Business

Rain (AM and PM) 8° London Hi 10°C / Lo 3°C

Value of taxpayer's holding in British banks plummets

Each family has invested £3,000 in bailed-out banks, with a paper loss of £11bn

By James Moore, Deputy Business Editor

Taxpayers are sitting on losses of nearly £11bn from the Government's "investments" in Britain's banks, the body charged with overseeing them admitted yesterday.

John Kingman, chief executive of UK Financial Investments, said every family in the country now had more than £3,000 invested in Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland. The value of those holdings has plunged to £24bn since the Government stepped in, although the situation is considerably better than it was in February, when the unrealised loss stood at £18bn. The report says taxpayers' losses at Lloyds at the end of June stood at £6.2bn, with RBS worth £4.7bn less than when the Government stepped in.

The taxpayer has a 70 per cent stake in RBS and 43.3 per cent of Lloyds, but this is set to increase through the two banks' involvement in the Treasury-backed asset protection scheme to cover them against what could be multibillion-pound losses on bad loans.

UKFI's losses have been incurred because the shares in Lloyds and RBS are trading well below the prices at which the Government bought in when it effectively bailed the two banks out. They were detailed in UKFI's annual report, published yesterday.

Mr Kingman, who refused to publicly answer any questions about the report beyond a pre-prepared presentation, said selling the stakes at a profit for taxpayers was "at the heart of what we do", adding: "The public rightly expects to get their money back at a healthy return".

But the former Treasury official – on secondment to UKFI – insisted the organisation was "under no pressure" from ministers to make a sale, despite speculation that the Government would jump at a quick return in the run-up to a general election. He said no discussions on this were being held, and warned that the state's investment in the banks was likely to remain on its books for "years". "This is not and cannot be a short-term game," he added.

Such is the size of the Government's holding in the banks that there will have to be several sell-offs because the market would be unable to absorb a single deal. Options being considered include placements with institutions, a sale to a strategic investor, or even a wider, public sell-off which could include an offer to retail investors.

However, Mr Kingman refused to be drawn on a timetable, and would give no indication on what sort of return UKFI wanted to achieve on behalf of taxpayers. He also insisted that while UKFI would not be "a passive investor" in the banks, it would not "interfere with commercial management".

Despite the huge influence that its shareholding gives it over pay, UKFI said it would not put "unduly strict restrictions" on basic salaries and bonuses, arguing that doing this would harm the taxpayer's investment, although it does expect RBS and Lloyds to be "at the forefront" of a global rethink on remuneration packages.

The organisation has come under fire for the package handed to RBS's chief executive, Stephen Hester, which could pay him up to £10m.

Banks have agreed to start lending again as part of the Government's asset protection scheme, but this is being overseen by the Treasury, and it will have the responsibility of ensuring that they keep to their promises. Speculation has been mounting that Lloyds will have to write off up to £13bn on lending, including loans linked to commercial property and businesses as well as mortgages. It will post its half-year results on 5 August. Much of its problems stem from its hugely controversial merger with HBOS.

UKFI said that it had held more than 50 meetings with other investors in the bank, and said it was "vital" to ensure that a relationship of trust was built up if a successful sale is to be achieved.

Glen Moreno, the chairman of UKFI, who is working for free, declined to put a timetable on his departure. The Government is trying to find a permanent replacement, but it has been suggested that the job is not proving easy.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

