and banks are at rock bottom. And why banks were balied out.</p>
<p>1) Around 30-40% of Britiains Economy runs through RBS IT systems and infrastructure every day (ie CHAPS, BACS, Business payments, big money transfers, Peoples wages, business banking etc). If RBS was allowed to fold this would all go with it, causing mayhem. This should never been allowed to happen and vital services such as the above should be run by independent people (just my opinion)</p>
<p>2) RBS owns other banks such as Coutts (Which I believe has very prestigious clients) and Adam &amp; Co. If RBS was allowed to fail then as far as I am aware depositors with these banks would also have lost all deposits above a certian amount. Basically a lot of welathy and &#8216;important&#8217; people will have lost a lot.</p>
<p>3) RBS employs 150,000+ people. That is a lot of people to be made unemployed all at once.</p>
<p>4) Banks as we know are the real govt&#8217;s of countries, whether that be the central banks or normal banks (Federal Reserve, BOE etc). And Govt leaders would have been put under extreme pressue to bail them out.</p>
<p>5) Federal reserve and BOE lend money to Govts at interest, so the latest bailout monies given by the Fed and BOE will in theory make them lots of money in interest in the future.</p>
<p>6) Somehting fishy going on with RBS shares. My guess is that in the future RBS shares will spike at somepoint and the Govt will cash in then selling them to private investors (probably middle eastern/Chinese) who will then have a majority stake in the company. Or perhaps another bank will purchase the shares.</p>
<p>7) Do we think the whole bankingfinance collapse was an accident. We have to remember that there are a lot of intelligent people in this industry. If yes then purely comes down to greed and shortsightedness on a massive scale. If not then why is this happening, is it a master plan from the capitalist elite?</p>
<p>Maybe some of these comments are far fetched, but something to think about.</p>
<p>Reply: No-one was suggesting in Parliament or banking circles letting RBS go under. The row was over the way of keeeping it going &#8211; loans or equity, longer term or shorter term, guarantees or purchase of shares etc. The shares have been depressed becuase investors cannot be sure of the extent of the losses.  Taxpayers will only make an overall profit if the liabilities are well managed and the losses stopped.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vijay Venugopalan</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/01/22/why-rbs-shares-fell/#comment-10338</link>
		<dc:creator>Vijay Venugopalan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:47:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=2694#comment-10338</guid>
		<description>Well, Govt bought it high giving RBS the benefit of doubt and where are we now? RBS is in the mid to high forties and the government has made a profit as well.. I am happy that I bought as well...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, Govt bought it high giving RBS the benefit of doubt and where are we now? RBS is in the mid to high forties and the government has made a profit as well.. I am happy that I bought as well&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jahual</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/01/22/why-rbs-shares-fell/#comment-10337</link>
		<dc:creator>jahual</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jan 2009 00:51:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=2694#comment-10337</guid>
		<description>I bought £1000 worth of RBS shares at around 11.90.

What do you think I should do, hold or sell, i&#039;m in two minds. I would like to know what you would do personally if it were your money. Thanks.

REPLY: I AM NOT ALLOWED TO GIVE INVESTMENT ADVICE ON THIS SITE. You should seek professional advice based on your own circumstances, and current prices and prospects.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I bought £1000 worth of RBS shares at around 11.90.</p>
<p>What do you think I should do, hold or sell, i&#8217;m in two minds. I would like to know what you would do personally if it were your money. Thanks.</p>
<p>REPLY: I AM NOT ALLOWED TO GIVE INVESTMENT ADVICE ON THIS SITE. You should seek professional advice based on your own circumstances, and current prices and prospects.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: joe</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/01/22/why-rbs-shares-fell/#comment-10336</link>
		<dc:creator>joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 01:08:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=2694#comment-10336</guid>
		<description>While people may hark on about assests being overvalued they should possibly consider that the recent declared loses are possibly just as overvalued. Mr Brown is getting exactly what he wants with this, if say in 18 months RBS loses became RBS gains then our friend in number 10 would sit pretty in the eyes of many. History shows that house prices in the states should begin to rise again at the end of 2009, after funds asociated with these already being declared lost...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While people may hark on about assests being overvalued they should possibly consider that the recent declared loses are possibly just as overvalued. Mr Brown is getting exactly what he wants with this, if say in 18 months RBS loses became RBS gains then our friend in number 10 would sit pretty in the eyes of many. History shows that house prices in the states should begin to rise again at the end of 2009, after funds asociated with these already being declared lost&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: THE ESSEX BOYS</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/01/22/why-rbs-shares-fell/#comment-10335</link>
		<dc:creator>THE ESSEX BOYS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:51:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=2694#comment-10335</guid>
		<description>Thanks Ed - but you know what we mean!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Ed &#8211; but you know what we mean!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Waramess</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/01/22/why-rbs-shares-fell/#comment-10334</link>
		<dc:creator>Waramess</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:14:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=2694#comment-10334</guid>
		<description>Dereck Draper is a xxx then. We can all see that the liabilities are obligations to pay. Land assets only have a value if someone is willing to buy. If the government can demonstrate their capacity to meet all future obligations by selling land they would have an argument, but they have not and can not.

