ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ

The only report on RBS reading is what Wikileaks produces - as this will be the only one that contains any truth.
Everyone else either has a vested interest or is keen to cover up their own mistakes.

We see what happens to people who dare publish the truth - maybe that's why so many ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ journalists are petrified of speaking it.

Blaming the FSA is akin to the current practice of blaming social services when some appalling tragedy occurs.
In that case it is the parents (or in loco parentis) who are to blame; in this case it is the bankers, not the FSA.

"So why didn't the FSA intervene in this way? Well it was because at the time it was the prisoner of an ideology - what we might call the Greenspan dogma - that big financial institutions couldn't possibly behave irrationally, stupidly or dangerously."

Good old 'economic rationality' - so glad to see this is still alive and well - along with "the thunder is the anger of the Gods" and "if you sail to the edge of the world you will fall off the side of the turtle supporting it"...and other such inventions of human imagination.

So where does this leave your economics education Robert? - surely what most of what you studied referred to economic rationality of market participants?

Time to tear up the reference books maybe?

The potential for US individuals or companies to sue RBS is written about in the above article.

I wonder if there are any UK based individuals or companies who are considering sueing state-side banks/financial institutions? Would the US authorities make similar information available to all?

Let's face it, many got a lot wrong over the last 10 years or so, and in my opinion still are. So this type of legal action is likely to become much more commonplace. Are we, the general public to have to wait until these legal actions are all over to find out what went wrong? If so, I'll have been pushing up daisies for many a year! Needed actions won't have been taken to protect the general public and we won't be able to protect ourselves by asking the right questions of financial institutions with which we might get involved in the future. So it goes on, and it will be never ending while there is someone/organisation to sue.

It all points to the absolute need for everyone to do their job properly, soberly and without greed in the first place. [Now I can see pigs flying in over them green hills!] Its regulation that we can trust that's needed, and we need it now, worldwide.

"So why didn't the FSA intervene in this way? Well it was because at the time it was the prisoner of an ideology - what we might call the Greenspan dogma - that big financial institutions couldn't possibly behave irrationally, stupidly or dangerously."

Ideology !

I always thought that these financiers were worth their breath-taking salaries and bonuses because they were, somehow, better educated, experienced and intelligent than the rest of us mere mortals.

Now we are told that they are governed by an ideology.

No...politicians are governed by an ideology.

Financiers are governed by facts, figures, experience and intelligence.

So now we know the truth as to why the European economy is in a state of melt-down, and yet these financiers still believe they are worth a massive bonus.

This level of incompetance takes my breath away.

2. At 12:29pm on 15th Dec 2010, pietr8 wrote:

"Blaming the FSA is akin to the current practice of blaming social services when some appalling tragedy occurs.
In that case it is the parents (or in loco parentis) who are to blame; in this case it is the bankers, not the FSA."

Ah but pietr8 , you're forgetting that the FSA cannot 'threaten to move abroad and take all the nations capital with it'.

Governments always need a scapegoat - I shall be interested to see how moving the FSA into the BoE actually make a jot of difference.
Got to hand it to the Tories - they have a lot of faith in the 'moving the deckchairs' solution to major problems.

It's now becoming clearer - the Government want to prevent access to higher and further education now because they are going to have to really 'dumb down' the population to get away with grand robbery of the nation.

(although it's worth noting meny people are already at that level and still accept the lies being sold to us through the mainstream media)

ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ BREAKING NEWS!!!!


All banks expected to lower their interest rates on loans, mortgages and cards today to help regenerate the economy!!


GC

Surely, more to the point Robert, is that the RBS directors DO have a LEGAL obligation to RELEASE the report, damagingthough it may be, BECAUSE they ARE being sued in the US.

I believe its called "material disclosure of all the facts"?

If (a big if), the report might show that the Directors have 'behaved inappropriately' or 'even illegally' in misleading investors or in other 'behaviour' related to the 'crash' it is incumbent on the FSA and Auditors to release those facts to the Courts and potentially, into the public domain.

There are no prisoners or excuses here Robert.

Look at how many have had homes repossed, lost jobs and living in quite dire circumstances.

Well trousered bankers or not, "the truth will out".

'Surely even those of you who don't have the highest regard for bankers can see why the board of RBS would not rush to put itself in financial harm's way to the tune of billions of dollars.'

Class!

'The current directors of RBS are being given legal advice that they would be failing in their duties to today's shareholders if they were to put into the public domain information that could have a material influence on the US litigation.'

1. How many shares do we have?

2. Are they suggesting that they will hide the bloody murder dagger, dripping in DNA and great big fingerprints from law enforcement?

3. If I paid for a report, then I want to read it.

Julian, Julian! (that's me yelling), when they let you out, you couldn't possibly get your mitts on this RBS report could you? It's about the truth! You're good at that sort of thing. Yust put it online in the usual place, and we'll find it easily enough (but please, for goodness sake, try not to redact this one!)

