politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Methinks that George should have put economics before the p

Grandiose said:

Given our direct stakes in the banks are of an order of magnitude less, presumably this is some other sort of liability?

Grandiose said:

While the PCS isn't affiliated witht he Labour Party, they do think of themselves as influecing policy:

We are asking members to support the political campaigning strategy we have developed in recent years. We have built Parliamentary Groups and our ‘Make your vote count’ campaign to influence the politicians that make decisions that affect the lives of PCS members at work. We are also asking members if they agree with the proposal to take our political work a step further and support candidates in national elections in circumstances where it would assist our campaigns.*

another_richard said:

Osborne's always seen being Chancellor as a political rather than economic position.

As position in which he can use the power which controlling money brings against his enemies within and without the Conservative party.

He has little understanding of or interest in the actual economic side of being Chancellor.

Hence his various attachments to whatever happens to be the current economic fashion and his tendancy to go missing when things are either difficult (eg in the immediate aftermath of the banking crash) or when a more political opportunity is available (eg his preference for political tourism in Washington to preparing the 2012 Budget).

HYUFD said:

@DMiliband Kevin Rudd is one of the sharpest brains in public life. Good he gets the chance to finish what he started.

Grandiose said:

AveryLP said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

AveryLP said:

Neil said:

AveryLP said:

Brown's response was to ramp up borrowing:

Which was the perfectly sensible response. You dont slash spending in the immediate aftermath of a financial crisis.

In 2009-10 Brown plugged a £98 bn current account deficit with additional borrowing of £157 bn.

That is not the action of a sensible man.

Remember these figures exclude the amount he borrowed to bail out the banks.

Would you like to know how much that was?

I believe Scotland's Brown and Darling sanctioned a bank rescue package totalling some £500 billion (approximately $850 billion) in 2008 to save the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland . Apologies if I've underestimated.

You have underestimated, Moniker, but no need to apologise.

Here is the difference between Public Sector Net Debt (excluding "financial interventions") and Public Sector Net Debt at the end of the 2008-9 Fiscal Year. Financial interventions is Brown's euphemism for bank bailouts.

        PSND ex    PSND      Financial
                             Interventions
         £ mn       £ mn       £ mn 
2008/09 805,151   2,117,142  1,311,991

Although a rough and ready calculation this tells us that that the net cost was £1.3 trillion of additional borrowing.

Given our direct stakes in the banks are of an order of magnitude less, presumably this is some other sort of liability?

Morris_Dancer said:

Good evening, everyone.

First Nadal, now Federer. Very surprised indeed.

Alanbrooke said:

another_richard said:

Osborne's always seen being Chancellor as a political rather than economic position.

As position in which he can use the power which controlling money brings against his enemies within and without the Conservative party.

He has little understanding of or interest in the actual economic side of being Chancellor.

Hence his various attachments to whatever happens to be the current economic fashion and his tendancy to go missing when things are either difficult (eg in the immediate aftermath of the banking crash) or when a more political opportunity is available (eg his preference for political tourism in Washington to preparing the 2012 Budget).

time for an Os is crap thread.

Nabavi and Avery versus the rest of PB. :-)

richardDodd said:

isam,two compliments in one night wonderful ..now off you go and play with your little Hornby set.

tim said:

Alanbrooke said:

another_richard said:

Osborne's always seen being Chancellor as a political rather than economic position.

As position in which he can use the power which controlling money brings against his enemies within and without the Conservative party.

He has little understanding of or interest in the actual economic side of being Chancellor.

Hence his various attachments to whatever happens to be the current economic fashion and his tendancy to go missing when things are either difficult (eg in the immediate aftermath of the banking crash) or when a more political opportunity is available (eg his preference for political tourism in Washington to preparing the 2012 Budget).

time for an Os is crap thread.

Nabavi and Avery versus the rest of PB. :-)

Don't forget ScottP and fitalass.
If that affects anything

Alanbrooke said:

AveryLP said:

Grandiose said:

AveryLP said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

AveryLP said:

Neil said:

AveryLP said:

Brown's response was to ramp up borrowing:

Which was the perfectly sensible response. You dont slash spending in the immediate aftermath of a financial crisis.

In 2009-10 Brown plugged a £98 bn current account deficit with additional borrowing of £157 bn.

That is not the action of a sensible man.

Remember these figures exclude the amount he borrowed to bail out the banks.

Would you like to know how much that was?

I believe Scotland's Brown and Darling sanctioned a bank rescue package totalling some £500 billion (approximately $850 billion) in 2008 to save the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland . Apologies if I've underestimated.

You have underestimated, Moniker, but no need to apologise.

