European Governments to Break up Big Banks
Lloyds, Royal Bank of Scotland and Northern Rock will be broken up and parts of their businesses sold off to create three new banks, it emerged last night.
Government
sources said ministers were "determined" to see more competition in the
market, following the £1.2 trillion bailout of the sector which
resulted in the loss of three independent banks and several building societies,
The European Union will today approve the split of Northern Rock into two sections, a "good", profitable, bank with no bad debt, and a "bad" bank. Ministers will begin exploring sale options at the start of next year when the split happens and a deal could be finalised before the general election. The remaining "bad" bank will remain in state hands for the time being although sales of "tranches" of the more risky mortgages it holds will be explored in the longer term.
The Lloyds and RBS sell-offs will follow over the next three to five years and will be supervised by UK Financial Investments, the government body set up to oversee taxpayers' investment in the banks.
The Government is understood to have made clear that existing larger operators will be banned from participating in the sales.
Ministers want to drive competition in a sector they believe is too concentrated in the hands of the "Big Four" of Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds and RBS. Virgin Money is known to be watching the situation closely and is in talks to add former Northern Rock chairman Bryan Sanderson to its board ahead of a possible bid for Northern Rock.
Tesco is another company that could be enticed into an auction as it seeks to grow its financial services business.
Spain's Banco Santander, which owns Abbey, Alliance & Leicester and part of Bradford & Bingley, may be allowed to get involved because it is significantly smaller than the big banking groups in Britain. But it could still be frustrated by the Government's determination to attract new entrants.
"We are keen to see greater competition in the banking sector as soon as possible," said a government source.
A deal to buy "good" Northern Rock would bring a new entrant around £20bn of deposits together with a portfolio of low-risk mortgages and a platform to expand operations that remain concentrated in the North-east nationwide.
Lloyds is expected to face a forced reduction in its share of the retail banking market from 30 per cent to 25 per cent, with the disposal of more than a seventh of its 3,000 branches expected.
It has been desperately seeking support in the City for a share issue of up to £15bn to keep it out of the Government's asset protection scheme that will cover it against losses from up to £260bn of risky loans.
But even if Lloyds can achieve this, it will be forced to sell parts of itself as a consequence of the Government's injection of nearly £15bn to recapitalise the bank at the height of the financial crisis. That will be seen as a blow to Eric Daniels, chief executive, who indicated at the bank's recent results that he did not expect to make significant disposals. A spokesman said: "We continue to work with European regulators."
Royal Bank of Scotland, meanwhile, is working on plans to sell off a "couple of hundred" branches, including RBS branded outlets in the UK and NatWest's Scottish branches. It is certain to join the government scheme although how much will be protected is not yet certain.
Final details on the Lloyds and RBS disposals are set to be announced alongside details of the asset protection scheme.
But an indication of the EU's "get tough" approach came on Monday when ING, which owns the ING Direct savings bank in Britain, said it would split itself in two to satisfy watchdogs unhappy at its bailout by the Dutch government.
Britain's banking sector was further consolidated on Monday with the announcement by Barclays of a deal to buy Standard Life Bank.
Government sources said that while the new banks would be relatively small compared with the big four, they hoped they would prove fast moving and innovative.
The effect Standard Life Bank had on the market when it was launched has been noted, although its activities were constrained by the credit crunch.
The Government currently has a stake of 70.34 per cent in Royal Bank of Scotland and 43.44 per cent in Lloyds. That gives ministers the whip hand over both banks. They are expected to take up the taxpayers' "rights" when Lloyds launches its share issue to maintain the size of its investment.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
23 Comments so far
Show All"Now watch this drive". - Obama
And do what with the debris?
Sell the good parts to the Big Five US banks that have been staked with taxpayer money so they can survive the recession/depression?
Maybe when China finally takes over the USA for not paying its debts will the American government resemble the European ones. Until then, our American government consists of flying butt monkeys galore !
There's no such place called "Gringoville". You meant to say America instead.
