Thread: A note of caution for those with deposits in US Banks

777 point drop in the DOW at close. Asia opens in a moment. Banks on the watch list today:

RBS (UK) - This includes NatWest...
Kaupthing (Iceland) - Largest bank in Iceland
Landsbanki (Iceland) - Second largest bank in Iceland
UBS (Switzerland)
Halifax/Bank of Scotland/Lloyds TSB (UK) - This will be the 'big one' for the UK...
Anglo Irish Bank (Republic of Ireland)
National City (US)
Citi (US) - The NUCLEAR one.....................

The US House of Representatives has voted down a $700bn (£380bn) plan aimed at bailing out Wall Street. The rescue plan, a result of tense talks between the government and lawmakers, was rejected by 228 to 205 votes in the House of Representatives
BBC NEWS | Business | House votes down bail-out package

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

So you now admit you commented on something you know nothing about.

again where did I say that ? as usual, another of your extrapolation

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

B&B were the 8th biggest bank in the UK, the largest Buy-to-Let lender and held $80BN deposits.

Yeah, so it's a shitty small local British bank like I expected, like anyone in the world would give a fuck, except British depositors. You calling them to close, is like you calling the post office in your village to close. Thanks for playing.

Originally Posted by Panda

The rescue plan, a result of tense talks between the government and lawmakers....

Now it's not a "bailout." It's a "rescue plan." And the contractors hired to administer this were many of the same ones involved? I am seeing, reading, and hearing a lot of real, anger by Joe and Joanne Sixpack, right now.

Summary of the current crisis:

Originally Posted by Butterfly

like you calling the post office in your village to close.

Quote of the day!

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

So you now admit you commented on something you know nothing about.

again where did I say that ?

Here:

Originally Posted by Butterfly

As for B&B, I don't follow British stuff

Despite the fact that in May you said this about the very same B&B:

Originally Posted by Butterfly

ok, so nothing is really happening with all the boring stories you are posting. Can you digg something that is relevant and mind provoking instead ?

it's like that you are counting the number of fallen trees after a tornado, surely there must be something more important than just fallen trees.

I think its time to hit the big red panic button.

As more people lose some of their expected their savings, more will consider working longer which will make things harder for those in the job market especially during a slowdown. This has a massive compounding effect across the board. How many of you are ready to buy that condo in Dubai or house in Spain? Most won't be buying and that means money tied up there too. It's crazy.

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

Despite the fact that in May you said this about the very same B&B:

How is a building society like B&B and NorthernRock going to create a massive collapse worldwide ? is that what you predicted ? a bit of a stretch, isn't ? yes those 2 on a worldwide scale are just fucking noises, and they didn't default on their depositors. Double OwNAGE for you then

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

As for B&B, I don't follow British stuff

Not following a British bank somehow translates into me not knowing anything about the subject of banks ? another of your infamous extrapolation ?

^I am going to enjoy you twisting in the wind on this one. Likening the current crisis to a "Village Post Office closing". Calling B&B and Northern Rock Building Societies. You claim to know about banks, but you don't even know two banks are, er, in fact, banks (albeit bankrupt, nationalised ones).

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

Likening the current crisis to a "Village Post Office closing".

Nothing to twist really,

you called for B&B to default, did it ? no, it was nationalized, and is B&B a major International bank ? no, it's like your village Post Office closing, it doesn't have an impact beyond the locals,

thanks for playing,

^I called it to fail. It has. It has also defaulted on its bonds.

Some many people will find it funny that you admit to not knowing anything about British banking, only to express an opinion on, er, British banking!

That's probably why you think B&B is like a village Post Office.

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

I called it to fail. It has. It has also defaulted on its bonds.

simple question: did B&B went bankrupt ? is bankrupt a sufficient definition for fail ?

did B&B bonds defaulted ? link ? or are you confusing downgrading with defaulting ? gee, what a surprise that would be

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

I called it to fail. It has. It has also defaulted on its bonds.

simple question: did B&B went bankrupt ? is bankrupt a sufficient definition for fail ?

Simple answer. Bankrupt. Then bailed out and nationalised by UK Government. Savings operation sold off to Santander. $41BN mortgages now rest with UK taxpayer. First $15BN loss liability with banking sector in UK (from the FSCS pot).

Originally Posted by Butterfly

did B&B bonds defaulted ? link ? or are you confusing downgrading with defaulting ? gee, what a surprise that would be

No confusion. You want a link? Here we go:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ey-losses.html

The Treasury has also secured a greater buffer in nationalising B&B than at Northern Rock by refusing to extend its guarantee to subordinated bondholders. At Northern Rock, subordinated debts were fully protected and only the shareholders were wiped out.

Here we go:

• Butterfly on page 1 decides that all banks are, in fact, unsafe.
• Butterfly then responds to predictions of bank failure with "nothing to see here"
• Butterfly admits to not knowing anything about UK banks, despite having been commenting on them throughout the thread.
• Butterfly then thinks that the 5th and 8th largest banks in UK are Building Societies, underscoring the above point.
• Butterfly likens the current crisis to the closure of a village Post Office.
• Butterfly thinks that bankrupt banks are apparrently in rosy health.
• Butterfly confuses downgrading and defaulting.

