An inquiry into the implosion of the Co-operative Bank and revelations about its former chairman is being drawn up George Osborne and bank regulators, it has emerged.
Leave Cam alone on drugs. Leave the Rev alone. Go on his record. Drugs and sex have no place in politics - irrelevant, common, and no worse than getting pissed. Let any PBer or hack who has never taken a drug cast the first stoned.
I think there's a bit of a difference between drinking a couple of glasses of pinot grigio and being a crack addict...
Backed Wales to win the 2014 Six Nations Triple Crown at 5.5 with Ladbrokes.
The odds looks a bit mad to me. The Triple Crown is to win all home nations matches (so Wales would need to beat Scotland, Ireland and England). Wales are favourites to win the whole tournament but fourth favourite (including No Winner at 2.63) to win the Triple Crown. I don't get that.
Wales and England should easily beat Scotland and almost as easily do away with Ireland. Wales are the better team right now, and England Vs Wales is one of the final matches, I think.
England are 3.5 to win the tournament but only 3.25 to win the Triple Crown. That seems like a mismatch when Wales are 2.88 and 5.5 respectively. Home advantage *may* help England, but if I've read the rest of it right then the bet amounts to 5.5 on Wales beating England.
I actually went to check the odds on Scotland finishing last, but the Wooden Spoon market isn't up yet.
Backed Wales to win the 2014 Six Nations Triple Crown at 5.5 with Ladbrokes.
The odds looks a bit mad to me. The Triple Crown is to win all home nations matches (so Wales would need to beat Scotland, Ireland and England). Wales are favourites to win the whole tournament but fourth favourite (including No Winner at 2.63) to win the Triple Crown. I don't get that.
Wales and England should easily beat Scotland and almost as easily do away with Ireland. Wales are the better team right now, and England Vs Wales is one of the final matches, I think.
England are 3.5 to win the tournament but only 3.25 to win the Triple Crown. That seems like a mismatch when Wales are 2.88 and 5.5 respectively. Home advantage *may* help England, but if I've read the rest of it right then the bet amounts to 5.5 on Wales beating England.
I actually went to check the odds on Scotland finishing last, but the Wooden Spoon market isn't up yet.
Interesting - those odds suggest that either something is miss-priced, or that England are expected to lose to one of France/Italy whilst Wales are expected to win. Clearly I don't expect that to be Italy - so are France that much more likely to beat Wales than England?
Plenty of commentators discovering 20-20 hindsight. Who had looked at the qualification of The Co-Op's board at the time of the merger with Britannia BS, or when Rev Flowers reached the top.
"To underline the theory, he points to the poll of key seats, published by Lord Ashcroft, which gave Labour a 15 point lead. “We reran it in the seats we hold,” he said, “but included the name of the sitting MP. We were ahead by 2 per cent.”
Interesting, not least from a betting perspective.
Mr. Lennon, just checked the fixtures. Wales have France at home, England play the French in Paris.
The reverse is true of Ireland, but I expect both Wales and England to beat them fairly easily. I could be wrong, but the odds just look wrong to me.
That would make some degree of sense at least then - although I don't follow Rugby closely enough to know how much difference home advantage makes? Clearly some, but enough to account for those odds differentials - probably not?
A Hodges anecdote - should go down well with the Kinnochioans
"He’d been particularly heartened by their most recent focus group, in which not a single member of the panel seemed aware of the Labour leader’s signature policy: “And then when we explained it to them, they all said the same thing. 'We don’t believe he’ll do it'”."
Mr. Lennon, I'm a lazy rugby follower. I'll watch the Six Nations and World Cups but not much else. If memory serves the Welsh and Irish are pretty good winning against one another away from home. The French actually have home disadvantage if they don't start well (the Parisian crowd enjoy booing their own side if they're not having a good game). Italy seem to have a fairly significant home advantage (I think they've beaten every team in the tournament at home at least once, with the exception of England).
Leave Cam alone on drugs. Leave the Rev alone. Go on his record. Drugs and sex have no place in politics - irrelevant, common, and no worse than getting pissed. Let any PBer or hack who has never taken a drug cast the first stoned.
There are several parts to this:
1) The drugs he was taking are illegal.
2) There are many jobs that cannot be performed well if you are suffering the effect of legal and/or illegal drugs. Whilst there is no evidence that he was in any way under the influence whilst working for the bank, he is open to such accusations. Certainly, if he had spent a little more time studying the figures instead of allegedly taking drugs, he may have put in a better performance in front of the committee.
3) The drugs are just part of the scandal: it is the entire scenario that has enveloped Flowers, including his less-than-stellar history.
4) His lifestyle (drugs, rent boys etc) leaves him open to coercion and/or blackmail, which is not a good position for a bank chairman.
The big question is the Italy v Scotland match, will there be an upset and the Scots beat Italy in Rome, or will they lose again like they did in 2012?
