UK Banks need to raise £60 billion ... wonder how they will do that ?

page: 1
23
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+3 more 
posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 03:53 AM
link   
Bank of England is expected to tell UK banks they must raise billions to keep out of trouble.

source

Your left wondering how they might be expected to do such a thing. Are they to just make it up out of thin air, sell something, cut wages, or are we looking at a depositor haircut aka Cyprus Style on the cards ?

Despite the tons of money flung at these criminals and there never ending partying they still are costing us dear.

I say close them down and seize all the assets of those working in the banks as proceeds of crime.




posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 04:09 AM
link   
I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did to us what Cyprus has done to it's own people. Steal money from it's own citizens to prop up a banking system that's going to fail anyway



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Australian government is planning on harvesting peoples superannuation...I Knew it was coming along time ago.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 04:27 AM
link   
Yeah. More evil ways to come.

The Banks can't come up with money unless they screw someone (citizens) over! So everyone bend over ...



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


Maybe they figured it is good business needing to be bailed out, so they could get their hands on the population's deposits.

Looks like the pilot in Cyprus has worked well, the people are hardly resisting (at least we don't hear what's going on there, besides that bomb that went off at one bank a few days ago)
edit on 27-3-2013 by Shuye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


BOE wants the private banks to raise more capital which makes them able to eat more losses, making them more crisis-proof. Every time a bank loan goes into default, the bank must cover those losses through its capital to balance assets and liabilities.

To raise capital, they can offer seasoned equity (SEO) to investors or increase their assets. The 60B figure isn't so important. What really matters is the capital adequacy ratios which specify how much capital must be kept compared to it's total risk (the loans it gives out). Implementing a higher ratio will restrict the leveraging of bank funds (in theory making them safer). But this makes money harder to get in the economy causing loans to slow and the money supply to shrink.

Another issue is the weighted nature of what counts toward the risk in the ratio of capital to risk. A mortgage loan is weighted less because it comes with collateral of a house if the loan defaults. A loan to a family of four that wants to open it's own business will be weighted more heavily. Securitization (which is the pooling of assets into marketable securities that are sold to secondary investors) does not count toward riskiness, since the risk is passed off to secondary investors and it no longer matters if the securities default. This incentivizes banks to securitize more assets. The end result is even LESS stability and less efficient allocation of resources.
edit on 27-3-2013 by bgold1212 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


Hmmm....A haircut eh?

If they took cash from the top 10% wealthiest people ....thats lets say....5.6m people
they average net CASH balances of £123,000 ($186345) compared to the bottom 10% average CASH is £400 ($606),
So £12000 cash off a balance of £123,000 would raise 67billion

and none of the poor would even notice
nore would the rich
edit on 27-3-2013 by zerozero00 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by zerozero00
 



That is exactly how it should be but it won't.
They won't want to upset their top savers, their elite customers, so they'll target the voiceless poor.
Those with the most money should absolutely shoulder the greatest responsibility and if it can be done with minimal disruption to their lives, which it can, then if this is something they did, then it should be the rich who pay.

Having said that, stealing money from your customers to prop up dodgy banking tactics and a completely crooked system is just disgustingly wrong, whoever you're stealing it from.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by stargatetravels
 




I agree that stealing at any level is so very wrong....But....And its a big Butt!!!

The richest 10% have been stealing this money for centuries off the poor......It's about time they put some of their stolen money back into the system, imo anyway



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:15 AM
link   
This is the kind of fiscal monitoring that should have been in place in 2008.

And, no, I dont think any haircuts will come from this. Any forced looting of UK investors will only come through EU blackmail.

When Mervyn King goes, it is all change at the bank of England, and although I am absolutely opposed to central banks, the new version of BOE looks a lot better than the old, gung ho version.

I see the closing down of the FSA as really good news, this organisation was a big part of the banking cabal.

When David Fishwick (bank of Dave) wanted to open a tiny, tiny bank, the FSA (#;??ing smart arses) refused to even acknowledge his application. Then, after the airing of the first show, they called him, and his advisors into thier fraud division office, under caution!

