Guest pelmetman Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Osborne: Lloyds sale will reduce national debt by £0.5bn The Chancellor George Osborne has confirmed the government has sold 6% of Lloyds Banking Group at 75p a share. "That is a profit for taxpayers and rightly so. The money will be used to reduce the national debt by over £0.5bn," he told the BBC. And he played down Vince Cable's warnings of an unbalanced recovery: "You've had investors from around the world investing in a British bank - that's a sign that the British economy is turning a corner." Lloyds share sale raises £3.2bn ????? :-S............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Before I'd even finished reading the thread title I knew who the author would be and of course it was as I thought, this forum's Moaner-in-Chief. No one has trousered, or as he inexplicably writes 'trouser'ed' £2.7 billion. This is it in simple terms. The government bailed out Lloyds' Bank by investing a lot of money in it. It has now sold shares in Lloyds' Bank and it has made a profit on the sale of those shares. That paper profit is £0.5 billion, so the country's finances are now £0.5 billion better off. No one has 'trousered' anything. No wonder this section of the forum is on its knees. All we get is moan, moan and moan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 In Osborne's fantasy land, we had shares valued at £2.7bn sold at £3.2bn, so are £0.5bn less in debt. Of course all this simply ignores the cost of distorting the economy to pump up housing costs to protect the bankers sub prime mortgages from negative equity. Osborne has devised a scheme that has pumped up housing costs to a record high, which he wants us to call 'Help to Buy' *-) He wants us to call increasing house prices 'Improving the Housing Market' *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Peter James - 2013-09-17 1:07 PM In Osborne's fantasy land, we had shares valued at £2.7bn sold at £3.2bn, so are £0.5bn less in debt. Of course all this simply ignores the cost of distorting the economy to pump up housing costs to protect the bankers sub prime mortgages from negative equity. Osborne has devised a scheme that has pumped up housing costs to a record high, which he wants us to call 'Help to Buy' *-) He wants us to call increasing house prices 'Improving the Housing Market' *-) I'd like to apologise to Pelmetman for calling him this forum's Moaner-in-Chief'. I'd forgotten about you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Had Enough - 2013-09-17 12:40 PM Before I'd even finished reading the thread title I knew who the author would be and of course it was as I thought, this forum's Moaner-in-Chief. No one has trousered, or as he inexplicably writes 'trouser'ed' £2.7 billion. This is it in simple terms. The government bailed out Lloyds' Bank by investing a lot of money in it. It has now sold shares in Lloyds' Bank and it has made a profit on the sale of those shares. That paper profit is £0.5 billion, so the country's finances are now £0.5 billion better off. No one has 'trousered' anything. No wonder this section of the forum is on its knees. All we get is moan, moan and moan. "The government bailed out Lloyds' Bank by investing a lot of money in it." Shouldn't that read......... "The tax payer propped up a failing business".............? ;-) BTW welcome back Frank, its been very quiet around here without you :D.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 pelmetman - 2013-09-17 1:36 PM "The government bailed out Lloyds' Bank by investing a lot of money in it." Shouldn't that read......... "The tax payer propped up a failing business".............? ;-) BTW welcome back Frank, its been very quiet around here without you :D.... Nothing changes. Pelmetman posts a load of gut-reaction moaning rubbish and is corrected, so he changes the subject. Most of us are bright enough to work out that propping up Lloyds' Bank was a good move. The taxpayer has made a profit on the deal instead of losing a fortune if the bank had been allowed to fold. If it had gone bust there'd have been thousands claiming unemployment benefit and the taxpayer would have had to fork out for all the redundancy payments. Sounds like a very wise move to me. Anyway, I won't be livening up Chatterbox anymore. I've given up I'm afraid and this will be my last post in this section. I'm joining most other members of this forum who are sick to death of the few semi-literate whingers who can do nothing but complain about everything. Life's too short and I'm far to happy with my role in it to listen to any more of the moaning. One day you may wake up and recognise your role in making Chatterbox into a section that now has about six regular posters, most of whom are like you. Cheerio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nowtelse2do Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 I thought the days were getting darker, seems they've just brightened up B-) Joke Frank, just a joke :-D Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Had Enough - 2013-09-17 1:48 PM Most of us are bright enough to work out that propping up Lloyds' Bank was a good move. The taxpayer has made a profit on the deal instead of losing a fortune if the bank had been allowed to fold. .......Sounds like a very wise move to me. and Osborne's scheme to pump up house prices to their record high has 'Helped to Buy' too *-) Had Enough - 2013-09-17 1:48 PM Cheerio. ..so I've