Northern Rock sale

17 Nov 2011

Seems that the government has just sold on the main part of the 'bailed out' (aka state/taxpayer owned) Northern Rock to Virgin Money, effective 1st January 2012.
Since coming into 'our' ownership, Nothern Rock has been split into two
- Northern Rock Plc
- Northern Rock (Asset Management), into which was placed its bad debt.
Guess what ?
Yep, Virgin have bought the Plc part for £747 million)
Seems a good deal, until you realise that we the taxpayers 'bailed out' Northern Rock for over £1.4 billion.
Though on top of the £747m there is the potential for the Treasury to receive a further £280m over the next few years.
Wooppee do.
Can we please have Rt Hon Michael Gove MP moved from Secretary of State for Education to replace Chancellor of the Exchequer: Rt Hon George Osborne MP, because I'm pretty sure that being in charge of Education his maths skills will be better, as £747m + £280M does not equal £1.4 billion.
:jagsatwork:
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Rt Hon George Osborne MP said: "The sale of Northern Rock to Virgin Money is an important first step in getting the British taxpayer out of the business of owning banks. It represents value for money; will increase choice on the high street for customers; and safeguards jobs in the North East."
Which part of value for money doens't he understand given that - £747m - possible £280m = £373m loss to the Taxpaper ?
banghead

Granted George obviously has other things to worry about, so 'our' investments in financial institutions such as Northen Rock, Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds TSB, etc. being managed at arm’s-length by UK Financial Investments Ltd (UKFI). However the UKFI’s mandate requires it to achieve value for money for the tax payer.
:doh:
So that's alright then and George is 'off the hook'.
Ho but hang on isn't UKFI a Companies Act Company ?
and isn't the HM Treasury as its sole shareholder ?
and aren't the company’s activities governed by its Board, which is accountable to the Chancellor of the Exchequer ?
So that makes George still firmly 'on the hook' in our book, might be worth asking him where the rest of our money is ?
And it gets worse.
Remember this is just for the Northern Rock Plc part of the deal, that still leaves us all owning Northern Rock (Asset Management), where size of the losses contained in the bad bank part of Northern Rock are still uncertain, but could amount to as much as £21bn.
:eeek:
No wonder the government has said 'it had no plans to sell Northern Rock (Asset Management), don't think we could all collectively afford any more of these value for money sales ideas of Goerge Osborne and his chums/appointees in UKFI.
:fuckinghell:

17 Nov 2011

Quote by HnS
Seems that the government has just sold on the main part of the 'bailed out' (aka state/taxpayer owned) Northern Rock to Virgin Money, effective 1st January 2012.
Since coming into 'our' ownership, Nothern Rock has been split into two
- Northern Rock Plc
- Northern Rock (Asset Management), into which was placed its bad debt.
Guess what ?
Yep, Virgin have bought the Plc part for £747 million)
Seems a good deal, until you realise that we the taxpayers 'bailed out' Northern Rock for over £1.4 billion.
Though on top of the £747m there is the potential for the Treasury to receive a further £280m over the next few years.
Wooppee do.
Can we please have Rt Hon Michael Gove MP moved from Secretary of State for Education to replace Chancellor of the Exchequer: Rt Hon George Osborne MP, because I'm pretty sure that being in charge of Education his maths skills will be better, as £747m + £280M does not equal £1.4 billion.
:jagsatwork:
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Rt Hon George Osborne MP said: "The sale of Northern Rock to Virgin Money is an important first step in getting the British taxpayer out of the business of owning banks. It represents value for money; will increase choice on the high street for customers; and safeguards jobs in the North East."
Which part of value for money doens't he understand given that - £747m - possible £280m = £373m loss to the Taxpaper ?