A Labour stalwart on Twitter yesterday was moaning about how pointless reading tweets was as it was all so predictable.
McNulty didn't read the script today - must have been amazed when Cameron threw his running commentary on PMQs back at Miliband, unless he wanted to stick the boot in...
A Hodges anecdote - should go down well with the Kinnochioans
"He’d been particularly heartened by their most recent focus group, in which not a single member of the panel seemed aware of the Labour leader’s signature policy: “And then when we explained it to them, they all said the same thing. 'We don’t believe he’ll do it'”."
Hmm, that is a curious anecdote. My sense was that the energy price freeze had gone down quite well with the general public. I know it's only a focus group but still, it's interesting to see both the level of ignorance about the policy and the doubts over whether Miliband would actually go ahead with it.
And @JosiasJessop: good points on Paul Flowers' foolishness. I'd like to ignore his 'private' habits and lifestyle but, with the responsibilities and profile he had in his position, there isn't much that is truly private, is there? Questions about his fitness for work and any suggestions of blackmail potential are a big deal.
A rather facile comparison, but after reading this piece I now upgrade the number of seats that UKIP will win in the 2015 GE from 23 to 25. Now watch the PB Lab/Lib/Cons froth.
A rather facile comparison, but after reading this piece I now upgrade the number of seats that UKIP will win in the 2015 GE from 23 to 25. Now watch the PB Lab/Lib/Cons froth.
Sounds like a good bet - what odds can be obtained from a bookmaker for this "bet" ?
A rather facile comparison, but after reading this piece I now upgrade the number of seats that UKIP will win in the 2015 GE from 23 to 25. Now watch the PB Lab/Lib/Cons froth.
A rather facile comparison, but after reading this piece I now upgrade the number of seats that UKIP will win in the 2015 GE from 23 to 25. Now watch the PB Lab/Lib/Cons froth.
No, I think they'll form an orderly queue to offer you bets......
Bad few days for Labour. Shame though that we live in an unworldly world. We should all have more fun, live a little more, condemn a little less. Join the Caravan of Love.
Missed PMQs but seeing tim posted tweets from Michael White (!!) and a Lab MP to show how it went, I'm expecting Ed is doing as well as our own tax expert is here.
Did you take my £500 bet offer? Evens that someone earning £35k does or does not pay 40% tax?
I think Lord Myners might have a point on the Co-op:
“There must be some risk that the hedge funds who control the future of the Co-op Bank may say in the light of these developments that the Co-op Bank is in a much worse state than we thought it was. That the brand has been very fundamentally and seriously damaged, we either don’t want to go ahead with the deal, which I don’t think they’ll conclude, but they may conclude they want to rewrite the terms of the deal again,” said Lord Myners, a member of the former Labour government.
I think Lord Myners might have a point on the Co-op:
“There must be some risk that the hedge funds who control the future of the Co-op Bank may say in the light of these developments that the Co-op Bank is in a much worse state than we thought it was. That the brand has been very fundamentally and seriously damaged, we either don’t want to go ahead with the deal, which I don’t think they’ll conclude, but they may conclude they want to rewrite the terms of the deal again,” said Lord Myners, a member of the former Labour government.
Scandal hit Co-operative Bank could lose the right to call itself the 'Co-op' as a result of the revelations involving former chairman Paul Flowers, Business Secretary Vince Cable told the BBC today.
I think Lord Myners might have a point on the Co-op:
“There must be some risk that the hedge funds who control the future of the Co-op Bank may say in the light of these developments that the Co-op Bank is in a much worse state than we thought it was. That the brand has been very fundamentally and seriously damaged, we either don’t want to go ahead with the deal, which I don’t think they’ll conclude, but they may conclude they want to rewrite the terms of the deal again,” said Lord Myners, a member of the former Labour government.
I wonder how long Ms Lidbetter will last in post? If I was an investor, I'd be demanding an outsider chaired the board, not an institutionalised insider.
I wonder how long Ms Lidbetter will last in post? If I was an investor, I'd be demanding an outsider chaired the board, not an institutionalised insider.
If you were a member, you mean. She has taken over as Chair of the Group.
When I took over my pub in Salford, the first people I barred were Cameron and Osborne. That ban still stands.
I really dislike musicians who are like this. It makes them seem very small minded. It's like when Morrissey got all upset about Cameron liking his stuff.
Missed PMQs but seeing tim posted tweets from Michael White (!!) and a Lab MP to show how it went, I'm expecting Ed is doing as well as our own tax expert is here.
Did you take my £500 bet offer? Evens that someone earning £35k does or does not pay 40% tax?
I wonder how long Ms Lidbetter will last in post? If I was an investor, I'd be demanding an outsider chaired the board, not an institutionalised insider.
If you were a member, you mean. She has taken over as Chair of the Group.
Investor in the bank ie the hedge funds shoring it up.