seen him off (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Had Enough - 2013-09-17 1:48 PM pelmetman - 2013-09-17 1:36 PM "The government bailed out Lloyds' Bank by investing a lot of money in it." Shouldn't that read......... "The tax payer propped up a failing business".............? ;-) BTW welcome back Frank, its been very quiet around here without you :D.... Nothing changes. Pelmetman posts a load of gut-reaction moaning rubbish and is corrected, so he changes the subject. Most of us are bright enough to work out that propping up Lloyds' Bank was a good move. The taxpayer has made a profit on the deal instead of losing a fortune if the bank had been allowed to fold. If it had gone bust there'd have been thousands claiming unemployment benefit and the taxpayer would have had to fork out for all the redundancy payments. Sounds like a very wise move to me. Anyway, I won't be livening up Chatterbox anymore. I've given up I'm afraid and this will be my last post in this section. I'm joining most other members of this forum who are sick to death of the few semi-literate whingers who can do nothing but complain about everything. Life's too short and I'm far to happy with my role in it to listen to any more of the moaning. One day you may wake up and recognise your role in making Chatterbox into a section that now has about six regular posters, most of whom are like you. Cheerio. Aaaw don't go Frank 8-)......................But as you say..... "The taxpayer has made a profit on the deal instead of losing a fortune if the bank had been allowed to fold."...........Would letting them fold cost more than 5 billion?...............from the NAO Q: Has the taxpayer been sufficiently paid for providing the support? The income generated by fees and interest is less than would be expected from a normal market investment and has not compensated the taxpayer for the degree of risk accepted by taxpayers in providing the support. Once the opportunity cost and risks are factored in, the schemes have represented a transfer of at least £5 billion from taxpayers to the financial sector. This does not include the cost of holding the shares which have not paid a dividend or seen a capital gain. Further details are set out in Figure 8 of the C&AG’s Report on HM Treasury’s 2012-13 Resource Accounts. The fees and interest were generally set with a view of what the recipient banks could afford at the time, in keeping with the schemes’ aims for financial stability. The £5 billion can be regarded as part of the cost of preserving financial stability in the crisis, and as I reported in 2009, had the support not been provided, the potential costs would have been difficult to envision. and this bit seems to say much the same thing..... ;-) The fees and income received. As at 31 March 2013, the Treasury had received a total of £16 billion in fees and interest for providing the support and assuming the risks covered by the guarantees since 2008. This is below the cumulative finance cost. Unless the shares in RBS and Lloyds Banking Group start paying substantial dividends, the government as a whole will make annual cash losses on the support once the cost of borrowing the money to purchase the shares and provide the loans is taken into account. So hardly a good investment..............unless your a banker *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Had Enough - 2013-09-17 1:48 PM pelmetman - 2013-09-17 1:36 PM "The government bailed out Lloyds' Bank by investing a lot of money in it." Shouldn't that read......... "The tax payer propped up a failing business".............? ;-) BTW welcome back Frank, its been very quiet around here without you :D.... Nothing changes. Pelmetman posts a load of gut-reaction moaning rubbish and is corrected, so he changes the subject. Most of us are bright enough to work out that propping up Lloyds' Bank was a good move. The taxpayer has made a profit on the deal instead of losing a fortune if the bank had been allowed to fold. If it had gone bust there'd have been thousands claiming unemployment benefit and the taxpayer would have had to fork out for all the redundancy payments. Sounds like a very wise move to me. Anyway, I won't be livening up Chatterbox anymore. I've given up I'm afraid and this will be my last post in this section. I'm joining most other members of this forum who are sick to death of the few semi-literate whingers who can do nothing but complain about everything. Life's too short and I'm far to happy with my role in it to listen to any more of the moaning. One day you may wake up and recognise your role in making Chatterbox into a section that now has about six regular posters, most of whom are like you. Cheerio. +1 on that Frank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 peter - 2013-09-17 9:51 PM Most of us are bright enough to work out that propping up Lloyds' Bank was a good move. The taxpayer has made a profit on the deal instead of losing a fortune if the bank had been allowed to fold. If it had gone bust there'd have been thousands claiming unemployment benefit and the taxpayer would have had to fork out for all the redundancy payments. Sounds like a very wise move to me. +1 on that Frank. Well I never thought you'd be happy to spend billions supporting bankers, who have spent the last 2 decades ripping off Joe public........Peter? 