• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Northern Rock

Northern Rock has been sold by the government to Virgin for a 650 Million pound loss on what they paid for it.

Another shot up the arse for taxpayers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15769886

"Perhaps they will call it Northern Virgin".

Had it been bought as an investment then yes, but as I understood it (and finance isn't my strong point) the money paid "for" was actually a bail out and therefore probably far more than the market value. I'm guessing that although the direct loss is between £400m and £650m, if one factors in the loss of public confidence in the banking system that would've come from a failure, then the deal doesn't seem anywhere near as bad.

Yes, i know people are hardly confident in the banking sector at the moment, but had there been no bail out I feel it could well have been a lot worse. Hopefully one of our more economically savvy posters could confirm, or refute this?
 
Had it been bought as an investment then yes, but as I understood it (and finance isn't my strong point) the money paid "for" was actually a bail out and therefore probably far more than the market value. I'm guessing that although the direct loss is between £400m and £650m, if one factors in the loss of public confidence in the banking system that would've come from a failure, then the deal doesn't seem anywhere near as bad.

Yes, i know people are hardly confident in the banking sector at the moment, but had there been no bail out I feel it could well have been a lot worse. Hopefully one of our more economically savvy posters could confirm, or refute this?

Virgin offered 1.1 billion for Northern Rock at the same time as the Government took it over...they turned down the offer then.
 
They hsould have allowed it to go through originally. Northern Rock has made a loss every year since 2008 I think so waiting any longer would start to erode even more capital. The whole thing was a total mess from start to finish but at least it hasn't been swallowed up by an existing bank, thus reducing competition further.

The financial sector needs some new blood without legacy assets that can add some competition and introduce some (hopefully) new practices.
 
Virgin offered 1.1 billion for Northern Rock at the same time as the Government took it over...they turned down the offer then.

Should point out though, that was a different Government. Is it a shot up the arse, or a loss cutting exercise?
 
Back
Top