Blog article
See all stories »

Nationalisation has never been so popular

The UK government could never have foreseen that during their time in office, they would nationalise the high street banks and what's more with the support of the opposition and the City in general. We live in very strange times indeed.

Although today's announcements from the UK Chancellor are somewhat short of real nationalisation, it is as close as anyone could have dreamed. The £50billion may or may not solve the confidence of banking investors and customers, only time will tell. But the guarantee by the tax payer of inter-bank credit is the real deal. If this security gets banks dealing with each other and brings normal banking operations back it will be worth the risk. What's now required is for the rest of the world to put in place similar arrangements.

The £50billion is a tax payer's risk investment and should bring forth a profit if the global crisis subsides, without producing too much more blood on the carpet. The credit guarantee is more of a loan and this too should bring the tax payer a return.

The questions that nationalised banks will have to answer are very fundamental and the details of the government's proposal will need to be studied closely before being accepted. For example how will the boardroom be affected?

Civil servants on the boards of banks is a pretty horrific thought but perhaps the rehiring of old gunslingers just retired from banking might be good, to use their experience to marshal the business and also prepare for the mega changes to the financial system that are now certain.

One good thing might be the reorganisation of the banks compensation schemes as it is important to retain the goodwill of the public and huge City bonuses will not do that.

This might be the time that the rationalisation of remunerations in the City are finally able to be sanitised. The reason is that the whole global banking system will be doing the same thing preventing top earners threatening to leave to rich pickings elsewhere. There will be no elsewhere!

It is possible that other governments will follow the UK lead and begin a nationalisation of their threatened banks. Could we end up where the finance industry began some 300 years ago? With single large government banks dominating and hundreds of boutique banks in family hands, offering innovation and risk based services?

Will this be the landscape that is being created to begin the rebuild? It has its attractions with a virtual overnight sweeping away of a rotten system and a replacement that provides state control and security for its customers.    

3559

Comments: (6)

A Finextra member
A Finextra member 08 October, 2008, 16:19Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 likes

Shame they can't nationalise the trains while they're at it!

Gary Wright
Gary Wright 08 October, 2008, 16:29Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 likes

Water,Electricity and Gas could be added?

Paul Penrose
Blog group founder
Paul Penrose - Finextra - London 09 October, 2008, 09:08Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 likes

Why not? The French have already renationalised British Energy for us, courtesy of state-owned EDF.

A Finextra member
A Finextra member 11 October, 2008, 09:54Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 likes

Nationalisation is a better move than recapitalisation which is now what Henry Paulson wants to do.Recapitalisation falls short in addressing the confidence issue. Who can main street depend on? Bankers or Government? Recapitalisation or Nationalisation? 

AIG is a truly bad example. The moment they spent the initial loan / 'bailout' money it received, it's asking for more. To celebrate, AIG even paid for a 400,000+ dollar event which they claim was a reward for their top 40 insurance brokers. The bill included spa and massage treatments. AIG just received a ton of money from the U.S. treasury but the management of it remained the same. 

Now imagine doing the same to a few other banks. Would recapitalisation give the treasury enough preferred shares to control the banks that its giving capital to? I doubt it.

What's Paulson's hang-up in the nationalisation of banks? U.S. should learn from experiences of other countries such as Sweden,..

Gary Wright
Gary Wright 11 October, 2008, 10:58Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 likes

Thanks for these comments

Nationalisation might be the quickest way to restore confidence. The problem with punching money into banks is that the traders can keep playing the market knowing that there is loads more money the is available.

Would it be a bad thing if all governments bought some banks merged them and we all moved on?

Markets will find its own level and it is not certain that governments buying bank shares as a prop will have much effect. Economies are where the war needs to be won and that starts on Main Street

A Finextra member
A Finextra member 11 October, 2008, 18:28Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 likes Just got my suspicions confirmed. -------------------------------------------- Paulson's idea of recapitalisation is just that - buying stocks of these financial institutions and definitely with no voting rights. Per money.cnn.com: "Any shares purchased by the U.S. government would be non-voting shares"
Gary Wright

Gary Wright

Analyst

BISS Research

Member since

19 Sep 2007

Location

London

Blog posts

277

Comments

369

More from Gary

This post is from a series of posts in the group:

EBAday

EBAday is the annual event for European payments professionals organised by Finextra and the Euro Banking Association. This community has been created to deliver a forum for EBA delegates to exchange views on instant payments, open banking and new developments in payments processing and technology.


See all

Now hiring