Member Info for LennyMac

Thanks for the reference; what was the result? There doesn't seem to be much about the case after 2016. The company at the heart of the case, Torex, seems to have been a pretty shoddy operation (not that RBS should be excused for that), and an external report doesn't appear to have found anything untoward about the RBS restructuring unit in relation to it. On top of that, there seems to be no particular haste to decide on the case. Why are you so convinced this is going to cause RBS so much damage?

Thanks for the link. The author writes like a drunken teenager; it is a painful read so I hope the guy is a subject matter. expert!

Nobody seems to be reporting this except you. Are you sure you have the right bank? Can you provide a link to news on the case?

sorry, should have been 'reaction'

I couldn't work out whether Newchurch might have been being ironic when I first read his/ her post. Probably not, and the regency to the likely behaviour of the Lloyd's board indicated that he probably hadn't been on this board for very long or else he'd have been aware of the long, long experience we have of RBS' volatility. The jump was just one of many, many false dawns for this sp, to which regular posters are unfortunately innured, hence the underwhelming reaction.

Just last night it occurred to me that we'll never know how long these shoddy activities might have continued across the sector but for the crash in 2008. It is an absolute scandal.

Bailed out for what? The bail out in 2008 was for a massive liquidity shortfall, beyond anything previously experienced. The government took drastic action to prop up credit across the economy by providing liquidity to those institutions that provided it to everyone else; the banks. Are you suggesting that this legal case will have an impact on par with the 2008 crash? You'll have to spell it out for me I'm afraid, because your cryptic questions aren't providing sufficient detail.

If the financial crash of 2007/8 didn't end this bank then a legal case some 10- 11 years later certainly will not. Stranger things haven't happened and I'll expect you to come back on here in a year or two years or whenever you get over the embarrassment and make your concession speech.

I do. It won't.

Ever since someone mentioned the possibility of a boom, the sp has been deflating like a whoopee cushion.

well, by definition, the bell curve must have some outliers.

..the good old days when we used to observe this sp trading in a range of 320- 370?

Possibly because the details confirmed today are almost the last of the legal issues to be resolved (I think there is one more case before US courts) and the sp reflects market view that the issues have dragged on the sp for a very long time?

No insults, just observations. Most of your argument might be valid (and I guess time will bear that out) but it is simply opinion, and I was reflecting on that.

Actually, of your list entitled 'What we Know', only the first line is actually 'what we know' and the rest is speculation and conjecture. And even the first point is based on your dubious premise about broker ratings.

Merry Christmas to everyone on here. It has been another great year for chat and debate (and, ahem, some dubious predictions) and I hope we all enjoy an encouraging and successful 2017.

Thanks mate, but that was my point; no one can say with any implied degree of certainty how this sp will go. Frankly I am surprised at the jump; apart from the impending fed decision, there is no RBS news that would prompt a confident rise like we've seen. Perhaps it is the forecasts on inflation that has given the sp a boost. We might be back below 200p this time next week!

If anyone studied or observed RBS in the six or so years, you'd probably would know it's practically impossible to know which way RBS will go, particularly in the longer term. Enjoy the facebook page; I am sure it is full of people who also like to make emphatic guesses without providing any evidence to support their conjecture. Perhaps it will be easier for you to discuss things there. If I had a pound for every spiv or wide boy who came on here and made a shoot- from- the- hip prediction about where RBS was going... (although admittedly, I probably wouldn't have put it into RBS).

Yep, I read your post, and my point was that RBS was not like any other business, and government action then and more recently, is evidence that it shares my view. I might argue for example that the British steel industry, a far bigger concern than Woolworth, has been considered dispensable in the same way as the retailer. I agree that the banking sector has some predatory instincts and that the problem is sector- wide, but I think the remedy is reform of banking practice rather than your rather more severe approach, which would create new problems for the UK economy. RBS is still a major factor in UK economic activity and in fact, I am not sure that it is in disarray; it is making lots of money and has made great strides in reducing costs and focusing on core activities. The problem for the bank is the scale of impact of penalties for past scandals and mistakes which continue to place RBS balance sheets in negative positions.

I am not sure that it is useful to compare Woolworths with RBS in the way you have. The effects and influence of the activities of RBS on the UK economy far exceeded that of Woolworths and the collapse of the bank would have affected millions of people, even if we were only considering their savings accounts. Obviously, an insolvent RBS would have also drastically affected UK financial markets, raising borrowing costs for everyone and possibly causing a credit crisis. Whichever option the government had taken in 2008, the restoration of stability and confidence would have inevitably cost the government billions in cleaning up the mess anyway.