Here is the difference between Public Sector Net Debt (excluding "financial interventions") and Public Sector Net Debt at the end of the 2008-9 Fiscal Year. Financial interventions is Brown's euphemism for bank bailouts.

        PSND ex    PSND      Financial
                             Interventions
         £ mn       £ mn       £ mn 
2008/09 805,151   2,117,142  1,311,991

Although a rough and ready calculation this tells us that that the net cost was £1.3 trillion of additional borrowing.

Given our direct stakes in the banks are of an order of magnitude less, presumably this is some other sort of liability?

Yes it is the liabilities of the Public Sector Banking Groups less their liquid assets, with BoE thrown in although it only has a marginal impact,

so shoudn't this be being wound down as the positions turn liquid ?

2009/10  2,228,221
2010/11  2,245,391
2011/12  2,168,665
2012/13  2,201,531

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

richardDodd said:

ISAM ..That is not the answer to the question which was ..What will the trains run on whilst the tracks are being relaid.and for how long, if they are new tracks which do not replace the old tracks then they are .. new..

I would have thought the new ones would be laid alongside the exisitng ones, which means considerably less digging up of countryside etc than the proposed HS2

If Spurs, Liverpool & Man Utd wanted to rebuild or improve their stadia, it wouldnt be hypocritical of them if they had opposed Arsenals move from Highbury to the Emirates. Just as it isnt of UKIP to suggest new tracks alongside existing ones but oppose digging up swathes ofcountryside for a brand new line

"I would have thought the new ones would be laid alongside the exisitng ones, which means considerably less digging up of countryside etc than the proposed HS2"

Two problems:
1) It would involve a great deal more properties as housing congregated around the lines, especially near stations. For instance, look at the WCML through Berkhamsted or Leighton Buzzard.

2) The actual routes are designed for 1850s train speeds, not 2020 speeds. In other words, trains would not be able to go as fast due to curves. It would be a great help for capacity, but would not be a high-speed line. This was one of the reasons BR developed the APT, then abandoned it, gave the technology to the Italians, and then bought the Pendelinos from them twenty years later. :-(

Anyone talking about upgrading existing lines needs to answer how they will avoid the mess that was the WCML upgrade. Delivered late, at massively over budget, and with a much lower specification than planned, and involved the closure of many local stations. A £2.5 billion estimate soon became at least £9 billion, for relatively limited benefits including a 125 MPH line speed instead of 140 MPH.

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/virgin/

It is exceptionally difficult and costly to upgrade a line whilst trains are running. Network Rail are about to start spending a whopping £250 million doing alterations at Stafford, including sorting out the Norton Bridge bottleneck. And that is for just a small part of the line.

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/News-Releases/First-stage-of-250m-Stafford-rail-improvements-begin-1d36.aspx

AveryLP said:

Alanbrooke said:

AveryLP said:

Alanbrooke said:

AveryLP said:

Grandiose said:

AveryLP said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

AveryLP said:

Neil said:

AveryLP said:

Brown's response was to ramp up borrowing:

Which was the perfectly sensible response. You dont slash spending in the immediate aftermath of a financial crisis.

In 2009-10 Brown plugged a £98 bn current account deficit with additional borrowing of £157 bn.

That is not the action of a sensible man.

Remember these figures exclude the amount he borrowed to bail out the banks.

Would you like to know how much that was?

I believe Scotland's Brown and Darling sanctioned a bank rescue package totalling some £500 billion (approximately $850 billion) in 2008 to save the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland . Apologies if I've underestimated.

You have underestimated, Moniker, but no need to apologise.

Here is the difference between Public Sector Net Debt (excluding "financial interventions") and Public Sector Net Debt at the end of the 2008-9 Fiscal Year. Financial interventions is Brown's euphemism for bank bailouts.

        PSND ex    PSND      Financial
                             Interventions
         £ mn       £ mn       £ mn 
2008/09 805,151   2,117,142  1,311,991

Although a rough and ready calculation this tells us that that the net cost was £1.3 trillion of additional borrowing.

Given our direct stakes in the banks are of an order of magnitude less, presumably this is some other sort of liability?

Yes it is the liabilities of the Public Sector Banking Groups less their liquid assets, with BoE thrown in although it only has a marginal impact,

so shoudn't this be being wound down as the positions turn liquid ?

Absolutely.

Provided, of course, that the impaired assets are correctly valued in the balance sheets, which is a reasonable assumption if we exclude black swan events. And if we allow sufficient time for RBoS Group to be restructured.

In fact PSND has been falling across this parliament meaning that Cameron would be technically correct in claiming that the government has reduced debt. Here are the figures in £'000.