Leave Cam alone on drugs. Leave the Rev alone. Go on his record. Drugs and sex have no place in politics - irrelevant, common, and no worse than getting pissed. Let any PBer or hack who has never taken a drug cast the first stoned.
There are several parts to this:
1) The drugs he was taking are illegal.
1) So is speeding, and it kills far more people than drug taking
I wonder how long Ms Lidbetter will last in post? If I was an investor, I'd be demanding an outsider chaired the board, not an institutionalised insider.
If you were a member, you mean. She has taken over as Chair of the Group.
Investor in the bank ie the hedge funds shoring it up.
She's not on the board of the bank so why would they be concerned about her?
I wonder how long Ms Lidbetter will last in post? If I was an investor, I'd be demanding an outsider chaired the board, not an institutionalised insider.
If you were a member, you mean. She has taken over as Chair of the Group.
Investor in the bank ie the hedge funds shoring it up.
I should imagine the hedge funds will be wanting a higher % now for parting with their capital.
Leave Cam alone on drugs. Leave the Rev alone. Go on his record. Drugs and sex have no place in politics - irrelevant, common, and no worse than getting pissed. Let any PBer or hack who has never taken a drug cast the first stoned.
There are several parts to this:
1) The drugs he was taking are illegal.
1) So is speeding, and it kills far more people than drug taking
And if he'd been caught speeding multiple times the end would be the same.
A rather facile comparison, but after reading this piece I now upgrade the number of seats that UKIP will win in the 2015 GE from 23 to 25. Now watch the PB Lab/Lib/Cons froth.
Leave Cam alone on drugs. Leave the Rev alone. Go on his record. Drugs and sex have no place in politics - irrelevant, common, and no worse than getting pissed. Let any PBer or hack who has never taken a drug cast the first stoned.
There are several parts to this:
1) The drugs he was taking are illegal.
1) So is speeding, and it kills far more people than drug taking
And if he'd been caught speeding multiple times the end would be the same.
Only if he'd gotten his wife to take some of the points for him.
A rather facile comparison, but after reading this piece I now upgrade the number of seats that UKIP will win in the 2015 GE from 23 to 25. Now watch the PB Lab/Lib/Cons froth.
What odds do you want and how much ?
Please, get to the back of the queue of people looking for odds or spreads on UKIP seats from MikeK!
To all at Dirty Dicks tonight, have a good time, I wish I were there.
Especially as, I wanted to debut my new crocodile leather shoes to you all.
They make my last pair of footwear look as plain and boring as a Methodist Minister
Why can't you come to DD's. I was looking forward to meeting you, and drinking together a toast to SeanT, with one of his freebies.
I have a mediation hearing to attend today, in Leeds, which I have to be available for aIl day alas, I then have a CMC in Manchester to attend at 9am tomorrow.
This PB Meet just happened to fall on the one week night in November I couldn't attend.
Good afternoon all. I watched PMQs today for the first time in ages. I had to agree with the tweet Tony McNulty sent out. Was the fate of a childrens' pre school playgroup in Chipping Norton, one of the wealthiest areas of the UK really the top priority for the Leader of the Opposition?
Incidentally Coop Bank and the Cooperative Movement looks like it will be far more difficult for the Labour leadership than Falkirk.
Leave Cam alone on drugs. Leave the Rev alone. Go on his record. Drugs and sex have no place in politics - irrelevant, common, and no worse than getting pissed. Let any PBer or hack who has never taken a drug cast the first stoned.
There are several parts to this:
1) The drugs he was taking are illegal.
1) So is speeding, and it kills far more people than drug taking
The figures around speeding are always controversial, but it looks as though you are wrong (besides it being an irrelevant point):
"Around 400 people a year are killed in crashes in which someone exceeds the speed limit or drives too fast for the conditions."
"The number of male drug misuse deaths (involving illegal drugs) decreased by 9% from 1,192 in 2011 to 1,086 in 2012; female deaths decreased by 1% from 413 in 2011 to 410 in 2012."
"Every one of Miliband’s six questions was what is known in higher political analysis as cut off at the knees. We have finally found a full and independent public inquiry that he doesn’t support, said Cameron. When Miliband tried to talk about the closure of children’s centres - note that Labour doesn’t call them Sure Start centres any more: that never really caught on - Cameron accused him of spending the same money, from a hypothetical higher bank levy, 10 times over. “That isn’t a policy, it’s a night out with Reverend Flowers.” Not funny. Not fair. Totally effective."
When I took over my pub in Salford, the first people I barred were Cameron and Osborne. That ban still stands.
I really dislike musicians who are like this. It makes them seem very small minded. It's like when Morrissey got all upset about Cameron liking his stuff.
Very childish.
To be fair, I'd have been disappointed by Cameron liking Morrissey's output if I'd noticed the comment; dreary, pretentious nonsense.
I wonder how long Ms Lidbetter will last in post? If I was an investor, I'd be demanding an outsider chaired the board, not an institutionalised insider.
