Well the barriers at 135 Bishopsgate are easy enough to jump over/dive under…

Well I hate to agree with the smug twit Jon Snow but…publish and be damned!

If we own RBS don’t we want it to become immensely profitable so that we can sell it already and use the money to pay down the deficit? Just a suggestion.

This means that even now, no one in the UK has yet been prosecuted for taking our banks to the brink of collapse and causing the crisis.

I’d be surprised if anyone ever was. Stupidity (fortunately for so many of us) isn’t criminal, and it was more than possible for a bank to remain scrupulously within the statutory guidelines required and yet still suffer collapse.

There have, of course, been a slew of civil cases from investors claiming negligence (and so on. I doubt you want the details) on the part of the banks.

Interesting that the target would be RBS and not the FSA, which gets a mention in passing. But then I doubt you could rouse much of a rabble against an incompetent bunch of public sector fatcats like the FSA.

(Yes I agree with the publishing bit)

Bankers ooze arrogance again

I guess it would all rather depend upon what assurances were given to those who co-operated with the inquiry. If someone was told what he/she was saying was strictly “off the record” or for “internal consumption only” then it would be wrong to publish.

does anyone know the terms that were agreed?

Can we go after all the people who lied about their income to take on 125% mortgages and huge credit card debts? They’re as much to blame for this crisis as any bank – especially that it was high street banks, not investment banks that needed bailouts.

Or the government which wasted all the proceeds of growth on higher wages for public sector workers whilst hiding the bulk of infrastrcture spending off balance sheet in PFI, telling us that government spending was paying for it (which it wasn’t)?

Just a thought.

Tyler @8: Well yes, it might actually be a good idea to challenge RBS (and Anglo Irish) on why they are now busy offering to write off up to 25% of the debt of multi-property landlords who now find themselves ‘distressed with debt’, rather than, say, repossess those dwellings and put them under local democratic control, in a way which then creates revenue for the maintenance of vital public services.

See http://thoughcowardsflinch.com/2011/01/16/know-your-enemy-2-how-the-banks-are-using-the-bailout-money/

“’I’d be surprised if anyone ever was. Stupidity (fortunately for so many of us) isn’t criminal”

I share your scepticism about whether anyone will get prosecuted. But that’s because white collar crime and fraud are rarely taken seriously in the UK. In the US there are several former executives serving lengthy (and arguably disproportionate) jail terms for fraud. In the UK the serious fraud office is useless and rarely prosecutes. The americans have probably secured more convictions against british people for fraud than they have. Even then punishment is usually a couple of years in an open prison.

I doubt anyone really thinks that british people working in the financial industry are less prone to temptation and fraud than americans.

“Can we go after all the people who lied about their income to take on 125% mortgages and huge credit card debts?”

Totally, it’s a form of fraud and should be dealt with. But also bear in mind many mortgage advisors encouraged this behaviour (or did it without clients noticing) due to the salary structure.

“hiding the bulk of infrastrcture spending off balance sheet in PFI, ”

I seem to remember the biggest critics of this were the left.

This means that even now, no one in the UK has yet been prosecuted for taking our banks to the brink of collapse and causing the crisis.

What would be the charges?

I share your scepticism about whether anyone will get prosecuted. But that’s because white collar crime and fraud are rarely taken seriously in the UK.

It’s also because the business activities usually highlighted as having ’caused’ the crisis weren’t in themselves illegal. Banks were in fact pretty scrupulous at staying within the guidelines set for them – look at the size of Compliance Departments.

Welfare and socialism for the rich, and capitalism for the poor. This is the new black.

Socialise the costs, and privatise the profits. Oil, Banks, Health care. You name it this is the way the corporate elites have rigged the game.

Pitchforks and torches are what is required Pitchforks and torches. Oh, and a few Guillotines.

RBS are charging some of the poorer members of society interest rates that represent 7780% of the base rate.

Since the bailout, RBS decided to underwrite a new company Opus who have bought credit card accounts from Citi and are now charging their new customers interest rates of 38.9%.

My heart swells with pride to know that my tax money is being used to bleed the poor dry like this. God bless RBS and all who work for her.

(On the internet nobody know’s you’re sarcastic so I should perhaps explicitly point out the last paragraph is ironic.)

@12 Tim J
Isn’t that one reason why we need to see the report, just for starters?

15 – with the proviso that I’ve no idea on what basis the report was compiled, yes I’d have thought so. It probably will be too at some point, once the FSA and RBS have agreed what needs to be redacted from it to make it suitable for publication.

It’s only been two weeks since everyone started back after the New Year, and when lawyers are involved two weeks is barely enough time for a preparatory clearing of the throat.

“involved two weeks is barely enough time for a preparatory clearing of the throat.”

They’ll still charge you £30 for the time taken to buy strepsills.

17 – Since a quasi-Govt agency is involved, you’ll have to pay for the meeting to decide whether Strepsils or Lemsip should be bought first.

It was PricewaterhouseCoopers who conducted the enquiry not the FSA. Although, one could question their impartiality as they are auditors for other banks but not RBS. Making bad decisions is not criminal fraud. Well at least the law of the land says it is not. Maybe the ‘ Court of Public Opinion ‘ has a different view, which is why we should not appeal to anything so base as the CoPO. The real issue is did RBS systematically misrepresent from 2007 onwards their working capital? Including when they raised £12 billion in a rights issue from the private sector in early 2008. Various civil cases are alleging they did. The fact that they later needed £45 billion of capital from the government is self-evident that they were undercapitalised. That more than anything calls into question the due diligence of the ABN Amro takeover which left them undercapitalised and underfunded when the great liquidity squeeze of late 2008 hit. It is not obvious that anything criminal was going on.