2009/10  2,228,221
2010/11  2,245,391
2011/12  2,168,665
2012/13  2,201,531

To be fair though, I am not convinced this is what Cameron had in mind when he made the claim.

hmmm. Not exactly dropping like a stone. If you assume a bank normally rotates money on a 3 to 5 year cycle we should be seeing some of these positions unwinding. I can only assume from the static nature of the data the taxpayer is on the hook continuously or there are bigger problems lurking in balance sheets.

The figures include the rising PSND ex debt (100 bn added per year) so the underlying figures for the bank groups are better than the headline figures suggest. Also there are so many counter-intuitive classification rules in the National Accounts for the treatment of financial interventions that the figures don't really do much more than give us an overall snapshot.

isam said:

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

richardDodd said:

ISAM ..That is not the answer to the question which was ..What will the trains run on whilst the tracks are being relaid.and for how long, if they are new tracks which do not replace the old tracks then they are .. new..

I would have thought the new ones would be laid alongside the exisitng ones, which means considerably less digging up of countryside etc than the proposed HS2

If Spurs, Liverpool & Man Utd wanted to rebuild or improve their stadia, it wouldnt be hypocritical of them if they had opposed Arsenals move from Highbury to the Emirates. Just as it isnt of UKIP to suggest new tracks alongside existing ones but oppose digging up swathes ofcountryside for a brand new line

"I would have thought the new ones would be laid alongside the exisitng ones, which means considerably less digging up of countryside etc than the proposed HS2"

Two problems:
1) It would involve a great deal more properties as housing congregated around the lines, especially near stations. For instance, look at the WCML through Berkhamsted or Leighton Buzzard.

2) The actual routes are designed for 1850s train speeds, not 2020 speeds. In other words, trains would not be able to go as fast due to curves. It would be a great help for capacity, but would not be a high-speed line. This was one of the reasons BR developed the APT, then abandoned it, gave the technology to the Italians, and then bought the Pendelinos from them twenty years later. :-(

Anyone talking about upgrading existing lines needs to answer how they will avoid the mess that was the WCML upgrade. Delivered late, at massively over budget, and with a much lower specification than planned, and involved the closure of many local stations. A £2.5 billion estimate soon became at least £9 billion, for relatively limited benefits including a 125 MPH line speed instead of 140 MPH.

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/virgin/

It is exceptionally difficult and costly to upgrade a line whilst trains are running. Network Rail are about to start spending a whopping £250 million doing alterations at Stafford, including sorting out the Norton Bridge bottleneck. And that is for just a small part of the line.

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/News-Releases/First-stage-of-250m-Stafford-rail-improvements-begin-1d36.aspx

You know a lot more about it than me.

I am not bothered about any of these rail projects, just thought that UKIPs proposals for the three lines in 2010 didnt necessarily contradict their opposition to HS2

AveryLP said:

Alanbrooke said:

AveryLP said:

Alanbrooke said:

AveryLP said:

Alanbrooke said:

AveryLP said:

Grandiose said:

AveryLP said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

AveryLP said:

Neil said:

AveryLP said:

Brown's response was to ramp up borrowing:

Which was the perfectly sensible response. You dont slash spending in the immediate aftermath of a financial crisis.

In 2009-10 Brown plugged a £98 bn current account deficit with additional borrowing of £157 bn.

That is not the action of a sensible man.

Remember these figures exclude the amount he borrowed to bail out the banks.

Would you like to know how much that was?

I believe Scotland's Brown and Darling sanctioned a bank rescue package totalling some £500 billion (approximately $850 billion) in 2008 to save the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland . Apologies if I've underestimated.

You have underestimated, Moniker, but no need to apologise.

Here is the difference between Public Sector Net Debt (excluding "financial interventions") and Public Sector Net Debt at the end of the 2008-9 Fiscal Year. Financial interventions is Brown's euphemism for bank bailouts.

        PSND ex    PSND      Financial
                             Interventions
         £ mn       £ mn       £ mn 
2008/09 805,151   2,117,142  1,311,991

Although a rough and ready calculation this tells us that that the net cost was £1.3 trillion of additional borrowing.

Given our direct stakes in the banks are of an order of magnitude less, presumably this is some other sort of liability?

Yes it is the liabilities of the Public Sector Banking Groups less their liquid assets, with BoE thrown in although it only has a marginal impact,

so shoudn't this be being wound down as the positions turn liquid ?

Absolutely.

Provided, of course, that the impaired assets are correctly valued in the balance sheets, which is a reasonable assumption if we exclude black swan events. And if we allow sufficient time for RBoS Group to be restructured.

In fact PSND has been falling across this parliament meaning that Cameron would be technically correct in claiming that the government has reduced debt. Here are the figures in £'000.