Granted George obviously has other things to worry about, so 'our' investments in financial institutions such as Northen Rock, Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds TSB, etc. being managed at arm’s-length by UK Financial Investments Ltd (UKFI). However the UKFI’s mandate requires it to achieve value for money for the tax payer.
:doh:
So that's alright then and George is 'off the hook'.
Ho but hang on isn't UKFI a Companies Act Company ?
and isn't the HM Treasury as its sole shareholder ?
and aren't the company’s activities governed by its Board, which is accountable to the Chancellor of the Exchequer ?
So that makes George still firmly 'on the hook' in our book, might be worth asking him where the rest of our money is ?
And it gets worse.
Remember this is just for the Northern Rock Plc part of the deal, that still leaves us all owning Northern Rock (Asset Management), where size of the losses contained in the bad bank part of Northern Rock are still uncertain, but could amount to as much as £21bn.
:eeek:
No wonder the government has said 'it had no plans to sell Northern Rock (Asset Management), don't think we could all collectively afford any more of these value for money sales ideas of Goerge Osborne and his chums/appointees in UKFI.
:fuckinghell:

erm: you seem to let the bit out as to who the fuck give them our money in the first place
oh yes it was the very same person who sold all our gold reserves at an all time low
in my mind it goes to prove that as a business they should have been left to fold like any other business rolleyes

17 Nov 2011

Rob ..... the collapse of N.R. wasn't Gordon Browns' fault,that his government decided to bail it out is a historical fact,whether you agreed with it or not .... this sale is nothing to do with previous administrations,but is more than a little typical of tory governments .... so much for 'new politics' 'in this together' and responsibility ..... evil hypocritical cronyist pocket lining tory cunts .... good luck with the tax increases and cuts

17 Nov 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Rob ..... the collapse of N.R. wasn't Gordon Browns' fault,that his government decided to bail it out is a historical fact,whether you agreed with it or not .... this sale is nothing to do with previous administrations,but is more than a little typical of tory governments .... so much for 'new politics' 'in this together' and responsibility ..... evil hypocritical cronyist pocket lining tory cunts .... good luck with the tax increases and cuts

I am sure those good fellows at Tory HQ have the countrys best interest at heart

17 Nov 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Rob ..... the collapse of N.R. wasn't Gordon Browns' fault,that his government decided to bail it out is a historical fact,whether you agreed with it or not .... this sale is nothing to do with previous administrations,but is more than a little typical of tory governments .... so much for 'new politics' 'in this together' and responsibility ..... evil hypocritical cronyist pocket lining tory cunts .... good luck with the tax increases and cuts

its a bit like second hand goods staggs its only worth what someone wants to pay for it
so its sold
i doubt that it was a figure the government had in mind but then with the current economic climate it might be wiser than you or i think
if the government see that repossessions are likely to increase then who wants to be holding the weakest of banks who are most likely to suffer as things take a turn for the worse
which i'll add where not the doing of the current administration was it
as i stated before this current government is no different to the last and stand by my own personal opinion that as a business the banks should have been allowed to fold
as im sure the government wont bail out your place of work or any other business for that matter
so why are they so different dunno

just balancing out the scales a bit thats all

17 Nov 2011

Quote by Lizaleanrob
its a bit like second hand goods staggs its only worth what someone wants to pay for it
so its sold

Only Rob if it's on the bargain shelf .... until then it is like anything else worth the sum total of it's assets ... so why was it sold ??

17 Nov 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
Rob ..... the collapse of N.R. wasn't Gordon Browns' fault,that his government decided to bail it out is a historical fact,whether you agreed with it or not .... this sale is nothing to do with previous administrations,but is more than a little typical of tory governments .... so much for 'new politics' 'in this together' and responsibility ..... evil hypocritical cronyist pocket lining tory cunts .... good luck with the tax increases and cuts

I am sure those good fellows at Tory HQ have the countrys best interest at heart
Only Blue if someone has been down the hospital and nicked a heart for them

17 Nov 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB

its a bit like second hand goods staggs its only worth what someone wants to pay for it
so its sold

Only Rob if it's on the bargain shelf .... until then it is like anything else worth the sum total of it's assets ... so why was it sold ??
i hate so say ol bean but very little is worth its assets now days unless your assets are oil or gold
anyone that thinks house prices wont fall dramatically once there is an abundance of empty houses then they have a very short sighted outlook banks and mortgage companies are going to take a big hit would you wanna own one of them knowing what most likely to happen
the very same as petrol prices staggs the petrol companies are now earning less now than when it was a £1 a gallon why? because their selling 25% less now than then add the price rise in crude since and hey presto , simple economics fella
you could ask the same about our gold reserves mate in fact if ol brownie had waited then he could have doubled his money
its all just goose and gander mate
you might wanna let the past go and see em all for what they are