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 Why are you attributing Franks utterings to me Dave?. I was agreeing with what he said about this forum becoming boring and dull because of all the moaning going on. :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 peter - 2013-09-18 9:40 PMWhy are you attributing Franks utterings to me Dave?.I was agreeing with what he said about this forum becoming boring and dull because of all the moaning going on. :-( What's wrong with a good moan Peter?;)...............Us Brits are famous for it...............Its why we put up with so much b*ll*hit from our lords and masters.........:D...... When was the last time white people rioted?............en masse?............. PS..........please excuse the lack of emoticons........as I'm playing with my virtual knobs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Don't put up with B.S and just ignore it. If moaning will stop it, then moan. If not why bother?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 The only thing anyone with functioning synapses could possibly agree with Frank on is that with some - namely him - "nothing changes". How typical that Frank in his mind-boggling ignorance and arrogance tries once again to be clever by criticising others but ends up making a total ar$e of himself. If he bothered to read the pinks rather than poke fun at those that both read and understand what is written he would have had some sort of understanding of why tne share sale of Lloyds is not as Osbourne has spun it. On Tuesday Osbourne lauded the sale of the first tranche of its 38 per cent holding in Lloyds as having achieved a £61m profit. Institutional investors bought shares in Lloyds Banking Group for 75p each, reducing the government's holding in the company from 38.7 to 32.7 per cent. The sale price represents a £61m profit on the 73.6p average price per share paid by the government in 2008 at the height of the financial crisis. However, this figure does not take into account the cost of borrowing on the money markets in order to fund the purchase of the shares in the first place. Lloyds was bailed out to the tune of £20 BILLION five years ago using taxpayers money and money borrowed by government at enormous cost to the taxpayer. Take that into account - as well as the opportunity cost of not being able use that taxpayers money for what that money was collected from the taxpayer SHOULD have been used for and you soon realise that poor old Frank has made a fool of himself again by brown nosing the likes of Osbourne. But at least we can agree that some things do not change - Frank is consistently a few penny's short of a shilling when it comes to things financial. (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted September 22, 2013 Share Posted September 22, 2013 I wholly agree with you Clive. But in the tories fantasy world everything is not always comprehended as it is in reality. Of course they think that the man (idiot) in the street wouldn't know anything as complicated as lost opportunity and total cost of borrowing. Unfortunately they may be right to a certain extent, but were not all as thick as they would like to think we are. What the hell does Osborne know about macro economics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 Yes, and yet it is hardly "Rocket Science" is it Peter? - The government of the Day - Labour admittedly (so Osbourne can legitimately say he inherited the toxic mess) - borrowed £20Billion to bail out Lloyds when HBOS was doing an RBS. That £20Billion was raised via the issue of a Government Bond or Gilt as we tend to refer to them in this country and Gilts at the time were issued with a coupon (interest) of circa 2.5% pa. If you look at the Gilts they are written like :- Treasury 2.5% 2038 GBP So that means the interest is 2.5% pa and the thing runs to the year 2038. Now 2,5% of £20Billion (the COST to the tax-payer of bailing out Lloyds) is £500,000,000 So we as a country are paying out in interest £500Million every year to fund the borrowing made to prop up just one Bank - Lloyds So whilst the intellectually challenged sycophants can wet themselves with glee that Osbourne has managed to sell a few shares to his mates in the city and make a paper profit of circa £60M - to me that pays less than two months of interest on the original loan. Still if it makes the likes of Frank feel better about life then Osbourne should be congratulated! (lol) (lol) (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 Anybody want to do the sums as to how much of the debt will be left to the taxpayer......... once George has flogged of the rest of the 20 billions worth of shares in another excellent deal 8-) as Frank said ........"This is it in simple terms. The government bailed out Lloyds' Bank by investing a lot of money in it. It has now sold shares in Lloyds' Bank and it has made a profit on the sale of those shares.."