2009/10  2,228,221
2010/11  2,245,391
2011/12  2,168,665
2012/13  2,201,531

To be fair though, I am not convinced this is what Cameron had in mind when he made the claim.

hmmm. Not exactly dropping like a stone. If you assume a bank normally rotates money on a 3 to 5 year cycle we should be seeing some of these positions unwinding. I can only assume from the static nature of the data the taxpayer is on the hook continuously or there are bigger problems lurking in balance sheets.

The figures include the rising PSND ex debt (100 bn added per year) so the underlying figures for the bank groups are better than the headline figures suggest. Also there are so many counter-intuitive classification rules in the National Accounts for the treatment of financial interventions that the figures don't really do much more than give us an overall snapshot.

Good point on the rest of the debt rising so the underlying on banks is falling but really the numbers should be going down faster.

Maybe I'm missing a trick, but if our banks need c. £25bn to restore their capital to health wouldn't we the nation be better putting it in as equity and removing £1.2trn of contingent liability ?

The banks have all informed the PRA that they will be able to meet the new capital requirements without having to issue new equity and mostly by avoiding CoCos (loan capital convertible to equity in the event of capital falling below regulatory requirements).

The problem is that meeting the new capital requirements out of profits is constraining their business operations. Banks are averse to lending which would disproportionately raise their capital requirements. Hence all the temporary 'pass-through' lending schemes being run by the Treasury and BoE,

The best solution would be for the BoE to buy out large chunks of the mortgage assets (particularly from the RBS-Halifax books). Such mortgages can be run down over term by the government (like the B&B and NR books) and because the central government controlled asset resolution companies are not taking deposits or undertaking new lending they fall outside regulatory capital requirements. The good stuff could even be securitised by the government if it wanted to bring forward cash flow and any residual losses could be charged back to the banks over time.

My guess is that this will be the magic that Carney brings to the BoE and we will be hearing more of it in the autumn.

Alanbrooke said:

AveryLP said:

Alanbrooke said:

AveryLP said:

Alanbrooke said:

AveryLP said:

Alanbrooke said:

AveryLP said:

Grandiose said:

AveryLP said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

AveryLP said:

Neil said:

AveryLP said:

Brown's response was to ramp up borrowing:

Which was the perfectly sensible response. You dont slash spending in the immediate aftermath of a financial crisis.

In 2009-10 Brown plugged a £98 bn current account deficit with additional borrowing of £157 bn.

That is not the action of a sensible man.

Remember these figures exclude the amount he borrowed to bail out the banks.

Would you like to know how much that was?

I believe Scotland's Brown and Darling sanctioned a bank rescue package totalling some £500 billion (approximately $850 billion) in 2008 to save the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland . Apologies if I've underestimated.

You have underestimated, Moniker, but no need to apologise.

Here is the difference between Public Sector Net Debt (excluding "financial interventions") and Public Sector Net Debt at the end of the 2008-9 Fiscal Year. Financial interventions is Brown's euphemism for bank bailouts.

        PSND ex    PSND      Financial
                             Interventions
         £ mn       £ mn       £ mn 
2008/09 805,151   2,117,142  1,311,991

Although a rough and ready calculation this tells us that that the net cost was £1.3 trillion of additional borrowing.

Given our direct stakes in the banks are of an order of magnitude less, presumably this is some other sort of liability?

Yes it is the liabilities of the Public Sector Banking Groups less their liquid assets, with BoE thrown in although it only has a marginal impact,

so shoudn't this be being wound down as the positions turn liquid ?

Absolutely.

Provided, of course, that the impaired assets are correctly valued in the balance sheets, which is a reasonable assumption if we exclude black swan events. And if we allow sufficient time for RBoS Group to be restructured.

In fact PSND has been falling across this parliament meaning that Cameron would be technically correct in claiming that the government has reduced debt. Here are the figures in £'000.

2009/10  2,228,221
2010/11  2,245,391
2011/12  2,168,665
2012/13  2,201,531

To be fair though, I am not convinced this is what Cameron had in mind when he made the claim.

hmmm. Not exactly dropping like a stone. If you assume a bank normally rotates money on a 3 to 5 year cycle we should be seeing some of these positions unwinding. I can only assume from the static nature of the data the taxpayer is on the hook continuously or there are bigger problems lurking in balance sheets.

The figures include the rising PSND ex debt (100 bn added per year) so the underlying figures for the bank groups are better than the headline figures suggest. Also there are so many counter-intuitive classification rules in the National Accounts for the treatment of financial interventions that the figures don't really do much more than give us an overall snapshot.