If you were a member, you mean. She has taken over as Chair of the Group.
Maybe, maybe not. The potential investors in the bank may be in such a strong position that they can demand changes to the group board. As planned, the Co-Op Group would still own 30% of the bank. The quality and structure of governance there is therefore quite a consideration for those who'd own the other 70%. If push came to shove - and international financial investors aren't known for pulling their punches - what would the Co-Op do if the funds said they'd walk away unless there was change on its Group board?
"The number of male drug misuse deaths (involving illegal drugs) decreased by 9% from 1,192 in 2011 to 1,086 in 2012; female deaths decreased by 1% from 413 in 2011 to 410 in 2012."
I wonder how long Ms Lidbetter will last in post? If I was an investor, I'd be demanding an outsider chaired the board, not an institutionalised insider.
If you were a member, you mean. She has taken over as Chair of the Group.
Maybe, maybe not. The potential investors in the bank may be in such a strong position that they can demand changes to the group board. As planned, the Co-Op Group would still own 30% of the bank. The quality and structure of governance there is therefore quite a consideration for those who'd own the other 70%. If push came to shove - and international financial investors aren't known for pulling their punches - what would the Co-Op do if the funds said they'd walk away unless there was change on its Group board?
The 30% ownership level was agreed last week - could be sub that by the time the deal is signed.
"The number of male drug misuse deaths (involving illegal drugs) decreased by 9% from 1,192 in 2011 to 1,086 in 2012; female deaths decreased by 1% from 413 in 2011 to 410 in 2012."
So the number of deaths from the misuse of illegal drugs is much higher than deaths from speeding, from those figures at least.
A few people have murdered others while high on drugs. I wonder if the poor souls are included here.
Also, how many of the speeders were high at the time?
I don't think drug-related murders are included in those figures.
We are veering very off-topic, but I've wavered over drug legalisation all my adult life. Sometimes I'm cautiously in favour of legalisation, other times I am not. And before anyone says, it doesn't depend on whether I'm on them... ;-)
I have now settled on a position: I am not in favour of legalisation of any recreational drug, until such time as a usable roadside test is available for that drug.
I concede the point, although once you take into account dangerous/drunk driving the numbers are virtually the same. And 20,000 are seriously injured on the roads, many presumably from illegal driving. Rightwingers who bang on about drug use are often the same people who think doing 40 in town is acceptable (accept you are not one of them)
what would the Co-Op do if the funds said they'd walk away unless there was change on its Group board?
Laugh?
The bondholders effectively own the bank. It is the Coop Group that is stumping up the most hard cash to pump into the bank in return for an equity stake.
When I took over my pub in Salford, the first people I barred were Cameron and Osborne. That ban still stands.
I really dislike musicians who are like this. It makes them seem very small minded. It's like when Morrissey got all upset about Cameron liking his stuff.
Very childish.
To be fair, I'd have been disappointed by Cameron liking Morrissey's output if I'd noticed the comment; dreary, pretentious nonsense.
what would the Co-Op do if the funds said they'd walk away unless there was change on its Group board?
Laugh?
The bondholders effectively own the bank. It is the Coop Group that is stumping up the most hard cash to pump into the bank in return for an equity stake.
Laugh ? When they owe a shed load to hostile funds.
Maybe if they had Mr Flowers lifestyle they might...
Leave Cam alone on drugs. Leave the Rev alone. Go on his record. Drugs and sex have no place in politics - irrelevant, common, and no worse than getting pissed. Let any PBer or hack who has never taken a drug cast the first stoned.
There are several parts to this:
1) The drugs he was taking are illegal.
1) So is speeding, and it kills far more people than drug taking
The figures around speeding are always controversial, but it looks as though you are wrong (besides it being an irrelevant point):
"Around 400 people a year are killed in crashes in which someone exceeds the speed limit or drives too fast for the conditions."
"The number of male drug misuse deaths (involving illegal drugs) decreased by 9% from 1,192 in 2011 to 1,086 in 2012; female deaths decreased by 1% from 413 in 2011 to 410 in 2012."
So the number of deaths from the misuse of illegal drugs is much higher than deaths from speeding, from those figures at least.
To be fair the person killed by a drug user misusing drugs is normally the drug user themselves. The person or people killed by a speeder often extends to passengers, other drivers, other cars passengers, cyclists, pedestrians and more.
I have more sympathy than an innocent by-stander killed by reckless driving than for a druggie overdosing. So IMHO speeders are more dangerous than druggies.
what would the Co-Op do if the funds said they'd walk away unless there was change on its Group board?
Laugh?
The bondholders effectively own the bank. It is the Coop Group that is stumping up the most hard cash to pump into the bank in return for an equity stake.
Laugh ? When they owe a shed load to hostile funds.
Maybe if they had Mr Flowers lifestyle they might...