........."Sounds like a very wise move to me." (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 CliveH - 2013-09-21 6:03 PM On Tuesday Osbourne lauded the sale of the first tranche of its 38 per cent holding in Lloyds as having achieved a £61m profit. Institutional investors bought shares in Lloyds Banking Group for 75p each, reducing the government's holding in the company from 38.7 to 32.7 per cent. The sale price represents a £61m profit on the 73.6p average price per share paid by the government in 2008 at the height of the financial crisis. However, this figure does not take into account the cost of borrowing on the money markets in order to fund the purchase of the shares in the first place. Lloyds was bailed out to the tune of £20 BILLION five years ago using taxpayers money and money borrowed by government at enormous cost to the taxpayer. Take that into account - as well as the opportunity cost of not being able use that taxpayers money for what that money was collected from the taxpayer SHOULD have been used for and you soon realise that poor old Frank has made a fool of himself again by brown nosing the likes of Osbourne. Make things look cheaper by simply ignoring some of the costs - yes they do it all the time. They quote the cost of the Royal Family about £60million,. The cost of security alone is over £100million butthey simpluy ignore that. The Royal Yacht Brittannia was charged to the Ministry of Defence. A New Costa Coffee outlet in Nottingham recently received 1800 applicants for just 5 new jobs. I view facts like that as far more reliable than Government Statistics on the state of the economy (or Daily Mail articles about Benefit Scroungers) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 No they do not ignore the cost of security Peter (James) - because regardless of the nature of a countries Head of State - elected or inherited - the cost of security is much the same. I am not sure that the comparisons are entirely valid as the US President has the likes of Air Force One to fund but when you see reports that Obama and his family cost the US Taxpayer 20 times what our Royal Family costs us as a nation I would tactfully suggest that you are being more economical with the truth than is reasonable. http://now.msn.com/president-obamas-family-costs-the-us-20-times-what-royal-family-costs-the-uk. You have said that security costs are ignored before - they are not "ignored" because they would be similar even if we had (God Help us :-S ) a "President Blair/Brown/Prescott/Thatcher/Major. Personally I think the very LAST thing the UK needs is a Political head of state. The fact that Prince Charles is trying to abuse his position to assert political influence is something I dislike intensely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 CliveH - 2013-09-23 12:58 PM - because regardless of the nature of a countries Head of State - elected or inherited - the cost of security is much the same. Wrong. Neighbouring countries have a Head of State without the extended family hangers on. (and why compare Britain with USA instead of European neighbours of similar size?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 I can do that if you want Peter (James) - the results are not to your Republican liking tho' - quit the opposite in fact. "Queen Beatrix and the entire Dutch royal family are the most expensive royal family in Europe at a cost of £31 million a year paid for by the Dutch taxpayers. However, it was revealed that the most expensive head of state in all of Europe was not a king or queen but a president! Matthijs’ group had found out that it costs the French people more to finance their president than they would had they been a monarchy. The country’s head of state, Francois Hollande, costs £87.2 million annually, a sum thrice the cost of keeping the Dutch House of Orange. The report was made by Herman Matthijs, professor of administrative science and public finances at Ghent University, who found out that the cost of British monarchy, known for its transparency when it comes to its finances had been cut by 16 per cent to £29.7 million last year compared to £35.5 million the past two years. Meanwhile, Queen Beatrix raked £30.7 million, £14 million of which were spent on personal allowances. This is quadruple the amount that the Spanish royal family had received. Spain in fact is at heart of the Europe’s debt crisis. Queen Beatrix has made it known that she has no plans on cost cutting, while the Spanish royals have already agreed on a 7 percent pay cut. " http://royal-splendor.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/queen-beatrix-costliest-monarch-in.html And whilst you talk of "hangers on" - do remember that with elected Heads of State, each time you elect a new one the previous one requires "Protection" for the rest of their lives. Like i say - you are being more than a little "economic with the truth" in your desire to make your point. sadly for your point of view, such tactics tend to bite you in the ar$e. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 If Peter is complaining about hangers on ;-)................maybe we should add Scotland to the mix :D ...... Did I say that? :-S I'm sure I didn't 8-) It's the voices in my head made me do it :$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 CliveH - 2013-09-23 6:25 PM the cost of British monarchy, known for its transparency when it comes to its finances had been cut by 16 per cent to £29.7 million last year And who does he get those figures from They tell you their 22 palaces etc etc etc only cost us £29.7million and you believe it *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 Peter James - 2013-09-29 10:42 AM CliveH - 2013-09-23 6:25 PM the cost of British monarchy, known for its transparency when it comes to its finances had been cut by 16 per cent to £29.7 million last year And who does he get those figures from They tell you their 22 palaces etc etc etc only cost us £29.7million and you believe it *-) He's like Status Quo , he only knows the same old chords zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.