How about Pottersville?
As in alternate reality? I guess that works. At least it doesn't sound as offensive.
Good show!
I agree raydelcamino. "Uniquely American" is starting to be synonymous with "uniquely poor", "underclass", and "under developed". No universal health care, no industrial policy. Whole cities laid to waste. If there's no reform of the financial sector nothing else will matter.
Another sure sign that the USA's "Day in the Sun" has passed, as other First World countries are willing to do what is necessary to somewhat ameliorate big bank monopolies. Meanwhile in the USA, said huge bank monopolies have aided in the pauperizing of the American middle class.
raydelcamino, very good point about Obama, and the misguided policies of our govt because of their ties to Wall St. And I think that until the government sets out a plan to deal with the fundamental structural problems in our financial system of too much debt and not enough capital and savings, we cannot have a sustainable recovery. So, even if the stock market stays irrational in the shorter term, in the long run I believe it will go back to reflecting the true nature of our boom and bust system. So that's why I still feel that for most people it is safer to be in cash and gold. In my opinion the gold price will continue to rise due to a lack of faith in central banks' policies and in fiat currencies. I recently found some very good articles on these topics at http://www.goldalert.com/ , which discuss the relationship between the dollar, the gold price, and gold mining companies given the Federal Reserve's monetary policies. The article called "Gold Price Up, Dollar Down - Does it Really Matter?" was especially interesting for people to read to get a better sense of the relationship between these asset classes, and to get an understanding of the consequences of all the money printing and its potential effects on the dollar.
The odds are that they will survive this mess and that we won't.
"The Government is understood to have made clear that existing larger operators will be banned from participating in the sales."
I assume that this statement means that none of the too-big US institutions will be allowed to participate.
Also, I object to using the term "good" ever to describe a bank. Banks may be a necessary evil but they are evil nonetheless.
q
Someone who knows, please correct me if I'm wrong; but I had thought the Bank of England was, like our Federal Reserve, a central bank that had been privatized.
It's doubtful that any substantive reforms can take place without first addressing and eliminating the conflict of interest inherent in that relationship.
You're wrong. The Bank of England was a private entity that was nationalised after WW2 by the Attlee government. In any case, Labour, which traditionally does not like the Bank of England, have since they got into power increasingly shifted power away from the Bank of England to the Financial Services Authority which does a very bad job of regulating the financial sector.
Re rfloh October 28th, 2009 11:48 am
Thanks for the clarification.
Some follow-up questions if you don't mind:
Does BoE have the power to issue currency? Who regulates interest rates?
Yeah, only the BoE can issue currency; it also plays with the interest rates. It is (independently) responsible for monetary policy, though the government via parliament can force it to obey orders since it is owned by the government.
Labour has traditionally not liked the BoE and pretty much right after they got into power, they pushed through various changes that shifted power from the BoE to various other bodies, the FSA, the Treasury.
The Tories have made noises about wanting to give (back) the BoE more powers, principally the FSA's powers, if they win the next elections.
I believe hard currency of coin and paper dollars are less than 5 percent of the money supply.
This is the hardest thing to get across. Most of the money supply in the USA is created out of nothing and banks just make an electronic entry of credit with nothing to back it up but maybe some bonds which are just more debt.
Roosevelt had to take us off the gold standard because deflation of 1933 was shipping all the gold to Europe.
My point is that the BoE is the issuer of "hard" currency. And plays with the money supply and debt via interest rates.
Re rfloh October 28th, 2009 2:20 pm
Thanks again.
Good Question,
Here is what I just found from THE WEB OF DEBT
http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/dollar-deception.php
"In England, where the Bank of England was nationalized after World War II, private banks continue to create 97 percent of the money supply as loans."
The Bank of Canada is also seen as a crown Corporation yet Private banks are more or less in charge of issuing Currency via the FIAT money system.
Obama's excuse for not breaking up US banks that are too big to fail will no doubt be the same as his excuse for barring single payer medical insurance..."we have a uniquely American system".