We talk not of accounting niceties but of real obligations to pay.

As for the indebtedness incurred to recapitalise banks  (i) Draper the xxx must first take into account that the assets must first be used to repay the lenders (ii)the bank capital ratios are so low they are not likely to be of much help in a downturn so maybe the government might PRUDENTLY consider all sums invested as lost.

Great news for us taxpayers</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dereck Draper is a xxx then. We can all see that the liabilities are obligations to pay. Land assets only have a value if someone is willing to buy. If the government can demonstrate their capacity to meet all future obligations by selling land they would have an argument, but they have not and can not.</p>
<p>We talk not of accounting niceties but of real obligations to pay.</p>
<p>As for the indebtedness incurred to recapitalise banks  (i) Draper the xxx must first take into account that the assets must first be used to repay the lenders (ii)the bank capital ratios are so low they are not likely to be of much help in a downturn so maybe the government might PRUDENTLY consider all sums invested as lost.</p>
<p>Great news for us taxpayers</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Waramess</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/01/22/why-rbs-shares-fell/#comment-10333</link>
		<dc:creator>Waramess</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:52:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=2694#comment-10333</guid>
		<description>Certainly what Lehman proved was letting a big bank go bust would not lead to the catastrophic  failure of the system as predicted.

The greatest fear of the politicians and their economic advisers is fear itself (to borrow a phrase): The fear that others will follow.

Another hidden agenda and, another supposition that has been debunked by the failure of Lehman.

This is not so much a question of whether we can let it go bust but now, whether we as taxpayers are willing to see our hard earned income squandered on such false arguments.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Certainly what Lehman proved was letting a big bank go bust would not lead to the catastrophic  failure of the system as predicted.</p>
<p>The greatest fear of the politicians and their economic advisers is fear itself (to borrow a phrase): The fear that others will follow.</p>
<p>Another hidden agenda and, another supposition that has been debunked by the failure of Lehman.</p>
<p>This is not so much a question of whether we can let it go bust but now, whether we as taxpayers are willing to see our hard earned income squandered on such false arguments.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam-</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/01/22/why-rbs-shares-fell/#comment-10332</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam-</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:21:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=2694#comment-10332</guid>
		<description>I seem to remember Lehman Brothers collapsing, panic ensued, share prices plunged and when the dust had settled, everyone wondered what they actually did, other than siphon money off the world&#039;s economy.

I can&#039;t see how a practically insolvent bank can lend to anyone? Isn&#039;t there a real danger that any Government bailout will just end up paying out to existing depositors who will stuff it under the mattress? After all, who wants to keep money in an insolvent bank?

I can&#039;t see why the capital can&#039;t instead be injected into a newly established bank or two with fresh balance sheets. A bank with no outstanding liabilities would attract capital from investors desperate to find a bank with... well... no outstanding liabilities, and the capital will be far more likely to reach the businesses and individuals that need it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I seem to remember Lehman Brothers collapsing, panic ensued, share prices plunged and when the dust had settled, everyone wondered what they actually did, other than siphon money off the world&#8217;s economy.</p>
<p>I can&#8217;t see how a practically insolvent bank can lend to anyone? Isn&#8217;t there a real danger that any Government bailout will just end up paying out to existing depositors who will stuff it under the mattress? After all, who wants to keep money in an insolvent bank?</p>
<p>I can&#8217;t see why the capital can&#8217;t instead be injected into a newly established bank or two with fresh balance sheets. A bank with no outstanding liabilities would attract capital from investors desperate to find a bank with&#8230; well&#8230; no outstanding liabilities, and the capital will be far more likely to reach the businesses and individuals that need it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: THE ESSEX BOYS</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/01/22/why-rbs-shares-fell/#comment-10331</link>
		<dc:creator>THE ESSEX BOYS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:11:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=2694#comment-10331</guid>
		<description>Mike - see our comments above about the ridiculous Derek Draper and his truly awful website!

It really is a worry when the crazies get their hands on or near the levers of power but I think we&#039;re all on the same wavelength here and can (deal with them-ed)!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike &#8211; see our comments above about the ridiculous Derek Draper and his truly awful website!</p>
<p>It really is a worry when the crazies get their hands on or near the levers of power but I think we&#8217;re all on the same wavelength here and can (deal with them-ed)!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