Let's hope Peston doesn't kick off another bank run.
what would the Co-Op do if the funds said they'd walk away unless there was change on its Group board?
Laugh?
The bondholders effectively own the bank. It is the Coop Group that is stumping up the most hard cash to pump into the bank in return for an equity stake.
Laugh ? When they owe a shed load to hostile funds.
Maybe if they had Mr Flowers lifestyle they might...
Let's hope Peston doesn't kick off another bank run.
As Peston says
"The alternative, you will remember, is takeover by the Bank of England, in a process called resolution, which would protect depositors savings, keep the bank's essential functions running smoothly and heap losses on the bond holders."
The Co op group's 30% would be worth - well probably not much...
what would the Co-Op do if the funds said they'd walk away unless there was change on its Group board?
Laugh?
The bondholders effectively own the bank. It is the Coop Group that is stumping up the most hard cash to pump into the bank in return for an equity stake.
Laugh ? When they owe a shed load to hostile funds.
Maybe if they had Mr Flowers lifestyle they might...
Let's hope Peston doesn't kick off another bank run.
Peston's latest thoughts:
So if you are a hedge fund that has agreed to invest £125m in the bank, you may feel a little bit queasy - because the shares you would be buying may not be worth as much as you thought they were worth, before the prime minister announced there would be a formal investigation.
The hedge funds may therefore be thinking that they would like to renegotiate the terms of that £125m investment.
Now my sources tell me that the hedge funds can't do that. I am told the hedge funds have given irrevocable undertakings to do the deal, and that what David Cameron said in the House of Commons would not trigger a material adverse change clause.
Laugh ? When they owe a shed load to hostile funds.
Maybe if they had Mr Flowers lifestyle they might...
How much do they owe to these funds? The funds are the bank's bondholders. The bank's equity appears to have been wiped out. The equity owners (the Group) dont owe anyone anything else once their equity has been wiped out. The Group appears to be on the verge of pumping hundreds of millions in to the Bank to regain an equity stake. In this case isnt it the funds who are looking for the Group's money rather than the other way around like you suggest?
The Co op group's 30% would be worth - well probably not much...
But Neil thinks they will laugh...
The Coop's 30% is costing them £400m+ of new money. They are pumping more money into this than the hedge funds. Yet you think the hedge funds have them by the short and curlies.
what would the Co-Op do if the funds said they'd walk away unless there was change on its Group board?
Laugh?
The bondholders effectively own the bank. It is the Coop Group that is stumping up the most hard cash to pump into the bank in return for an equity stake.
Laugh ? When they owe a shed load to hostile funds.
Maybe if they had Mr Flowers lifestyle they might...
Let's hope Peston doesn't kick off another bank run.
Peston's latest thoughts:
So if you are a hedge fund that has agreed to invest £125m in the bank, you may feel a little bit queasy - because the shares you would be buying may not be worth as much as you thought they were worth, before the prime minister announced there would be a formal investigation.
The hedge funds may therefore be thinking that they would like to renegotiate the terms of that £125m investment.
Now my sources tell me that the hedge funds can't do that. I am told the hedge funds have given irrevocable undertakings to do the deal, and that what David Cameron said in the House of Commons would not trigger a material adverse change clause.
The Co op group's 30% would be worth - well probably not much...
But Neil thinks they will laugh...
The Coop's 30% is costing them £400m+ of new money. They are pumping more money into this than the hedge funds. Yet you think the hedge funds have them by the short and curlies.
Peston (see down thread) says the hedge funds have given 'irrevocable undertakings'......but we'll see.....
The hedge funds may therefore be thinking that they would like to renegotiate the terms of that £125m investment.
Now my sources tell me that the hedge funds can't do that. I am told the hedge funds have given irrevocable undertakings to do the deal, and that what David Cameron said in the House of Commons would not trigger a material adverse change clause.
Hmm, I wouldn't be too confident about the 'material adverse change' clause not being triggered. After all, it's not just the likelhood of an inquiry, but trouble on multiple fronts, and especially Uncle Vince's musings:
Business Secretary Vince Cable told the BBC he was considering whether the bank was suitable to bear the name in the wake of revelations about Flowers’ alleged drug use and adult material on his computer. ... Use of the word Co-operative in a company name requires approval from the Secretary of State on change of ownership, which will happen to the Co-op Bank after its recapitalisation. It will leave the Co-op Group with only a rump 30% stake, and the rest held largely by hedge funds.
The Co op group's 30% would be worth - well probably not much...
But Neil thinks they will laugh...
The Coop's 30% is costing them £400m+ of new money. They are pumping more money into this than the hedge funds. Yet you think the hedge funds have them by the short and curlies.
If the Co op group have the whip hand why do they not cut their losses, close the bank, shaft the bondholders and concentrate on funerals and shopping ?
The Co op group's 30% would be worth - well probably not much...
But Neil thinks they will laugh...
