"The bank was facing closure after the regulator ordered the group in June to raise £1.5bn to meet a capital shortfall or be put into “resolution”.
Euan Sutherland, Co-op group chief executive, said: “We have reached an agreement in principle that saves the Co-op Bank. This is the first bank to be rescued and survive as a stand alone entity without taxpayer money.”"
Note. Reconstruction. Dialogue may not represent actual dialogue. Steve Coogan appeared as David Cameron and Johnny Vegas as Ed Balls. Ed Miliband was played by himself.
Go on, roughly how much does the Group owe these hedge funds? Give it a go.
Neil, there was a very interesting (albeit anonymous) comment in the Coppola blog:
If the bondholders refuse the Co-op's offer and the Co-op does not provide the additional £0.5 billion from its own resources it will be placed in resolution and assets to the value of £0.5 billion will be sold to refinance the bank. Note that the new rules introduced in April to cover Banks owned by conglomerates (the qualifying parent undertaking) provide the PRA with the powers to bail in all the Co-op's assets if necessary. Under these rules the the PRA has first call upon these assets and the Co-op's syndicated lenders would lose any guarantees attached to the assets. As the Co-op has sufficient assets to meet the £0.5 billion the bondholders would not be bailed in and the bank could continue.
I have no idea if that is accurate, but it sounds well-informed.
Surely the bondholders would just reject the deal if that were the case?
Dunno. I'd guess it's not as clear cut as that comment suggests, but the key question is whether the Co-op can just walk away completely without recourse.
Let's face the Labour movement has done nothing to the Co-Op bank that they did not do to the country. It is just a little more obvious and embarrassing.
The bondholders are by no means all hedgies who bought the distressed debt at a considerable discount. Many are pensioners and former employees and they are the real victims in this. They were being offered a lousy deal by which they either got the interest they had been promised but no capital or a reduced interest rate and reduced capital.
The only argument for accepting this chiseling, which is capitalism in the raw, is the risk that the roof would come in without a lot of new capital from the hedgies and the Co-Op movement. I am a little bemused that the movement was ever going to get away with this because they were effectively stealing from these bondholders to protect the rest of the group.
The Hedgies now have a major headache. Having bought on the cheap how bad does a dissolution have to get before they fail to get their money back and a turn? Is it really worth investing another £500m in the hope that 70% of the bank will be worth more than they have already spent and would have to pay? They get paid big bucks for making these calls but I have my doubts.
I see Lord Ashcroft is questioning Dan Hodges assertion that a "15% Labour lead" in the marginals is overturned when an MP's name is mentioned.
Are we supposed to take Hodges seriously on this amazing stat?
Hodges is as well connected in the Tory Party as he is in the Labour Party.
Read the quote
"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.”
"We reran it in the seats we hold"
The whole poll was done in Tory held seats, someone is telling porkies. And the idea that mentioning the name of an MP in that list of seats results in an 8.5% swing is just laughable. If Hodges believes what he's fed he's an idiot, if he made it up he's an idiot
Hodges is incorrect Ashcroft poll Table 4 Lab 42 Con 29 and after mentioning constituency and candidates Table 7 Lab 43 Con 29
You're all misreading Dan Hodges' comment about the polls. To quote exactly:
"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.” "
The "We" at the beginning of the second sentence suggests that the anonymous source is not talking about Lord Ashcroft's poll, but a separate poll conducted by the Conservatives. We don't know whether the two sets of polls refer to the same seats of course, and it would appear that they probably don't.
Mark Sparrow @MarkGSparrow Cameron must have a crystal ball. What was he saying the other day about men having uncomfortable conversations with wives about porn?
You're all misreading Dan Hodges' comment about the polls. To quote exactly:
"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.” "
The "We" at the beginning of the second sentence suggests that the anonymous source is not talking about Lord Ashcroft's poll, but a separate poll conducted by the Conservatives. We don't know whether the two sets of polls refer to the same seats of course, and it would appear that they probably don't.
Will the full data tables of that " new " poll now have to be published under BPC rules ?
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10392925/Bondholders-poised-to-seize-control-of-Co-operative-Bank.html
"The bank was facing closure after the regulator ordered the group in June to raise £1.5bn to meet a capital shortfall or be put into “resolution”.
Euan Sutherland, Co-op group chief executive, said: “We have reached an agreement in principle that saves the Co-op Bank. This is the first bank to be rescued and survive as a stand alone entity without taxpayer money.”"
http://order-order.com/2013/11/20/pmqs-sketch-power-is-not-the-only-drug/
Note. Reconstruction. Dialogue may not represent actual dialogue. Steve Coogan appeared as David Cameron and Johnny Vegas as Ed Balls. Ed Miliband was played by himself.
Go on, roughly how much does the Group owe these hedge funds? Give it a go.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/10463040/Barack-Obamas-approval-ratings-fall-to-new-low.html
Screen shot details on Guido - might upset the pr0n filters - put the coffee away from your keyboards.
If the bondholders refuse the Co-op's offer and the Co-op does not provide the additional £0.5 billion from its own resources it will be placed in resolution and assets to the value of £0.5 billion will be sold to refinance the bank. Note that the new rules introduced in April to cover Banks owned by conglomerates (the qualifying parent undertaking) provide the PRA with the powers to bail in all the Co-op's assets if necessary. Under these rules the the PRA has first call upon these assets and the Co-op's syndicated lenders would lose any guarantees attached to the assets. As the Co-op has sufficient assets to meet the £0.5 billion the bondholders would not be bailed in and the bank could continue.
I have no idea if that is accurate, but it sounds well-informed.
http://coppolacomment.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/the-ethical-co-op.html
http://order-order.com/2013/11/20/jack-dromeys-porn-favourites/
unlike ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w68qZ8JvBds
Surely the bondholders would just reject the deal if that were the case?
He'll be biting the pillow in the Harman house tonight
The bondholders are by no means all hedgies who bought the distressed debt at a considerable discount. Many are pensioners and former employees and they are the real victims in this. They were being offered a lousy deal by which they either got the interest they had been promised but no capital or a reduced interest rate and reduced capital.
The only argument for accepting this chiseling, which is capitalism in the raw, is the risk that the roof would come in without a lot of new capital from the hedgies and the Co-Op movement. I am a little bemused that the movement was ever going to get away with this because they were effectively stealing from these bondholders to protect the rest of the group.
The Hedgies now have a major headache. Having bought on the cheap how bad does a dissolution have to get before they fail to get their money back and a turn? Is it really worth investing another £500m in the hope that 70% of the bank will be worth more than they have already spent and would have to pay? They get paid big bucks for making these calls but I have my doubts.
Ashcroft poll Table 4 Lab 42 Con 29
and after mentioning constituency and candidates
Table 7 Lab 43 Con 29
Mind you, this looks like a subject for further detailed research when I get home later tonight.
"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.” "
The "We" at the beginning of the second sentence suggests that the anonymous source is not talking about Lord Ashcroft's poll, but a separate poll conducted by the Conservatives. We don't know whether the two sets of polls refer to the same seats of course, and it would appear that they probably don't.
Mark Sparrow @MarkGSparrow
Cameron must have a crystal ball. What was he saying the other day about men having uncomfortable conversations with wives about porn?