Member Info for honestbob

i think would depend on level of profit and cash available to pay it with so very difficult to guess at minute

Quite agree - you would have thought given regard RBS is held in by general public / tax payer they might have kept a low profile on such a decision - if indeed they need to make it at all Perhaps desperate measures called for now harder to make income from customers selling variety of products or interest management derivatives etc - so cunning plan of charging their customers for holding their own money. They were grateful enough for it during the financial crisis

Yes it can do - banks used to have massive value from the benefit of the credit balances held on current accounts - as typically they would lend it out at their base rate plus a margin above base rate . So a large amount of heir lending was financed for free .The balance they would use from their own credit earning savings accounts and finally borrow on the money markets the remainder So in theory the higher the base rate ( within reason ) the more profit they made from these free funds

it might help if Carney could keep quiet for a while and quietly and efficiently get on with his job

I have been holder of this unpredictable share for years One thing I have learnt is that often when you think it has reached a low point is is capable of dropping further I don t trade them at present but when I did i discovered ( the hard way) trying to catch them at the bottom is like catching a falling sword I have had a modest amount of success by watching what appears to be a low then waiting until has risen at least 5 percent from it and in theory buy in on a rise with upward momentum But these are interesting times - who knows ?

Whilst you are absolutely right about sovereignty - I do believe there was also a degree of self interest - both ways - which is why both camps laboured the economic consequences .In fact all credit to those who did vote either way on their personal beliefs as opposed to personal benefit Go did make it plain their opinion of consequences- but were not believed by many The referendum has taken place and it would be good ( but unlikeley ) to see politicians of all parties coming together to take the country forward

Personally I think the real problem is that politicians and civil servants without drum bashing etc should have laid out clearly, well ahead of the event the known consequences firstly .Then any assumptions made secondly so a properly informed choice could have been made by those that were interested. To a large extent I believe the electorate were voting on perceived personal interest ( perfectly understandable ) instinct or as best they could from the information available. That said they did vote and for better or worse made a decision. With hindsight perhaps there should have been an over rider that for a major constitutional change a certain percentage vote was needed

I take your point that they are countries in their own right - but they are not members in their own right any more than England is . A such I would imagine to join they would have to show they meet the criteria and adopt the Euro I do think realistically that Germany France etc at the minute will have more important things on their mind as to whether scotland will or will not vote for independence from england and then will or will not vote to join the eec

Sturgeon is taking opportunity to be centre of attention Wants to talk to EEC when we leave etc. If she paused for thought for one minute it might occur to het that Germany France etc might have bigger worries on their mind than whether a relatively small nation in population wants to join or not .For a start they will need to replace the UKs net contribution to the budget from somewhere. Whilst I can easily understand why Scotland would wish to be truly independent, I really struggle with why they would want to swap a union i.e. UK where they have large influence and respect to being dependent on rules and laws made in Europe where with their population number they will probably have very little say. There has to be a moderate chance as well that by the time we leave - if it proceeds - we will not be the last departure and the EEC in its current form will have ceased to exist

Idea is to print dollars which in essence are IOUs drawn ln the USA. I suspect will work to a certain level as long as doesn't overdo it and while the dollar remains the world reserve currency. I.e Other countries prepared to hold large amounts for future use. It is this status quo that allows a technically insolvent America to continue to spend more than it earns. If trump or another president over does it and abuses the dollars position - then the strategy could backfire - all IMHO

dont know but shops always busy when I go past and there is the e bay tie up too - although I dont know the terms

I think went ex dividend on 12th may

That is an interesting idea - although if they sell off the natwest brand all that goes with it - in UK at least will be as they were before takeover . Only problem I would see is that Nat West I would imagine would throw up the same IT issues as W and G if attempt to dispose of it.

I do remember a friend who used to work for nat west being told, after the RBS takeover, by the tecnicians that were installing the RBS computer system that this was first time he had worked on a project to take out modern state of art system and replace it with a semi obsolete one . This does tie in with maj point . Tophats I think your point about designing new system W and G that can then be implemented in RBS very valid Although does still beg question , after 8 years , can the management sort it out in a reasonable time frame

I can see merit in a fresh new system for W and G if it becomes stand alone But if it is taken over unless the business taking it over wants two separate operating systems I would imagine the W and G business would then be migrated onto the taking over businesses system On that basis if they could identify some one that wishes to buy it there might be more merit in allowing a discount simply for the saved funds to be utilised to implement a changeover to the taking over banks system I believe when RBS took over Nat West they moved all the Nat West accounts onto the RBS system over a period of time . Although I think at the time Nat West had a relatively modern system and the RBS platform they moved ro was somewhat older . I suppose in a nutshell there is a danger that a lot of time and effort will go into a new system that a purchaser simply will scrap Out of interest how do you know that W and G has 700 systems

In which case given the present rate of progress in splitting it off could be a long time before it happens if indeed the present RBS management have the ability to make it happen

Just a thought it is EEC competition laws that make it necessary to divest W & G if after brexit vote we are not in eec will the divestment have to go ahead ? Although it is surprising that the management after 8 years have failed to split it off Fred Goodwin and co for all their many faults managed to merge RBS and Nat West in a fraction of the time . A much larger exercise

think was potential take over for some time and you would think the ''hope value '' would have helped the price a little similarly possibly now that seems to have gone you would expect the price to drop a little in the short term - although that has not happened

Have always read your posts with interest - good luck

I agree that RBS appears well capitalised and certainly has put in place the improvements you describe. To some extent it makes it all the more perplexing that the city place so little value on them . Banks now being valued similarly to the days of the crash. I cannot understand why the recovery funds etc are not queuing up to buy into what should be significant RBS upside . Appreciate that inquiry into its GRG division continues and former shareholders case moving along together with American mortgage issues - but compared with previous skeletons these are smaller. Conclusion I am slowly and reluctantly coming to is that City does not have great confidence in the bank and has priced accordingly.