Immense pressure form some good guys in parliament, forced the FSA to concede, and accept that Mr Fishwick could open his tiny, tiny bank.

The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) will now be watching banking bad practise, and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) will support consumers.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:45 AM
link   

In a statement, the BoE's Financial Policy Committee (FPC) said only some banks needed to raise the cash, but did not name them.

It said banks could face losses of £50bn over the next three years, relating to bad loans and fines.


!#(*^%)(! the banks.. we're not here to help them make profit. Do the banks help companies that are struggling to make even?

seriously, what arrogance to think the people need to bail out the banks for losses they 'might' experience in 9 months time.

here's a brain storm '' CHANGE YOUR CORRUPT THIEVING BUSINESS MODEL '' you sons of dogs.

Let them burn... and make sure every banker is stuck in the lift while its burning!
edit on 27-3-2013 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 06:05 AM
link   
Instead of jumping of the bridge as in Cyprus, take the stairs. Introduce fees on all accounts, gradually move interests rates around. Big things take time to change direction with sudden changes causing crashes.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 06:17 AM
link   
Empty your accounts NOW!
The American Dollar is the PETRO-DOLLAR - The WORLD no longer wants to trade in the American/Petro Dollar.
The World-Wide Financial Collapse is happening in SLO-MOTION right now.
You still have time. Trash the worthless US Dollar for your families sake. Buy Long Term Food and Seeds.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Or is it to cover the potential losses Barclays, RSB, HSBC and Lloyds could take over in Cyprus?
www.telegraph.co.uk...
Rainbows
Jane



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigyin
Bank of England is expected to tell UK banks they must raise billions to keep out of trouble.

source

Your left wondering how they might be expected to do such a thing. Are they to just make it up out of thin air, sell something, cut wages, or are we looking at a depositor haircut aka Cyprus Style on the cards ?

Despite the tons of money flung at these criminals and there never ending partying they still are costing us dear.

I say close them down and seize all the assets of those working in the banks as proceeds of crime.


The first thing they could do is stop giving the bastards huge bonuses.

They've crashed the economy, caused thousands of people to lose their jobs, pushed tens of thousands more into poverty or struggling even just to pay the bills and buy food, and then the utter gits give each other huge bonuses on top of their already inflated salaries.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Why do people not have a problem with the government raiding their savings to keep the blood sucking rich banksters, who can't seem to make money yet are all rich and considered experts at finance, business's profitable for them. Anywhere this happens people should be rioting and seizing the banks and government.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigyin
Bank of England is expected to tell UK banks they must raise billions to keep out of trouble.

source

Your left wondering how they might be expected to do such a thing. Are they to just make it up out of thin air, sell something, cut wages, or are we looking at a depositor haircut aka Cyprus Style on the cards ?


If you'd read the article you quote as your source, you wouldn't need to ask the question or engage in speculation. It says "No new government money will be required. Banks are likely to raise the funds by issuing more bonds or selling shares".



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by lacrimoniousfinale

Originally posted by bigyin
Bank of England is expected to tell UK banks they must raise billions to keep out of trouble.

source

Your left wondering how they might be expected to do such a thing. Are they to just make it up out of thin air, sell something, cut wages, or are we looking at a depositor haircut aka Cyprus Style on the cards ?


If you'd read the article you quote as your source, you wouldn't need to ask the question or engage in speculation. It says "No new government money will be required. Banks are likely to raise the funds by issuing more bonds or selling shares".


So why is every news reporter on my tv asking the same questions ?

and to add the page I linked to has been updated by the bbc since the announcement was made. The earlier version did not have that information. The amount has been changed as well down to £25B

edit on 27-3-2013 by bigyin because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


If I had savings, I long ago would have moved them from the banks. In light of recent events in Cyprus, anyone with a brain should have already done so. Even before that, it still amazes me that people blindly trust these con men with their money, after all that has gone on.

So anyone with savings, move them from a bank, get a safe or invest with a local trustworthy organisation. Don't let these corrupt entities profit from your savings, and dont run the risk of them stealing them from you.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by tmeister182
 


Apathy. Stupidity.









 
23
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join