Good point on the rest of the debt rising so the underlying on banks is falling but really the numbers should be going down faster.

Maybe I'm missing a trick, but if our banks need c. £25bn to restore their capital to health wouldn't we the nation be better putting it in as equity and removing £1.2trn of contingent liability ?

The banks have all informed the PRA that they will be able to meet the new capital requirements without having to issue new equity and mostly by avoiding CoCos (loan capital convertible to equity in the event of capital falling below regulatory requirements).

The problem is that meeting the new capital requirements out of profits is constraining their business operations. Banks are averse to lending which would disproportionately raise their capital requirements. Hence all the temporary 'pass-through' lending schemes being run by the Treasury and BoE,

The best solution would be for the BoE to buy out large chunks of the mortgage assets (particularly from the RBS-Halifax books). Such mortgages can be run down over term by the government (like the B&B and NR books) and because the central government controlled asset resolution companies are not taking deposits or undertaking new lending they fall outside regulatory capital requirements. The good stuff could even be securitised by the government if it wanted to bring forward cash flow and any residual losses could be charged back to the banks over time.

My guess is that this will be the magic that Carney brings to the BoE and we will be hearing more of it in the autumn.

sure but that sort of raises the question why do they need £1.2 trn of state guarantees ?

if their capital base is firm then the guarantees aren't needed and the market should return to normal. I have the feeling you're telling me the banks are still in the critical ward and can only meet the latest requirements if the guarantees stay in place. So maybe they need £75bn, £25bn to meet capital requirements and £50bn to cover write offs.

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

richardDodd said:

ISAM ..That is not the answer to the question which was ..What will the trains run on whilst the tracks are being relaid.and for how long, if they are new tracks which do not replace the old tracks then they are .. new..

I would have thought the new ones would be laid alongside the exisitng ones, which means considerably less digging up of countryside etc than the proposed HS2

If Spurs, Liverpool & Man Utd wanted to rebuild or improve their stadia, it wouldnt be hypocritical of them if they had opposed Arsenals move from Highbury to the Emirates. Just as it isnt of UKIP to suggest new tracks alongside existing ones but oppose digging up swathes ofcountryside for a brand new line

"I would have thought the new ones would be laid alongside the exisitng ones, which means considerably less digging up of countryside etc than the proposed HS2"

Two problems:
1) It would involve a great deal more properties as housing congregated around the lines, especially near stations. For instance, look at the WCML through Berkhamsted or Leighton Buzzard.

2) The actual routes are designed for 1850s train speeds, not 2020 speeds. In other words, trains would not be able to go as fast due to curves. It would be a great help for capacity, but would not be a high-speed line. This was one of the reasons BR developed the APT, then abandoned it, gave the technology to the Italians, and then bought the Pendelinos from them twenty years later. :-(

Anyone talking about upgrading existing lines needs to answer how they will avoid the mess that was the WCML upgrade. Delivered late, at massively over budget, and with a much lower specification than planned, and involved the closure of many local stations. A £2.5 billion estimate soon became at least £9 billion, for relatively limited benefits including a 125 MPH line speed instead of 140 MPH.

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/virgin/

It is exceptionally difficult and costly to upgrade a line whilst trains are running. Network Rail are about to start spending a whopping £250 million doing alterations at Stafford, including sorting out the Norton Bridge bottleneck. And that is for just a small part of the line.

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/News-Releases/First-stage-of-250m-Stafford-rail-improvements-begin-1d36.aspx

You know a lot more about it than me.

I am not bothered about any of these rail projects, just thought that UKIPs proposals for the three lines in 2010 didnt necessarily contradict their opposition to HS2

Fair enough. But UKIP are displaying the same hypocrisy as the Greens over this (yes, they are unusual bedfellows). The Greens campaign for decades for high-speed rail, and the moment one is planned they are automatically against it, saying it does not meet 'strict criteria'. Sadly, it looks like those 'strict criteria' are "We didn't do it."

AveryLP said:

Alanbrooke said:

AveryLP said:

Alanbrooke said:

AveryLP said:

Alanbrooke said:

AveryLP said:

Alanbrooke said:

AveryLP said:

Alanbrooke said:

AveryLP said:

Grandiose said:

AveryLP said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

AveryLP said:

Neil said:

AveryLP said:

Brown's response was to ramp up borrowing:

Which was the perfectly sensible response. You dont slash spending in the immediate aftermath of a financial crisis.

In 2009-10 Brown plugged a £98 bn current account deficit with additional borrowing of £157 bn.

That is not the action of a sensible man.

Remember these figures exclude the amount he borrowed to bail out the banks.

Would you like to know how much that was?