The Coop's 30% is costing them £400m+ of new money. They are pumping more money into this than the hedge funds. Yet you think the hedge funds have them by the short and curlies.
If the Co op group have the whip hand why do they not cut their losses, close the bank, shaft the bondholders and concentrate on funerals and shopping ?
That would seem to be the sensible option, rather than chucking another £400M into the hole.
If the Co op group have the whip hand why do they not cut their losses, close the bank, shaft the bondholders and concentrate on funerals and shopping ?
(1) Because there is value in this business, if they upgrade IT and rationalise the network it's a good investment and (2) Much of the investment (£100m+ I believe) is going to private bondholders who would be wiped out otherwise, the Group is an ethical business.
Your take on what is happening seems to be a million miles from any reasonable view of corporate finance.
When I took over my pub in Salford, the first people I barred were Cameron and Osborne. That ban still stands.
I really dislike musicians who are like this. It makes them seem very small minded. It's like when Morrissey got all upset about Cameron liking his stuff.
Very childish.
To be fair, I'd have been disappointed by Cameron liking Morrissey's output if I'd noticed the comment; dreary, pretentious nonsense.
That would be fair enough if the songs are about a universal subject such as love, but when Cameron said he loved "The Eton Rifles" by The Jam, considering the song is written from the perspective of working class kids who had been fighting the posh boys from Eton, I think Paul Weller was entitled to raise an eyebrow.
The Co op group's 30% would be worth - well probably not much...
But Neil thinks they will laugh...
The Coop's 30% is costing them £400m+ of new money. They are pumping more money into this than the hedge funds. Yet you think the hedge funds have them by the short and curlies.
If the Co op group have the whip hand why do they not cut their losses, close the bank, shaft the bondholders and concentrate on funerals and shopping ?
That would seem to be the sensible option, rather than chucking another £400M into the hole.
I think the Co op management ( despite Neil's advice) have realised that owning a little of a lot is better than a lot of a little.
The Co op group's 30% would be worth - well probably not much...
But Neil thinks they will laugh...
The Coop's 30% is costing them £400m+ of new money. They are pumping more money into this than the hedge funds. Yet you think the hedge funds have them by the short and curlies.
If the Co op group have the whip hand why do they not cut their losses, close the bank, shaft the bondholders and concentrate on funerals and shopping ?
That would seem to be the sensible option, rather than chucking another £400M into the hole.
I think the Co op management ( despite Neil's advice) have realised that owning a little of a lot is better than a lot of a little.
Go on then - tell us all roughly how much you think the Coop Group owes the hedge funds?
The hedge funds may therefore be thinking that they would like to renegotiate the terms of that £125m investment.
Now my sources tell me that the hedge funds can't do that. I am told the hedge funds have given irrevocable undertakings to do the deal, and that what David Cameron said in the House of Commons would not trigger a material adverse change clause.
Hmm, I wouldn't be too confident about the 'material adverse change' clause not being triggered. After all, it's not just the likelhood of an inquiry, but trouble on multiple fronts, and especially Uncle Vince's musings
Yes Uncle Vince's musing seemed potentially much more damaging than any inquiry; 'bad things happen, they're all gone, lessons have been learned' vs 'you've lost the brand'......
The Co op group's 30% would be worth - well probably not much...
But Neil thinks they will laugh...
The Coop's 30% is costing them £400m+ of new money. They are pumping more money into this than the hedge funds. Yet you think the hedge funds have them by the short and curlies.
If the Co op group have the whip hand why do they not cut their losses, close the bank, shaft the bondholders and concentrate on funerals and shopping ?
That would seem to be the sensible option, rather than chucking another £400M into the hole.
I think the Co op management ( despite Neil's advice) have realised that owning a little of a lot is better than a lot of a little.
Go on then - tell us all roughly how much you think the Coop Group owes the hedge funds?
No idea.
But if this deal goes through the Co op will own 30% of a bank that will be floated.
The Co op group's 30% would be worth - well probably not much...
But Neil thinks they will laugh...
The Coop's 30% is costing them £400m+ of new money. They are pumping more money into this than the hedge funds. Yet you think the hedge funds have them by the short and curlies.
If the Co op group have the whip hand why do they not cut their losses, close the bank, shaft the bondholders and concentrate on funerals and shopping ?
That would seem to be the sensible option, rather than chucking another £400M into the hole.
Ahh... but you're forgetting - they are being advised by the financial genius that is Ed Balls - chucking £££ into black holes is his speciality no?
"Co-op directors actively considered making their bank the first in Britain subject to a so-called “living will”, it emerged today.
All banks have had to have such wills — known as “recovery and resolution plans” — in place to allow an orderly wind-up since the wake of the financial crisis.
Had the Co-op proceeded with the plan, its bank would have closed after more than 140 years of trading. The fact that directors viewed the plan as a serious option demonstrates the scale of the crisis facing Britain’s only “ethical” bank as it grappled to plug the financial black hole quickly enough to satisfy its regulators.