17 Nov 2011

Quote by Lizaleanrob

its a bit like second hand goods staggs its only worth what someone wants to pay for it
so its sold

Only Rob if it's on the bargain shelf .... until then it is like anything else worth the sum total of it's assets ... so why was it sold ??
i hate so say ol bean but very little is worth its assets now days unless your assets are oil or gold
anyone that thinks house prices wont fall dramatically once there is an abundance of empty houses then they have a very short sighted outlook banks and mortgage companies are going to take a big hit would you wanna own one of them knowing what most likely to happen
the very same as petrol prices staggs the petrol companies are now earning less now than when it was a £1 a gallon why? because their selling 25% less now than then add the price rise in crude since and hey presto , simple economics fella
you could ask the same about our gold reserves mate in fact if ol brownie had waited then he could have doubled his money
its all just goose and gander mate
you might wanna let the past go and see em all for what they are
Arse holes, every last one wink

17 Nov 2011

Quote by HnS
Seems that the government has just sold on the main part of the 'bailed out' (aka state/taxpayer owned) Northern Rock to Virgin Money, effective 1st January 2012.
Since coming into 'our' ownership, Nothern Rock has been split into two
- Northern Rock Plc
- Northern Rock (Asset Management), into which was placed its bad debt.
Guess what ?
Yep, Virgin have bought the Plc part for £747 million)
Seems a good deal, until you realise that we the taxpayers 'bailed out' Northern Rock for over £1.4 billion.
Though on top of the £747m there is the potential for the Treasury to receive a further £280m over the next few years.
Wooppee do.
Can we please have Rt Hon Michael Gove MP moved from Secretary of State for Education to replace Chancellor of the Exchequer: Rt Hon George Osborne MP, because I'm pretty sure that being in charge of Education his maths skills will be better, as £747m + £280M does not equal £1.4 billion.
:jagsatwork:
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Rt Hon George Osborne MP said: "The sale of Northern Rock to Virgin Money is an important first step in getting the British taxpayer out of the business of owning banks. It represents value for money; will increase choice on the high street for customers; and safeguards jobs in the North East."
Which part of value for money doens't he understand given that - £747m - possible £280m = £373m loss to the Taxpaper ?

So should the taxpayer continue to fund losses at Northern Rock? For the financial years 2009, 2010 and the first 6 months of 2011, the losses totalled some £600 million. Deduct that from the £1.4 billion injected into Northern Rock and you are not that far from the sale price. If the banking sector continues to be in the doldrums the bank will continue to make losses which will have to be funded by the taxpayer. Is it not a good idea to take the best offer on the table now and avoid any further losses? What would the cost to the taxpayer have been if the Labour government had allowed Northern Rock to fail, given that it would have had to underwrite savers deposits?
Granted George obviously has other things to worry about, so 'our' investments in financial institutions such as Northen Rock, Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds TSB, etc. being managed at arm's-length by UK Financial Investments Ltd (UKFI). However the UKFI's mandate requires it to achieve value for money for the tax payer.
:doh:
So that's alright then and George is 'off the hook'.
Ho but hang on isn't UKFI a Companies Act Company ?
and isn't the HM Treasury as its sole shareholder ?
and aren't the company's activities governed by its Board, which is accountable to the Chancellor of the Exchequer ?
So that makes George still firmly 'on the hook' in our book, might be worth asking him where the rest of our money is ?
Look at the losses incurred since the government took over the bank. That's where our money is.
And it gets worse.
Remember this is just for the Northern Rock Plc part of the deal, that still leaves us all owning Northern Rock (Asset Management), where size of the losses contained in the bad bank part of Northern Rock are still uncertain, but could amount to as much as £21bn.
:eeek:
No wonder the government has said 'it had no plans to sell Northern Rock (Asset Management), don't think we could all collectively afford any more of these value for money sales ideas of Goerge Osborne and his chums/appointees in UKFI.
:fuckinghell:
I don't understand the point you are making? Who would buy Northern Rock (Asset Management)? The government would probably have to pay to have it taken off their hands.

