[Closed] These small and mid businesses and RBS

I think it's still a Santander policy.

State owned Bank in fraud shocker…… people in court, very much doubt it

State owned bank being investigated by 2 state run quangos, and been over seen by a government minister,and the state owned bank is paying with our cash for another report into what went wrong.

Hopefully if the coop fails, it want be handed billions in state cash, it failed for a reason, poor management just like rbs.

Some of the stuff I have heard over the years about GRG is shocking so its probably all true. Sadly. And no-one will end up in court. Sadly.

The question is, if RBS can't control whats going on in their own business, the Government control their own State ran bank, and the regulators can't control the banks. Who can.

Spiralling out of control

Another Bank did this to my brother and his business so no surprise.

They're not the only bank doing this, the bastards at HSBC are driving equal numbers of small businesses to the wall.

Businesses at "end of life" and their owners/directors are always going to be a bit shaky and dramatic.

You'll never get an impartial account of the real circumstances.

Why are they 'driving' businesses to the wall instead of just the businesses failing on their own?

******* bankers!

You'll never get an impartial account of the real circumstances.

Swelper - Member

The question is, if RBS can't control whats going on in their own business, the Government control their own State ran bank, and the regulators can't control the banks. Who can.

As the [s]capitalists[/s] nutters will tell you, if we just got rid of all that silly regulation, the banks would instantly become paragons of virtue.

Matt, that sounds all too familiar sadly.

NW are you just trying to create a reaction (trolling) or do you actually believe that (and the little bomb on the economics thread that was sensibly ignored) For one second think about how regulation (among lots of things) led to the crisis and why regulation is driving banks' current drive to reduce the size of their balance sheets?

If you borrow money that you cannot afford to pay back bad thingings will happen.

A small (or large) business may indeed be a good one, but if it borrows money it cannot afford to pay back then it ceases to be a good business from a financial perspective

Indeed, but aren't interest rate swaps nexts years PPI scandal...

If I understand correctly there are businesses that could pay back loans, however RBS was re-evaluating LTV ratios it seems to deliberately make the loan unaffordable, subsequently taking control of assets on the cheap.

jambalaya, there are many cases of very dodgy dealings with IRS, valuation of fixed assets etc. I can't believe what a certain BAnk did to my brother. I agree with jam bo, this is a big future scandal brewing. I know of four v similar cases.

RBS are far from alone in this - I'm aware of two clients who battled with other banks when trying to buy businesses. Both cases had the banks trying to foreclose on the firms concerned by reducing borrowing limits, interest rate swaps & very dubious revaluations on assets.

2 years ago a friend of mine's business (again...a hotel...theme forming?) had the funding pulled (A N other state owned bank) and the business went into administration. Eventually the building was sold to the hotel management company (a firm you'll all have heard of)

He'd always suspected foul play and AFAIK started putting papers together for a legal case.

I can't imagine doing a job where i thought it was acceptable to close someones business for my own personal gain. The word 'Scum' doesn't do these people justice.

Not a lot of good news from RBS and the banks in general.... Since we moved to Germany, I hve been keeping an account open in the UK but frankly, I reckon its better to keep cash in a sock under the pillow.

Been with NatWest for 35 yrs through various incarnations, rbs being one, and now its heading for William and Glynn... this weeks sticking plaster... I have pretty much had it so its time I think, to vote with my feet, so RBS, NatWest, William and Glynns.....

I'hm oot. (not that they will give a stuff)

Indeed, but aren't interest rate swaps nexts years PPI scandal...

Yes, it's looking that way.

RBS in court for fraud, what for pretending to be a bank,?

They trully are utterly useless. I got £750 compensation after they closed my business account in breach of their own ts and cs. Still fighting regarding my personal account and I was there today telling them to sort out the "newly" opened business account. Absolute morons however I don't have time to move everything so I am trapped.

Actually stormed in and got to talk to an area director after I "upset" one of more sensitive staff members. He told me that there is a drive to make banks more customer approachable, "&£^ me its the 21st century its only because they all act like clowns that any are in business as I don't think there is anywhere to go.

When I was looking at opening the account for my business one bank didn't even return my call to open the account.

Ping - in our old village we had an RBS branch, but not one where you could open an account. Cue a highly amusing conversation when we moved there about opening accounts for the kids - something like driving a 50 mile round trip to open an account at next nearest branch, then wait a couple of weeks, call up telephone banking and ask to move branch, but then return the 50 mile round trip with ID to complete move... And then come and pay your cash in.. .