Bosses ultimately rejected such a move as potentially catastrophic for the Co-op’s brand. "
Note the lack of laughter from the Co op for their "Plan B".
Comments
An inquiry into the implosion of the Co-operative Bank and revelations about its former chairman is being drawn up George Osborne and bank regulators, it has emerged.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3926972.ece
Full disclosure, I'm also on this bet.
He exited the chamber a total laughing stock.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25017409
Plenty of commentators discovering 20-20 hindsight. Who had looked at the qualification of The Co-Op's board at the time of the merger with Britannia BS, or when Rev Flowers reached the top.
@TelePolitics: Blog: A year ago, the Tories were bracing for a heavy defeat. Now they're going for the win http://t.co/6YvaFo3PBi
The reverse is true of Ireland, but I expect both Wales and England to beat them fairly easily. I could be wrong, but the odds just look wrong to me.
"To underline the theory, he points to the poll of key seats, published by Lord Ashcroft, which gave Labour a 15 point lead. “We reran it in the seats we hold,” he said, “but included the name of the sitting MP. We were ahead by 2 per cent.”
Interesting, not least from a betting perspective.
England are making sure they don't peak too soon for 2015.
"He’d been particularly heartened by their most recent focus group, in which not a single member of the panel seemed aware of the Labour leader’s signature policy: “And then when we explained it to them, they all said the same thing. 'We don’t believe he’ll do it'”."
1) The drugs he was taking are illegal.
2) There are many jobs that cannot be performed well if you are suffering the effect of legal and/or illegal drugs. Whilst there is no evidence that he was in any way under the influence whilst working for the bank, he is open to such accusations. Certainly, if he had spent a little more time studying the figures instead of allegedly taking drugs, he may have put in a better performance in front of the committee.
3) The drugs are just part of the scandal: it is the entire scenario that has enveloped Flowers, including his less-than-stellar history.
4) His lifestyle (drugs, rent boys etc) leaves him open to coercion and/or blackmail, which is not a good position for a bank chairman.
What Ukip can learn from Rob Ford, the crack-smoking Canadian mayor
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jakewallissimons/100246853/what-ukip-can-learn-from-rob-ford-the-crack-smoking-canadian-mayor/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
And @JosiasJessop: good points on Paul Flowers' foolishness. I'd like to ignore his 'private' habits and lifestyle but, with the responsibilities and profile he had in his position, there isn't much that is truly private, is there? Questions about his fitness for work and any suggestions of blackmail potential are a big deal.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25021640
We should all have more fun, live a little more, condemn a little less.
Join the Caravan of Love.
Did you take my £500 bet offer? Evens that someone earning £35k does or does not pay 40% tax?
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/chairman-of-co-operative-group-resigns-amid-scandal/?_r=0
“There must be some risk that the hedge funds who control the future of the Co-op Bank may say in the light of these developments that the Co-op Bank is in a much worse state than we thought it was. That the brand has been very fundamentally and seriously damaged, we either don’t want to go ahead with the deal, which I don’t think they’ll conclude, but they may conclude they want to rewrite the terms of the deal again,” said Lord Myners, a member of the former Labour government.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10461119/Flowers-scandal-puts-1.5bn-Co-op-Bank-rescue-at-risk.html
Especially as, I wanted to debut my new crocodile leather shoes to you all.
They make my last pair of footwear look as plain and boring as a Methodist Minister
Scandal hit Co-operative Bank could lose the right to call itself the 'Co-op' as a result of the revelations involving former chairman Paul Flowers, Business Secretary Vince Cable told the BBC today.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ethical-coop-could-lose-name-over-paul-flowers-drug-scandal-8952019.html
Can I be Chairman of the CO-OP Bank, please? I could do with a part-time job that pays a ludicrous wage.
I may be over-qualified as I know about the nine grand plus tax allowance (and I'll omit the drugs and rent boys).
I've probably been in the same, restaurants, bars and gay clubs as him.
Very childish.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/pmqs-review-high-on-flowers-power-david-cameron-wipes-the-floor-with-ed-8952041.html
Though I may have blocked him on snapchat.
Co op bank is reamed, fin, endeth.
I forgive tim for his small error on tax, I forgive the Rev too (even though he's a serial offender), and I even forgive Cameron for being born rich.
I'm all heart.
http://t.co/USxtO9QNdd
Meanwhile, I think Forsyth is right - Bercow did do a good job chairing PMQs this week:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/james-forsyth/2013/11/john-bercow-presided-well-over-a-stormy-pmqs/
This PB Meet just happened to fall on the one week night in November I couldn't attend.
Incidentally Coop Bank and the Cooperative Movement looks like it will be far more difficult for the Labour leadership than Falkirk.
