Sunday, 1 November 2009

Banks to be sold

Plans are being made to break up and sell off the public stakes in the banks. Part of the deal will be that the purchasers must not be banks. Maybe it's just me but is excluding possible purchasers from the market, especially purchasers who know the market, the best way to get a good price?

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

And the one move which would add real competition in Scotland (hiving off Bank of Scotland from Lloyds)is not on the cards. I wonder why.

subrosa said...

Aye strange one that Calum. The detail was disclosed after I'd written my bit on this yesterday and I entirely agree with your point.

After all, wasn't it because the people who were running the banks weren't qualified bankers that caused many of the problems?

I read somewhere earlier it's thought that it will be the Asian continent which will be most interested.

Marvellous isn't it?

I wonder if Andy Wightman at whoownsscotland.org will do a breakdown of business as well as land now that they have their website up and running.

masterymistery said...

reminds me of the law enacted in the US just after the Great Depression forbidding the marriage of merchant banks and retail banks on the grounds that the risk taking behaviour of the one would be dangerous fro the other. I can't remember the name of the Act. It worked well for over 60 years and then was repealed some time in the nineties, paving the way for the GFC


masterymistery at cosmic rapture

Bucket of Tongues said...

Banks buying banks only leads to the interdependence (or mutually-assured destrction) which lead to the financial shock in the first place. I for one think it's a good idea. The financial system should be based on sound money, not propping each other up.

@mastermistery - it's the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act you're referring to, which was repealed in 1999. As you say, it led directly to the GFC. The further these aspects are seperated, the better.