I wonder at what point Butterfly hangs his head in shame.

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

Simple answer. Bankrupt.

But B&B didn't go Bankrupt. Their ratios were low, and by law they were taken over by regulators, it's the regulation, not the bankruptcy. Did they declare or were forced into Bankruptcy ? no, so in simple terms, they didn't fail, did they ? they were in trouble, but didn't fail as going bankrupt.

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ey-losses.html

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

extend its guarantee to subordinated bondholders

Nowhere does it say they defaulted on their bonds, so like I expected you were talking out of your ass and speculating as usual.

So in summary, you called for a "bank" to "fail", that is to go bankrupt, but it didn't, and not even defaulted on its bonds.

Do you know what is default and what is bankrupt ? I am starting to think that you don't actually,

Thanks for playing,

^By deleting the words "refusing to" prior to the words "extend its guarantee to subordinated bondholders" does not fool anyone. Your lies are just plain funny to see.

Can you describe how you think B&B were not bankrupt? Perhaps you think that they were so profitable they were seized by the UK Government as some sort of windfall tax!

In Butterfly's world no banks have failed in the past 6-months. They are just masking their 'success'.

I am off out (into the real world).

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

By deleting the words "refusing to" prior to the words "extend its guarantee to subordinated bondholders" does not fool anyone.

those bonds weren't guarantee in the first place, why would the government need to guarantee them after taking over ? doesn't make sense, they are not a government agency. Did the government issued those bonds ? no, their debt covenant doesn't entitle the bond holders to the government guarantee, it's simple as that.

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

Can you describe how you think B&B were not bankrupt?

ha, you are finally admitting of lying ? they didn't go bankrupt as you were declaring another of your imaginary victory in this thread. They didn't declare bankruptcy, it's plain and simple. Their ratios were too low and by law they were taken over, it's the standard procedure, how hard is it for you to understand ? oh wait, you don't

Show me a news link (your forte) where it says that B&B went Bankrupt.

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

I am off out (into the real world).

yes we know, standard operating procedure when you lose an argument, see you in 2 days when you claim nothing happened

so in summary, despite what bkka is claiming,

B&B didn't go bankrupt, and their bonds didn't default, these are simple facts, everyone can check the news, it's very clear.

This is what happened: because their financial ratios were low, by law they needed to borrow capital to make up for it. They could no longer maintain their ratios, too expensive in this environment, eroding their profit margin already under a lot of stress, so government takes over, standard operating procedure when a bank can't maintain their ratios. It doesn't mean the bank is going bankrupt, just that it "failed" some financial safety test and the bank wasn't willing to fix those safety test because expensive. Results: government takes over. Everybody is happy and safe.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

By deleting the words "refusing to" prior to the words "extend its guarantee to subordinated bondholders" does not fool anyone.

those bonds weren't guarantee in the first place, why would the government need to guarantee them after taking over ? doesn't make sense, they are not a government agency. Did the government issued those bonds ? no, their debt covenant doesn't entitle the bond holders to the government guarantee, it's simple as that.

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

Can you describe how you think B&B were not bankrupt?

ha, you are finally admitting of lying ? they didn't go bankrupt as you were declaring another of your imaginary victory in this thread. They didn't declare bankruptcy, it's plain and simple. Their ratios were too low and by law they were taken over, it's the standard procedure, how hard is it for you to understand ? oh wait, you don't

Show me a news link (your forte) where it says that B&B went Bankrupt.

You are the ultimate idiot/troll*.

(*Delete as appropriate)

B&B (formally the 8th biggest bank in the UK, which is the world's 4th largest economy) collapsed into bankruptcy on Monday at 07.30BST, 30 minutes prior to trading in its shares on the LSE. It was then nationalised and its assets broken up. Its saving division, branches and branch staff were sold to Abbey, who are owned by Spain's Santander. Its mortgages were nationalised and in recognising that there was a deficit of assets over liabilities (which is the very definition of being bankrupt) the FSCS 'pot' will have to pay the first £15BN, the remainder of the deficit of assets over liabilities will be bourne by the UK taxpayer.

This is the very definition of a bankrupt bank. If you cannot see this, you are mentally ill. I have no idea why you are argueing over these facts.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

By deleting the words "refusing to" prior to the words "extend its guarantee to subordinated bondholders" does not fool anyone.

those bonds weren't guarantee in the first place, why would the government need to guarantee them after taking over ? doesn't make sense, they are not a government agency. Did the government issued those bonds ? no, their debt covenant doesn't entitle the bond holders to the government guarantee, it's simple as that.

Why would the bonds be guaranteed by the UK Government "in the first place"? B&B was a private company and there would be no reason for their bonds to be guaranteed by public bodies prior to nationalisation.

The point was that, at the point of nationalisation, the nationalising Goverment specifically excluded the possibility of guarentee, which means the bonds will default, as there is a deficit of assets over liabilities.

Why on earth are you going on about whether the UK Government issued the bonds? As stated, the bonds were issued by B&B and are not guarenteed by anyone. That is the whole point. They will be in default. Just like your sanity.