"Around 400 people a year are killed in crashes in which someone exceeds the speed limit or drives too fast for the conditions."
http://www.rospa.com/faqs/detail.aspx?faq=296
"The number of male drug misuse deaths (involving illegal drugs) decreased by 9% from 1,192 in 2011 to 1,086 in 2012; female deaths decreased by 1% from 413 in 2011 to 410 in 2012."
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnational-health3/deaths-related-to-drug-poisoning/2012/stb---deaths-related-to-drug-poisoning-2012.html
So the number of deaths from the misuse of illegal drugs is much higher than deaths from speeding, from those figures at least.
"Every one of Miliband’s six questions was what is known in higher political analysis as cut off at the knees. We have finally found a full and independent public inquiry that he doesn’t support, said Cameron. When Miliband tried to talk about the closure of children’s centres - note that Labour doesn’t call them Sure Start centres any more: that never really caught on - Cameron accused him of spending the same money, from a hypothetical higher bank levy, 10 times over. “That isn’t a policy, it’s a night out with Reverend Flowers.” Not funny. Not fair. Totally effective."
Also, how many of the speeders were high at the time?
We are veering very off-topic, but I've wavered over drug legalisation all my adult life. Sometimes I'm cautiously in favour of legalisation, other times I am not. And before anyone says, it doesn't depend on whether I'm on them... ;-)
I have now settled on a position: I am not in favour of legalisation of any recreational drug, until such time as a usable roadside test is available for that drug.
I concede the point, although once you take into account dangerous/drunk driving the numbers are virtually the same. And 20,000 are seriously injured on the roads, many presumably from illegal driving. Rightwingers who bang on about drug use are often the same people who think doing 40 in town is acceptable (accept you are not one of them)
The bondholders effectively own the bank. It is the Coop Group that is stumping up the most hard cash to pump into the bank in return for an equity stake.
Maybe if they had Mr Flowers lifestyle they might...
The person or people killed by a speeder often extends to passengers, other drivers, other cars passengers, cyclists, pedestrians and more.
I have more sympathy than an innocent by-stander killed by reckless driving than for a druggie overdosing. So IMHO speeders are more dangerous than druggies.
"The alternative, you will remember, is takeover by the Bank of England, in a process called resolution, which would protect depositors savings, keep the bank's essential functions running smoothly and heap losses on the bond holders."
The Co op group's 30% would be worth - well probably not much...
But Neil thinks they will laugh...
So if you are a hedge fund that has agreed to invest £125m in the bank, you may feel a little bit queasy - because the shares you would be buying may not be worth as much as you thought they were worth, before the prime minister announced there would be a formal investigation.
The hedge funds may therefore be thinking that they would like to renegotiate the terms of that £125m investment.
Now my sources tell me that the hedge funds can't do that. I am told the hedge funds have given irrevocable undertakings to do the deal, and that what David Cameron said in the House of Commons would not trigger a material adverse change clause.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25021112
Business Secretary Vince Cable told the BBC he was considering whether the bank was suitable to bear the name in the wake of revelations about Flowers’ alleged drug use and adult material on his computer.
...
Use of the word Co-operative in a company name requires approval from the Secretary of State on change of ownership, which will happen to the Co-op Bank after its recapitalisation. It will leave the Co-op Group with only a rump 30% stake, and the rest held largely by hedge funds.
http://www.standard.co.uk/business/business-news/coop-bank-may-be-stripped-of-name-as-paul-flowers-scandal-deepens-8951733.html
On the other hand, the bondholders aren't exactly in a strong position either, since the alternative is quite possibly that they lose the lot.
::Innocent face::
Your take on what is happening seems to be a million miles from any reasonable view of corporate finance.
Guido Fawkes@GuidoFawkes1m
#StayTuned Prepare to drop your jaw.
Harry Cole@MrHarryCole1m
There's a big one coming.
But if this deal goes through the Co op will own 30% of a bank that will be floated.
If it doesn't - no bank, no 30%.
Now about this Jack Dromey story......
Sounds like a deletion of an embarrassing tweet sent in error.
What you dont seem to have grasped is that this stake is costing the group money. They dont get it for free. They have to pay for it.
5-1 Falkirk
Evens McNulty smear
Evens Drug smear of a tory
http://www.standard.co.uk/business/business-news/beleaguered-coop-bank-mulled-the-living-will-option-8705703.html
"Co-op directors actively considered making their bank the first in Britain subject to a so-called “living will”, it emerged today.
All banks have had to have such wills — known as “recovery and resolution plans” — in place to allow an orderly wind-up since the wake of the financial crisis.
Had the Co-op proceeded with the plan, its bank would have closed after more than 140 years of trading. The fact that directors viewed the plan as a serious option demonstrates the scale of the crisis facing Britain’s only “ethical” bank as it grappled to plug the financial black hole quickly enough to satisfy its regulators.
Bosses ultimately rejected such a move as potentially catastrophic for the Co-op’s brand. "
Note the lack of laughter from the Co op for their "Plan B".