I believe Scotland's Brown and Darling sanctioned a bank rescue package totalling some £500 billion (approximately $850 billion) in 2008 to save the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland . Apologies if I've underestimated.

You have underestimated, Moniker, but no need to apologise.

Here is the difference between Public Sector Net Debt (excluding "financial interventions") and Public Sector Net Debt at the end of the 2008-9 Fiscal Year. Financial interventions is Brown's euphemism for bank bailouts.

        PSND ex    PSND      Financial
                             Interventions
         £ mn       £ mn       £ mn 
2008/09 805,151   2,117,142  1,311,991

Although a rough and ready calculation this tells us that that the net cost was £1.3 trillion of additional borrowing.

Given our direct stakes in the banks are of an order of magnitude less, presumably this is some other sort of liability?

Yes it is the liabilities of the Public Sector Banking Groups less their liquid assets, with BoE thrown in although it only has a marginal impact,

so shoudn't this be being wound down as the positions turn liquid ?

Absolutely.

Provided, of course, that the impaired assets are correctly valued in the balance sheets, which is a reasonable assumption if we exclude black swan events. And if we allow sufficient time for RBoS Group to be restructured.

In fact PSND has been falling across this parliament meaning that Cameron would be technically correct in claiming that the government has reduced debt. Here are the figures in £'000.

2009/10  2,228,221
2010/11  2,245,391
2011/12  2,168,665
2012/13  2,201,531

To be fair though, I am not convinced this is what Cameron had in mind when he made the claim.

hmmm. Not exactly dropping like a stone. If you assume a bank normally rotates money on a 3 to 5 year cycle we should be seeing some of these positions unwinding. I can only assume from the static nature of the data the taxpayer is on the hook continuously or there are bigger problems lurking in balance sheets.

The figures include the rising PSND ex debt (100 bn added per year) so the underlying figures for the bank groups are better than the headline figures suggest. Also there are so many counter-intuitive classification rules in the National Accounts for the treatment of financial interventions that the figures don't really do much more than give us an overall snapshot.

Good point on the rest of the debt rising so the underlying on banks is falling but really the numbers should be going down faster.

Maybe I'm missing a trick, but if our banks need c. £25bn to restore their capital to health wouldn't we the nation be better putting it in as equity and removing £1.2trn of contingent liability ?

The banks have all informed the PRA that they will be able to meet the new capital requirements without having to issue new equity and mostly by avoiding CoCos (loan capital convertible to equity in the event of capital falling below regulatory requirements).

The problem is that meeting the new capital requirements out of profits is constraining their business operations. Banks are averse to lending which would disproportionately raise their capital requirements. Hence all the temporary 'pass-through' lending schemes being run by the Treasury and BoE,

The best solution would be for the BoE to buy out large chunks of the mortgage assets (particularly from the RBS-Halifax books). Such mortgages can be run down over term by the government (like the B&B and NR books) and because the central government controlled asset resolution companies are not taking deposits or undertaking new lending they fall outside regulatory capital requirements. The good stuff could even be securitised by the government if it wanted to bring forward cash flow and any residual losses could be charged back to the banks over time.

My guess is that this will be the magic that Carney brings to the BoE and we will be hearing more of it in the autumn.

sure but that sort of raises the question why do they need £1.2 trn of state guarantees ?

if their capital base is firm then the guarantees aren't needed and the market should return to normal. I have the feeling you're telling me the banks are still in the critical ward and can only meet the latest requirements if the guarantees stay in place. So maybe they need £75bn, £25bn to meet capital requirements and £50bn to cover write offs.

Ah, I see. There is no formal guarantee of the banks net liabilities (afaik), although obviously the mere fact the banks were bailed out implies a de facto guarantee.

What the National Accounts record as debt is the net liabilities of all public sector corporations, so the £1.2 trn isn't a cash flow so much as a debt transfer. The equity subscription and other BoE liquidity interventions will have involved cash movements but nowhere near the topline figure of the net liabilities and most will now have been wound down,

I understood the guarantee to be a govt worse case view of certain bank debts from the crisis. Nobody seriously expects it all to go bad but clearly a percentage will. Frankly we'd just be safer clearing the bad loans up and returning to normal banking. Although it might cost us, it's still probably less than having the economy stuck in first gear and dribbling the bad news over a decade.

Agree fully and that is what will be happening over the next year.

