It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Give voters shares in bailed-out banks, says Nick Clegg

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:22 PM

Give voters shares in bailed-out banks, says Nick Clegg

Every adult in Britain would receive free shares in the nationalised banks under plans to reward the public for helping bail out the City during the financial crisis.

More than 46 million people would be handed the shares in Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group (LSE: LLOY.L - news) under the “people’s bank” plan devised by Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr Clegg said that it was “psychologically immensely important” for people to be given a stake in the banks in the wake of the financial crisis. “Their money has been used to the tune of billions and billion
(visit the link for the full news article)

Related News Links:

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:22 PM
When I first read this on the surface I thought "Yay, some money back .....eventually."

But since, the eerie note of "psychological importance" keeps ringing in my head, reminding me of how controlled this measure should it come to fruition really is.

We Brits now have a vested interest in how the financial crisis globally pans out, because if it goes well, we get a nice payday, if it doesn't, well perhaps I will leave it for you guys to fill in the gap.

BBC business correspondent Robert Peston, has a different take of the situation.

"Or to put it another way, it is not immediately obvious that if the shares were transferred to us, they'd be worth anything."

Let me know your thoughts

Note to mods : please remove this if there is already a thread, I did a search but found nothing.
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 23-6-2011 by solargeddon because: quotation marks

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:35 PM
Just saw this on the news....what a scam

43 million people will get shares allegedly.
You wont be able to sell them until they reach a price of more than 51p a share.

At that point....the 51p goes to the government...and anything over the 51p goes in your pocket. we bailed out the banks with our tax money....then we repay the government what they spent on bailing out the banks....thats OUR money...not the governments!!!

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:38 PM
Wow, this is pretty interesting.

From your source:

The Deputy Prime Minister conceded that there was “a huge amount of detail still to be worked on” but he added that one way to ensure “the banking system isn’t going to emerge in exactly the same form as it entered the crisis is to create a people’s banking system”.

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:41 PM
Yeah i get the feeling this is all supposed to pacify the sheeple, and make them think the austerity sacrifices will be worthwhile in the long run, for two reasons...

To aid re-election down the road,

Because actually its out money anyway.

Of course even if £1000 was acheiveable, with all the inflation, products and services becoming increasingly expensive to access, just how far would that £1000 go eventually ?

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:49 PM
Neither bank can be described as ethical in their investments, responsible with their lending or concerned about the environment. They treat the little man like scum and they always will.

So I don't want these free shares.

They can't make me a shareholder if I withhold consent, can they ?

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 02:57 PM
will be amusing when the small print appears.
john redwood spoke this morning on this subject. when asked about the entitlement element, he replied that it could possibly be scripted from the electoral register. that about halves the population from the onset.
i had a giggle at the 'when you sell the shares, it is the profit you keep not the initial share value set by the government' speel. any chance the gains tax will rocket if this goes through?
possibly an attempt at reconnecting the disconnected.
the more i think about it the more fishy it becomes.

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:46 PM
I'm not too clued up on banking systems or shares to be perfectly honest. I own 100% of the shares in my business but still don't know how it works. I know the shares either increase or decrease in value on the next accounting year that's it.

So now that's out of the way, here are my thoughts.

People are given shares in the bank, lets say every person in the UK are given 1 share which from what I gather is less than 51p right? Probably a lot less. If the share hits 51p, and you decide to sell, the government get that 51p and therefore they get the share back??

So if not, you decide to sell it for 52p privately, the owner gets the share and the government get 51p?


Okay, lets go this way:

The government give away every share they own in the bank to the general population, therefore washing their responsibility in the bank away. The population own the bank, gives people incentives to buy other people's shares and maybe even make it rich.

The bank still owes money, simple as that. The shares will not increase in value until debts are paid. Can you afford to pay the debts? Nah, me either. So that share to me and you becomes worthless really.

If you were worth a few mill and could buy up a lot of shares (therefore owning more of the bank) you take on more responsibility and also liability as far as I'm aware.

As I say, I don't understand it fully, but the whole thing seems to benefit the government and not us as individuals who are now doing without how many teachers, police, ambulance, fire because of the greedy incompetence of the banks?

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:02 PM
Wouldnt it go tits up if 45 million shareholders decided to slash APR to 0% on all lending. And increased interest by a factor of 100?

I wonder how many of these shares actualy exist to prevent anything like that happening.

posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 05:31 AM
reply to post by scottlpool2003

after reading your comments, it has become more fishy. perhaps they will only issue 49% of the total shares just so there is no tinkering with the system. perhaps they will offer all the shares and allow the general public to set policy, thus guaranteeing the demise and rescue once again.
i suspect those on low incomes may have to beware of this offer due to thresholds of income. an example being an old lady i know was given an increase of approx £1.80 per month on her pension. a number of days later she received a letter informing her that she will lose £4.00 per month due to going over the income threshold in relation to council tax benefit and the like.
this offer may be pennies but has the potential to tip the threshold of low income families and render them worse off.
the costings to issue these shares is another factor to consider. this could be expensive and somebody has to pay for the wages and costings. maybe this will be factored in and lower the share value prior to issue.

my final thought on this is it may be better if the gubbermint hangs on to the bank, overhauls the entire structure and eventually turns a profit. this profit can be absorbed into the already strained pension system.

new topics

top topics


log in