you've seen nothing yet
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 05:21 am (UTC)
the true cost to the poor, savers and pensioners, of welfare to ptop up insolvent Iceland on the Thames, is trillions not billions
Glen Moreno, the chairman of UKFI, who is working for free
[info]famulla wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 09:52 am (UTC)
UKFI said that it had held more than 50 meetings with other investors in the bank, The organisation has come under fire for the package handed to RBS's chief executive, Stephen Hester, which could pay him up to £10m.
I thank ALLAH I have my cash in the Piggy ban inthe duck house Nothing like the fuck sorry duck house it is very safe as it attrcts interest daily weekly weakly tricly monthly yearly and I am rich I just bought another hald room house with dogs in this I am so happy want happiness Invest with me in the fuck soryy duck house it is very safe
please hear me it is very safe give me give me give me
AND I thank you NOW
Firozali a mUlla my site www.flymetocairoprt.nile.eu.airport.onstrike.toady.netandnonet.com.edu.org
[info]rozr wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 10:45 am (UTC)
It seems we have a Chancellor who will make some effort to oversee the banks and allow the Bank of England to do so, unlike Gordon Brown who doesn't like being blamed for anything whether his fault or not so avoided having to take control or letting anyone else do so either and no wonder the country is in such a financial mess with no-one ever in control properly until perhaps now of our finances. Though I doubt from Brown's showing as PM whether he was ever up to the job of Chancellor and whether he should ever have been allowed near money seeing he seems unable to save any for rainy days but instead borrowed like crazy. I am fed up with Labour but nonetheless I feel Darling has a firmer and far more competent hand at the Treasury. It'll be vaguely interesting once we are rid of this useless, spendthrift and incompetent Labour Government, and their "performance" over their governance can be evaluated from a distance.
down the drain by 2012
[info]someofusknow wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 11:03 am (UTC)
The bankers know what they are doing: privatise the profits and socialise the losses. And no matter what mess they create, the top executives get golden handshakes and exorbitant pensions.

Little wonder every western nation is rapidly going down the drain.

Only another 2 1/2 years till 2012.
[info]mykleboon wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 11:21 am (UTC)
"every family in the country now had more than 3,000 pounds invested in Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland"

Utter rubbish!! If the losses are ever "crystallised", then they will be borne mostly by those who pay the most tax - i.e. those on large incomes. 93 per cent of all net personal taxation, (including income tax, NICs, VAT, Excise duties, and so on), is borne by the top 30% of household incomes, (and 47 percent is borne by the top 10 per cent).
your maths is er... idiosyncratic and you knowledge of econmic systems zero
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 11:45 am (UTC)
In fact those who will pay most (to prop up insolvent organised econOmic crime syndicates - and other forms of dead wood) are those who can (and/or will) borrow least (to benefit from raging inflation), in other words the poor, the prudent saver, and the pensioner - the feckless professional debtor will do fine...
'Families'
[info]bobbellinhell wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 11:23 am (UTC)
But would those 'families' be 3 grand better off if the banks hadn't been saved from collapse? I hardly think so. The cessation of day-to-day commercial lending that would have followed a banking collapse would have led to a depression that would have made 1933 look like a picnic.
fallacious nonsense
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 11:49 am (UTC)
cessation of trading by organised economic crime syndicates would have enablked / obliged government to facilitate a system of state issued 'money' and communally owned high street banks to handle cash and *local* saving / lending activities - in short a return to something like the banking system that existed before there were Blatcherist governments as an enemy of the State and of the people
Toxic debt?
[info]kodak321 wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 12:17 pm (UTC)
Forget the value of these institutions in respect of share price...we need to know the (deficit) value of Toxic debt and future debt in relation to mortgage/commercial assets....the Government could send in the accountants and give us a 'realistic' figure...but they refuse to do so. The news must be bad...very bad...we are being lied too....not a little 'fibber'...but a big, fat, juicy, 'son of a gun' of a lie.
Re: Toxic debt?
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 09:18 pm (UTC)
i recollect shouting from the rooftops - to wait until the share price is tuppence (as it would have been within days), as second best to NOT socialising the debt at all
your maths is er... idiosyncratic and you knowledge of econmic systems zero
[info]mykleboon wrote:
Wednesday, 15 July 2009 at 09:49 am (UTC)
I think that this stricture applies to you Cronyblatcher - and in spades!

If this comment is meant to apply to myself, then let me inform you that in my youth I acquired an international reputation in mathematical physics, (quantum mechanics). Much later, when I joined the "real world", I was frequently invited to speak at, and chair, international conferences on economic forecasting and financing infrastructure.

By the way, I don't borrow - other than on one credit card which I pay off in full at the end of each month.

If you disagree with me, then you are also disagreeing with both the Inland Revenue, (HMRC), and the Office for National Statistics, (which is where I got my figures from)! But, what can you expect, other than ignorance, illogicality, innumeracy, (and probably relative poverty), from someone who advocates voting for the BNP?