17 Nov 2011

Interesting max, Makes a lot more sense now. Thanks

17 Nov 2011

Quote by Lizaleanrob
you might wanna let the past go and see em all for what they are

That's two of us then
But speaking of jumping the gun

Oh and the asset management side .... who'd buy it ???

Can anyone lend me a tenner .... I reckon that would buy it

17 Nov 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB

you might wanna let the past go and see em all for what they are

That's two of us then
But speaking of jumping the gun

Oh and the asset management side .... who'd buy it ???

Can anyone lend me a tenner .... I reckon that would buy it
Here is the actual press release from Northern Rock for the results for the first months of 2011.

This is a paragraph taken from that report
"The Company currently expects to begin trading profitably during the second half of 2012"
so any expected profits are at least a year away at earliest. If the economic outlook continued to worsen and had a negative impact on the bank's performance, would the offer price still have been the same a year down the line? Having said that, if the bank does perform, Virgin Money can pay a further £280 million to the government as part of the deal.
With regards to the Asset Management side, it may only cost you a tenner to buy but it still has potential losses of £21 billion. I doubt anyone will underwrite that for you.
"Part of the reason for the swing to profit was a big reduction in the money set aside to cover loans that may not be repaid. This is because, as economic conditions improve, the bank expects more loans to be paid back"
The above is a paragraph taken from your link (dated August 2010)....obviously the opposite will no doubt apply, as economic conditions worsen, the profits will swing back to losses again.

18 Nov 2011

Only Time will tell, if we have cut our losses and run.....or as I fear we have sold a company on the cheap, that as we have now written off most of the bad debt, will actually return to profit !!!
Thing is Richard Branson is no ones fool. I can't honestly see him buying a loss making organization. In reality I think he may indeed of brought a goose, that will lay him some golden eggs...and whats more brought it on the cheap !!
But as I have said, thats pure speculation, and we have to let time be the judge !!
More to the point is what we are going to do with the 700 million we now have in the coffers !! Lets hope it is used to stimulate business and the economy !!

18 Nov 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB

you might wanna let the past go and see em all for what they are

That's two of us then
But speaking of jumping the gun

Oh and the asset management side .... who'd buy it ???

Can anyone lend me a tenner .... I reckon that would buy it
sure you read this bit staggs
Northern Rock returns to profit
Northern Rock branch sign Northern Rock was nationalised in February 2008
Continue reading the main story
Big Banking
Northern Rock Asset Management (NRAM), the so-called "bad bank" part of the old Northern Rock business, has reported a return to profit.
NRAM holds most of the rescued bank's old mortgages and unsecured loans.
Pre-tax profit came in at for the first six months of the year, compared with a loss of in the same period last year.
However, Northern Rock PLC, the "good bank" holding savers' deposits and new loans, made a pre-tax loss of
This is the first set of results since Northern Rock was split into two.
Since 1 January, savers' money and some existing mortgages have been held by Northern Rock PLC, which was spun off from the old bank, now renamed NRAM.
makes sence as to why it was sold ............doesn't it

18 Nov 2011

all this is a drop in the ocean compared to what were into rbs and loyds tsb for
some 65 billion quid .......nice one brownie banghead

18 Nov 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
the collapse of N.R. wasn't Gordon Browns' fault,that his government decided to bail it out is a historical fact,whether you agreed with it or not .... this sale is nothing to do with previous administrations,but is more than a little typical of tory governments .... so much for 'new politics' 'in this together' and responsibility ..... evil hypocritical cronyist pocket lining tory cunts .... good luck with the tax increases and cuts

what a strange thing to say. politics is sometimes confusing i am aware of that, not my greatest subject ether but even i can see that the comments above have to come from someone who struggles with the concept of politics.:notes:

was mr brown not chancellor as well for many a yeer before being pm? should a chancellor not be able to understand simple economics in the banking industry?
no wonder we are skint now then eh?
sorry no money left is a comment i hear was mentioned to the new conservative administration. yes all spent by yeers of brown/blair politics that thought that having five million more workers coming into the uk, would make everything alright again. sadly alas it has only made matters worse and the current climate grim for yeers to come.
sadly most of us will suffer from the cuts from schools to local councils to hospitals and the police.