The complications are really only political. How much competition do we want in the retail banking market (TSB spin off, splitting of RBoS divisions); the Scottish Independence outcome; and, the desire of certain government ministers to buy electoral support by 'democratising' share distribution.

surbiton said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Y0kel said:

Syria. Cold War Proxy, Russian evacuations and Ed Miliband

Russia announced today that it had evacuated its personnel from Tartus port. The numbers were not great and the Russian Navy had been docking in Beirut for a while but the symbolism of the move cant be understated. Russia's official reason was to avoid a provocation against their troops. Whilst this is true, equally Putin knows that he is involved in a cold war style proxy fight with the collective West and Gulf States, who have to a greater or lesser degree turned on the arms taps again to the rebels, mainly around the critical city of Aleppo but fresh gear has turned up in the South too.

At this stage it is believed that its the Gulf states doing the buying and shipping and others who manage the logistics train. Some vagueness still surrounds the US role.

Another little sign that third party involvement has deepened is Ed Miliband's reported appearance at an NSC meeting in Downing Street. Opposition leaders don't get admitted too often.

Strange bedfellows:

Israel, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood govt. in the Egypt opposing Assad
Iraqi Shi'ite (mostly) government supplying fuel to Assad
Iraqi Sunni rebels attacking fuel convoys from Iraq to Syria.

Are you sure Israel really opposes the Assad regime ?

surbiton said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

surbiton said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Y0kel said:

Syria. Cold War Proxy, Russian evacuations and Ed Miliband

Russia announced today that it had evacuated its personnel from Tartus port. The numbers were not great and the Russian Navy had been docking in Beirut for a while but the symbolism of the move cant be understated. Russia's official reason was to avoid a provocation against their troops. Whilst this is true, equally Putin knows that he is involved in a cold war style proxy fight with the collective West and Gulf States, who have to a greater or lesser degree turned on the arms taps again to the rebels, mainly around the critical city of Aleppo but fresh gear has turned up in the South too.

At this stage it is believed that its the Gulf states doing the buying and shipping and others who manage the logistics train. Some vagueness still surrounds the US role.

Another little sign that third party involvement has deepened is Ed Miliband's reported appearance at an NSC meeting in Downing Street. Opposition leaders don't get admitted too often.

Strange bedfellows:

Israel, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood govt. in the Egypt opposing Assad
Iraqi Shi'ite (mostly) government supplying fuel to Assad
Iraqi Sunni rebels attacking fuel convoys from Iraq to Syria.

Are you sure Israel really opposes the Assad regime ?

I don't think they'll be negotiating on the Golan for a while, do you?

So Israel will back a Sunni Islamist regime to Assad who will do absolutely zilch against Israel !

dr_spyn said:

Government Failure in Wales.

http://news.sky.com/story/1108055/earn-48k-as-a-lap-dancer-careers-advisers-say

Pole dancers coming here, taking our jobs...

Sunil_Prasannan said:

@foxinsoxuk

Also the premium fares! Take HS1, the current high-speed rail line from London St Pancras out to Kent

HS1 off-peak day return fare from St Pancras to Chatham (for example):
21.10

Normal off-peak day return fare from Victoria to Chatham:
17.70

surbiton said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

surbiton said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

surbiton said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Y0kel said:

Syria. Cold War Proxy, Russian evacuations and Ed Miliband

Russia announced today that it had evacuated its personnel from Tartus port. The numbers were not great and the Russian Navy had been docking in Beirut for a while but the symbolism of the move cant be understated. Russia's official reason was to avoid a provocation against their troops. Whilst this is true, equally Putin knows that he is involved in a cold war style proxy fight with the collective West and Gulf States, who have to a greater or lesser degree turned on the arms taps again to the rebels, mainly around the critical city of Aleppo but fresh gear has turned up in the South too.

At this stage it is believed that its the Gulf states doing the buying and shipping and others who manage the logistics train. Some vagueness still surrounds the US role.

Another little sign that third party involvement has deepened is Ed Miliband's reported appearance at an NSC meeting in Downing Street. Opposition leaders don't get admitted too often.

Strange bedfellows:

Israel, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood govt. in the Egypt opposing Assad
Iraqi Shi'ite (mostly) government supplying fuel to Assad
Iraqi Sunni rebels attacking fuel convoys from Iraq to Syria.

Are you sure Israel really opposes the Assad regime ?

I don't think they'll be negotiating on the Golan for a while, do you?

So Israel will back a Sunni Islamist regime to Assad who will do absolutely zilch against Israel !

You seem to be forgetting the Shi'ite Hezbollah, who are sworn enemies of Israel, seemingly backing Assad to the hilt, literally, on the battlefield.

I am not forgetting anything. Assad is no threat to Israel. Israel has enough experience of him and his father. Why risk an Al-Qaeda led or backed regime ?

Andy_JS said:

I wonder why he dislikes Ed so much?

Sunil_Prasannan said:

dr_spyn said:

Government Failure in Wales.

http://news.sky.com/story/1108055/earn-48k-as-a-lap-dancer-careers-advisers-say

Pole dancers coming here, taking our jobs...