They trully are utterly useless.

Yes, they are crap. With perfect timing, I moved my personal banking from RBS to the Co-op, just before the public announcement of how deeply in the hole they were, and well before the Crystal Methodist revelations came to light.

There was a thing on about rate swaps a couple of months ago in which some bank chief exec with experience across Europe said that the lack of trust customers have for retail banking in the UK was the lowest he'd encountered anywhere. Between this and PPI, it's not really [b]that[/b] hard to work out why.

It remains a tragedy that the majority of the big UK building societies de-mutualised and then failed as banks.

teamhurtmore - Member

NW are you just trying to create a reaction (trolling) or do you actually believe that

I absolutely believe that there are many nutters who believe the behaviour of our banks was caused by regulation, rather than the obvious truth that the regulation in place did its best to control the madness but that the banks invested huge efforts in finding ways to continue to behave badly. Also that there are many nutters who believe that the banks only acted as they did because they expected to be bailed out if they failed.

Free market fans need to believe something like this, I suppose... That the banks were stampeding horses dragging a man behind them, but if the man had just let go the horses would have stopped.

Interesting. I prefer to see that the system of bank regulation was fundamentally flawed to the extent that it was one (of a number) of the causes of the crisis.

Plus the law of unintended consequences is clearly seen in what is going on now. Banks are correctly being forced to deleverage but at exactly the wrong time. Its not necessarily about unregulated markets, more about correctly regulated and getting the timing correct.

bankers being arseholes, isnt that what they are paid to do? c'mon a mans gotta earn his bonus

I absolutely believe that there are many nutters who believe the behaviour of our banks was caused by [s]regulation,[/s]

There is a breed of brass-necked individual that no matter what the ****-up will not resign their position. If you're paid big bucks, the buck stops with you and you go when it all goes to rat-shit on your watch.

That's no way to talk about twunts like Fred Goodwin, who I still feel should have been given a bottle of whisky and a revolver and shown into the library at Gogarburn.

Sandwich - I rather think that can be applied to an awful lot of other businesses, too. Human nature.

Interesting. I prefer to see that the system of bank regulation was fundamentally flawed to the extent that it was one (of a number) of the causes of the crisis.

Let's be honest here. What is the fundamental reason for the failure of the banking system? What was it before? What will it be when it happens again?

We all know don't we?

If it wasn't far too serious for irony, it 'd be ironic that those responsible for the biggest corporate failure in British history are asking struggling small businesses to trust them, and do as they tell them, as they clearly know best about these things.

You really couldn't make it up

payday lenders on newsnight now

didnt realise if you took one out mortgage lenders were more likely to deny you a mortgage

im with JC on this one

[img] [/img]

teamhurtmore - Member

Interesting. I prefer to see that the system of bank regulation was fundamentally flawed to the extent that it was one (of a number) of the causes of the crisis.

I would say that while it was flawed, the reality is that it's easier to get around regulations than it is to keep up with evasion. There was no useful regulation in place for CDOs when they became big news, frinstance, because who the hell ever thought that was going to happen?

Banks employed more ways to evade the regulation that was in place than you can shake a stick at- from endrunning it entirely via fraud to outright corruption. And some of those that are supposed to provide checks and balances- the credit agencies etc- ended up complicit. That could have been made harder but they'd have continued to seek ways around it.

Regulation failed to stop the crisis but I'm personally unconvinced it can be called a cause. Meanwhile, the industry was actively thwarting the regulation that existed.

With RBS, it could just as easily be clueless incompetence not actual malicious intent. In my experience anyway.

With RBS i would go for complete and utter incompetence. I feel like I am their first ever customer and they are testing their systems as everything is a cock up.

The online international transfer thing is very good - and completely spoiled my fun. It was funny to see the look of barely-concealed panic on their faces when I would go into my local branch and ask to do in international transfer.

Actually, the local branch got pretty good at them - even if their security system consisted entirely of one person who knew my face and knew I wasn't dodgy.

"2 years ago a friend of mine's business (again...a hotel...theme forming?) had the funding pulled (A N other state owned bank) and the business went into administration. Eventually the building was sold to the hotel management company (a firm you'll all have heard of)
He'd always suspected foul play and AFAIK started putting papers together for a legal case."

When you say "had the funding pulled", do you mean "refused to loan them any more money"? Do you understand why it wouldn't make sense for a financier to realize the security if the borrower was making the payments?