Section 348 of the Financial Services and Markets Act prevents the release of confidential information without the consent of those investigated except where criminality is being alleged. RBS has given the FSA consent and the FSA have said they will publish by April when all other consent has been obtained by those no longer employed by the bank.

An insider at FSA or RBS is needed to leak this report to Wikileaks or similar, and then have some critically minded experts decode it before its released to the general public.

Volunteers PLEASE!

It is utterly mind boggling how this is playing out, although I think that having so many financially illiterate journalists bartering their pathetic opinions as gospel from day one of the crisis has created a massive smokescreen for the real culprits to hide behind. People still think that bankers bonuses are the real problem behind this, but at least that’s a step up from blaming ourselves for spending too much on our credit cards and mortgages!

While it’s important for RBS to be profitable I disagree with the objective of maximising it’s profitability in preparation for selling off our stake. Couldn’t the bank be successfully run in the enlightened self-interest of the banking sector (yes… wishful thinking…I know) as a sort of ‘honest broker’ or ‘exemplar’ as well as in the interests of the wider economy? Apparently ze germans do this sort of thing very well and it has contributed to the success and stability of their economy. Perhaps something like this would create more long term value than the rather crude resurrection of the balance sheet and pumping of the bottom line that our anglo-saxon short termism is demanding at present.

Sunny from uncut page:-
The criteria for a new target:
- Highly profitable or highly rich tax dodger!
- A nationwide target, so actions are replicable up and down the country
- Open for business on Sunday 30th January. (That rules out the banks we’re afraid!)

But for the next action I think RBS is ideal, because what it is happening is rather than govt. altering how banks work by owning one, it is financiers altering how govt. works through such revolving door/trojan horse arrangements.

What would be the charges?

Trading whilst insolvent?

Can we go after all the people who lied about their income to take on 125% mortgages and huge credit card debts?

I thought you right-wingers believed in the view that people respond to financial incentives? The mortages themselves only caused the crisis because they were badly priced by the banks themselves and then passed off as low-risk assets.

At least read up on the basics before you’re going to lecture others Tyler.

Tim J: It’s also because the business activities usually highlighted as having ’caused’ the crisis weren’t in themselves illegal. Banks were in fact pretty scrupulous at staying within the guidelines set for them – look at the size of Compliance Departments.

Oh really. I suppose that news about Goldman Sachs being fined about $550m must have passed you by.

I don’t mind expanding your reading list Tim J, you just have to ask

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10656699

I hadn’t seen that Rick – thanks for pointing it out. Ah well…

This was exactly what I was going to suggest at the meeting, but I couldn’t make it. Glad to see you making the case, though I’d add a lengthy list of other crimes to to their refusal to publish this report…

Adam

Adam – indeed, the tar-sands stuff also make them ripe as targets.

Perhaps a different climate activism group?

Sunny

Tim J: It’s also because the business activities usually highlighted as having ’caused’ the crisis weren’t in themselves illegal. Banks were in fact pretty scrupulous at staying within the guidelines set for them – look at the size of Compliance Departments.

Oh really. I suppose that news about Goldman Sachs being fined about $550m must have passed you by.

I don’t mind expanding your reading list Tim J, you just have to ask

Possibly important to make a distinction between civil and criminal fraud – it seemed you alluded to criminal charges in your OP. On its own, the SEC can only pursue civil cases – Federal prosecutors prosecute criminal offences. In the Goldman Sachs case you referred to, the bank settled the SEC’s civil suit and did not admit to all the allegations.

23 – Oh Sunny, so keen to offer reading tips, so reluctant to read anything yourself. From my first comment:

There have, of course, been a slew of civil cases from investors claiming negligence (and so on. I doubt you want the details) on the part of the banks.

Incomplete information, treating investors as ‘sophisticated’ when they weren’t – there have been a lot of civil cases. As I said.

In case it isn’t obvious, by the way, the reason for this distinction is that ‘prosecution’ is the language of the criminal law. The banks won’t have been ‘prosecuted’ for anything, even if they are ‘sued’ by investors, or bodies such as the OFT.

But RBS IS the target for activists – as reported here over the summer – http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/08/30/why-i-super-glued-myself-to-the-royal-bank-of-scotland/ (Update re trial etc etc here – http://politicaldynamite.com/2011/01/the-superglue-3-on-trial-28-january/ )

@9 Paul: “Well yes, it might actually be a good idea to challenge RBS (and Anglo Irish) on why they are now busy offering to write off up to 25% of the debt of multi-property landlords who now find themselves ‘distressed with debt’, rather than, say, repossess those dwellings…”

For a repossession, consider the costs: legal, valuation, administration, auction fees. Plus the fact that the property may be worth less than the debt owed to the bank. In some cases, writing off a proportion of debt can raise more money in the long term.

And no, it is pointless to reassign such repossessions to social housing providers. Reassignment does not increase the number of properties available for rent. And why assume that these are properties that social housing providers would wish to offer?

OP, Sunny: “Getting the report out could blow this whole mess wide open.”

I think that the proposed outcome is improbable and raises false expectations. As Richard W commented, the report/investigation is being conducted by a company that audits banks.

The report will be as dry as dust, as difficult to unravel as the contents of your girlfriend’s knicker drawer.

The information that is required to determine bad practice has already been revealed. It is possible that the RBS report identifies “bad individuals”, but it won’t demonstrate conspiracy or enterprise fraud (cf Enron).