Tsk! And those Czech dancers, double tsk!

tim said:

Messiah Gove getting a good kicking from Chris Leslie on Newsnight

carl said:

isam said:

NickPalmer said:

Omnium said:

NickPalmer said:

Um. Omnium, are you under the impression that PCS is affiliated to the Labour Party? Not only are they not, they've toyed with the idea of putting up candidates against us. PCS subscription contributions to Labour are £0.

I was, and I stand corrected. Thank you. So I guess they do have no influence over Labour policy - I apologise if I suggested they did. I was wrong, sorry.

Well done, not many of us say we were wrong quite as straightforwardly as that! Thanks.

I propose June 26th shall henceforth be known as Ominium Day on PB.

Quite incredible

Yeah, very gracious.

But a pretty basic thing to not know in the first place, let's be honest.

Makes you wonder how many on here simply regurgitate something they "know" to be true, though. Immigrants with cats or whatever.

isam said:

carl said:

isam said:

NickPalmer said:

Omnium said:

NickPalmer said:

Um. Omnium, are you under the impression that PCS is affiliated to the Labour Party? Not only are they not, they've toyed with the idea of putting up candidates against us. PCS subscription contributions to Labour are £0.

I was, and I stand corrected. Thank you. So I guess they do have no influence over Labour policy - I apologise if I suggested they did. I was wrong, sorry.

Well done, not many of us say we were wrong quite as straightforwardly as that! Thanks.

I propose June 26th shall henceforth be known as Ominium Day on PB.

Quite incredible

Yeah, very gracious.

But a pretty basic thing to not know in the first place, let's be honest.

Makes you wonder how many on here simply regurgitate something they "know" to be true, though. Immigrants with cats or whatever.

Haha yes in all honesty most people you meet are aware of the basics in life, such as whether or not the PCS is affiliated to Labour!!

tim said:

The Sun has a laugh at Fop Osborne's common touch attempt.

@suttonnick: Thursday's Sun front page - "Shamburger - Osborne 'fast food' came from posh diner" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers http://t.co/lk2RzskmQY

carl said:

perdix said:

Tykejohnno said:

Telegraph Politics @TelePolitics

Today at PMQs: Twitter verdict shows Ed Miliband thrashed the Prime Minister http://bit.ly/12pVM2c

I would venture to suggest that most twitter obsessives are lefties and produce some bias in favour of rED.

Oh, everyone's a lefty. rED's subversives are everywhere, twitter, Al-Beeb. They're hiding in the polls and under the beds.

carl said:

isam said:

carl said:

isam said:

NickPalmer said:

Omnium said:

NickPalmer said:

Um. Omnium, are you under the impression that PCS is affiliated to the Labour Party? Not only are they not, they've toyed with the idea of putting up candidates against us. PCS subscription contributions to Labour are £0.

I was, and I stand corrected. Thank you. So I guess they do have no influence over Labour policy - I apologise if I suggested they did. I was wrong, sorry.

Well done, not many of us say we were wrong quite as straightforwardly as that! Thanks.

I propose June 26th shall henceforth be known as Ominium Day on PB.

Quite incredible

Yeah, very gracious.

But a pretty basic thing to not know in the first place, let's be honest.

Makes you wonder how many on here simply regurgitate something they "know" to be true, though. Immigrants with cats or whatever.

Haha yes in all honesty most people you meet are aware of the basics in life, such as whether or not the PCS is affiliated to Labour!!

PB is a forum about politics, isn't it?

tim said:

isam said:

tim said:

The Sun has a laugh at Fop Osborne's common touch attempt.

@suttonnick: Thursday's Sun front page - "Shamburger - Osborne 'fast food' came from posh diner" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers http://t.co/lk2RzskmQY

Wonder where it came from? I don't eat beef anymore but could go a nice burger after seeing The Sun front page... Gourmet Burger Kitchen? deliverance?

Byrons I guess.
Why he tweeted the photo god only knows, clueless fop must've surely known how fake Dave looks when he tries this man of the people crap.

NickPalmer said:

carl said:

perdix said:

Tykejohnno said:

Telegraph Politics @TelePolitics

Today at PMQs: Twitter verdict shows Ed Miliband thrashed the Prime Minister http://bit.ly/12pVM2c

I would venture to suggest that most twitter obsessives are lefties and produce some bias in favour of rED.

Oh, everyone's a lefty. rED's subversives are everywhere, twitter, Al-Beeb. They're hiding in the polls and under the beds.

But carl wins that one. (This Wimbledon umpire stuff is catching.)