18 Nov 2011

The language and attitudes displayed on this forum are at times disgusting.
If language and hostility of the type shown on here was directed in racial or sexual tones the poster would be hounded out. Why do I have to be a Tory cunt? I find that offensive, very offensive.
People with attitudfes like that are either misguided, bitter, twisted or just plain ignorant. I am a Tory supporter because I see sense in what this Conservative led coalition government is doing and I object to being referred to as a Tory cunt just because I don't agree with what the labour government did for years destroying this country.

18 Nov 2011

Hear Hear Too Hot :thumbup:
And before some of you imbeciles crawl out from under your stones to remind me that as I now live in France, what is it to do with me - can I remind you that I can still vote in Parliamentary Elections in the UK (either in person or by post) and I will continue to exercise my democratic right to do so until it expires.
I too voted for the so called Tory 'cunts' and whilst I don't necessarily agree with all that the Tory led coalition is doing (they didn't win outright), Heaven forbid that we still had that evil snake in the grass Borown in charge - even less the new boy wonder crying in his mummy's milk every Wednesday at PMQ's when he, quite rightly, gets slapped down.
NR was losing £600M plus year on year. Whilst (old) forecasts suggested that they may fare better in the future (that was before the Euro crisis set in) HMG - the British Taxpayer - would continue to fund considerable shortfalls if it remained in public ownership.
It is a good deal at the right time. Somewhat better than GB did with selling off the gold.

18 Nov 2011

Quote by Too Hot
The language and attitudes displayed on this forum are at times disgusting.
If language and hostility of the type shown on here was directed in racial or sexual tones the poster would be hounded out. Why do I have to be a Tory cunt? I find that offensive, very offensive.
People with attitudfes like that are either misguided, bitter, twisted or just plain ignorant. I am a Tory supporter because I see sense in what this Conservative led coalition government is doing and I object to being referred to as a Tory cunt just because I don't agree with what the labour government did for years destroying this country.

yet again we have to hear this same member resorting to that word. funny i read that word was also used to describe the pope as well some while back.
as i said only a few days ago " purely for effect and you do it very well i must say ".
i to voted tory last time so i presume i am also a tory cunt. dunno

i have also voted labor as well in the past, but that is fine.
when a member continues to upset and annoy others with deliberate aims, then it surely must be time for the site to step in. :notes:
getting back onto the subject, as a taxpayer i beleeve that they should have ether sold it for more than they did, or wait for the financial problems to ease and then try and re sell it. this way we the taxpayer have lost a hell of a lot of money, and the government could not care less reely as it at the end of the day is not there money they are losing, but ours at a time when we cannot afford to lose any more money!

18 Nov 2011

I think it is a spelling mistake, "Tory cuts" was how it should have read... lol

18 Nov 2011

nah, the profitable part given away ! where did virgin money get the money from ? like the glaziers at manchester united, they mortgaged it against the bank's assets and left the taxpayer with the debts. it's a con but dont worry, your pension is still safe ?

19 Nov 2011

Quote by gulsonroad30664
nah, the profitable part given away ! where did virgin money get the money from ? like the glaziers at manchester united, they mortgaged it against the bank's assets and left the taxpayer with the debts. it's a con but dont worry, your pension is still safe ?

So the profitable part has been given away? What valuation would you put on what you say is the profitable part ( despite it still racking up losses)?
Of course you are privy to Virgin Money's funding of this acquisition. Do you have any idea as to the discount the sale price is to asset valuation?

19 Nov 2011

Quote by Max777
nah, the profitable part given away ! where did virgin money get the money from ? like the glaziers at manchester united, they mortgaged it against the bank's assets and left the taxpayer with the debts. it's a con but dont worry, your pension is still safe ?

So the profitable part has been given away? What valuation would you put on what you say is the profitable part ( despite it still racking up losses)?
Of course you are privy to Virgin Money's funding of this acquisition. Do you have any idea as to the discount the sale price is to asset valuation?
Is the bit in bold English? I can't even work that out. I take it that it is some economic/accountancy term...............that means feck all to this fellah.
I really shouldn't follow in-depth threads late at night lol

Dave_Notts

19 Nov 2011

Quote by Dave__Notts
nah, the profitable part given away ! where did virgin money get the money from ? like the glaziers at manchester united, they mortgaged it against the bank's assets and left the taxpayer with the debts. it's a con but dont worry, your pension is still safe ?

So the profitable part has been given away? What valuation would you put on what you say is the profitable part ( despite it still racking up losses)?
Of course you are privy to Virgin Money's funding of this acquisition. Do you have any idea as to the discount the sale price is to asset valuation?
Is the bit in bold English? I can't even work that out. I take it that it is some economic/accountancy term...............that means feck all to this fellah.
I really shouldn't follow in-depth threads late at night lol

Dave_Notts
Sorry Dave. I shouldn't try to be serious on a Friday night after a few beers. It just means what percentage the sale price is of the valuation of the assets being bought.
Is that any more clear? confused

??:

19 Nov 2011

Quote by Max777
Sorry Dave. I shouldn't try to be serious on a Friday night after a few beers. It just means what percentage the sale price is of the valuation of the assets being bought.
Is that any more clear? ??:

Sorry Max, it isn't. I think this bit is way too deep for my understanding. I was following the thread ok until this bit..........now I am completely lost. Is there an idiots guide/link that you could point me to please.
Me and economics are not the best of friends :silly:
Does it mean:
"valuation of the assets being bought" = Total value of the bank
"what percentage the sale price" = The percentage price being paid against the total value of the bank e.g. the bank is valued at 1,000,000 and they bought for for 500,000 so it is 50%
Am I close?
Dave_Notts

19 Nov 2011

Quote by Dave__Notts
Sorry Dave. I shouldn't try to be serious on a Friday night after a few beers. It just means what percentage the sale price is of the valuation of the assets being bought.
Is that any more clear? ??:

Sorry Max, it isn't. I think this bit is way too deep for my understanding. I was following the thread ok until this bit..........now I am completely lost. Is there an idiots guide/link that you could point me to please.
Me and economics are not the best of friends :silly:
Does it mean:
"valuation of the assets being bought" = Total value of the bank
"what percentage the sale price" = The percentage price being paid against the total value of the bank e.g. the bank is valued at 1,000,000 and they bought for for 500,000 so it is 50%
Am I close?
Dave_Notts
You're spot on Dave. In your example the discount of sale price to asset valuation would be 50%

19 Nov 2011

Cheers for that. Now I'll sit back and read what more knowledgeable people write about this subject.
Dave_Notts

19 Nov 2011

after watching the annual children in need and the huge ammounts of money rased by ordinary peeple most of the time, does anyone here realise that the sale of nr and the losses incurred by the taxpayer far outstrips what children in need raised in totoal?
listening to wonderful places that are on the brink of shutting down because they no longer have the funds to keep these places open, that do such wonderful work for children in this country. children that without these places would suffer dredfully, all for a cost of 200 thousand pounds a yeer one of them needs to keep open.
children in need helps thousands and thousands of disadvantaged kids every years, from the 40 odd million pounds it rases.
now take on board those facts and see what kind of great things could have been achieved with 600 MILLION pounds that we have lost from nr. i find that to be such tragic and awful financial politics from peeple that we as a nation have voted in to look after out institutions. someone here mentioned about brown selling off our gold at a time when the price was rock bottom, does that reely sound like a manwho should have been put in charge?
with the growing problems within europe those same peeple have been let loose with money that runs into billions of pounds that have been lost. the only time these peeple seem to be accountable is when the voters put there x's on there ballot papers. a lot of these incompetent politicians should be held accountable by law where they make such dredful decisions that lose millions of pounds. a broker would face the law on that basis, so why not a politician? after all it is not there money they are losing but ours.
does anyone who watched children in need understand how many things that little loss of 6oo million would bring and buy?
maybe branson who has brought the money making part of nr,. would like to match what children in need raised this yeer, as after all i am sure branson kinows that he will now make lots of money through this sale so spred some of that around?

19 Nov 2011

Actually Star, Virgin Money have bought what currently is the LOSS making part of NR, although it has been forecast to start making money again next year. Of course they hope to make money out of the acquisition, that is the whole point.
The Government have said this is the best offer on the table. My belief is that Osborne and co believe that the economic situaion is going to get much worse and a year down the line the offer may well not be there, so are taking what they can get now.