"But RBS's directors have a perfectly understandable objection to publication. Which is that the bank is being sued for potentially life-threatening damages in the US by investors who argue they were misled by the banks' directors back in 2007 about the wisdom of the ABN deal and again in 2008 about the banks' finances when it sold new shares."

The simple fact Robert is that if the banks are completely innocent and their directors did not mislead investors in 2007, then let them publish the report in full. I won't hold my breath though.

For the banks to block the publication of this report speaks volumes......

I look forward to finding out from Wikileaks.

But RBS's directors have a perfectly understandable objection to publication. Which is that the bank is being sued for potentially life-threatening damages in the US by investors who argue they were misled by the banks' directors back in 2007 about the wisdom of the ABN deal and again in 2008 about the banks' finances when it sold new shares.

=============================================================

Well I guess we'll just have to lend them some more money then - won't we. The Shred picks up 300k worth of tax payers money without which he would not get a penny.
Nothing like rewarding success

Never mind the civil courts when is this case going to be heard in the criminal courts? Or are the police only used when it is children being childish?

"The current directors of RBS are being given legal advice that they would be failing in their duties to today's shareholders if they were to put into the public domain information that could have a material influence on the US litigation."


I thought we were the shareholders, this bank is in the public domain and some myself included would see it as essential that all of its information is put in the public domain, as has been said we will no doubt have to wait for wikileaks et al to give us the truth.

Its not surprising to see , the force of governments being used to suppress the truth, there is not one person to blame there is a whole system rotten to the core here and its running around protecting itself,whilst pretending its not in our interest.

When i hear the term "not in the public interest" i now know it actually is, and its just code for cover up....

Slightly off topic but relevant it was interesting to see lie detectors are being considered as one of the reforms for cricket after there betting scam problems, a situation not to dissimilar to what we see in the finance circles, perhaps we should consider using them , on politicians and bankers, although i do believe trained people can beat the current tests, perhaps this is what they mean by expertise.

It is not in the FSA's interest to publish this or any other report because to publish would not only highlight the failings and incompetence of the firm under investigation, it would also highlight the failings and incompetence of the FSA!

The FSA (and I know from bitter experience) prefer to hide behind a wall of secrecy refusing to communicate openly and fully with any member of the public involved in one of their investigations, journalists or even MPs, because that way they can pretend that all is well and the financial services industry in the UK is being efficiently and correctly regulated.

And God forbid that the FSA are held accountable for their failings........better to never reveal what they are or are not doing so that way they never have to justify or explain their actions (or lack of).

HOLD ON - is everyone losing their memory ... I'm still waiting for the banks to start repaying the loans that the government made to them with my (and your) money. I hear banks are now starting to make profits again (or am i wrong?) and they still pay out obscene bonuses to total plonkers who got us into this mess in the first place (or am i deluded?) - or maybe thats yesterdays news ... forget it ... move on - banks are above the common law that you and I have to submit to and anyway we'll only be paying for it until we die and then so will our children

Here's another slight bending of the truth.....

/news/business-11992804

So reposessions might be 'slighty up' next year - is this based on the CML's 'finger in the air' estimate - or maybe the fact that 350,000 mortgage holders in the UK are currently in arrears and less than 10% have agreed a restructuring with their lender?

No wonder Andrew Marr was keen to attack bloggers - clearly he was covering the failings of his own industry in it's basic requirement - TO ASK QUESTIONS.

As a full blown taxpayer and therefore majority owner of RBS, I herby give my permission for the FSA report to be made public.

The excuse is as lame as a three legged donkey.

. At 12:37pm on 15th Dec 2010, writingsonthewall wrote:
"So why didn't the FSA intervene in this way? Well it was because at the time it was the prisoner of an ideology - what we might call the Greenspan dogma - that big financial institutions couldn't possibly behave irrationally, stupidly or dangerously."
Good old 'economic rationality' - so glad to see this is still alive and well - along with "the thunder is the anger of the Gods" and "if you sail to the edge of the world you will fall off the side of the turtle supporting it"...and other such inventions of human imagination.
So where does this leave your economics education Robert? - surely what most of what you studied referred to economic rationality of market participants?
Time to tear up the reference books maybe?"

I think Mr.Preston is referring to a belief in rational markets,i.e.,that the market cursor will reflect the true value of an asset over time.

This has certainly worked for Warren Buffet investing in individual corporations.What it cannot do is resist the effects of mass delusion,in the case of the banks their belief that certain asset classes like derivates or CFDs couldn`t fail.Or black swans,those unprecedented events which cannot be rationally anticipated like the avalanche of wishful thinking,herd psychology and greed which tipped over into a global banking collapse.

So the attack on efficient markets is not a criticism of economic rationality but a regard for its limits,especialy when information is limited as was the case with most bankers,relying on young whizzes in the back office, who would pop-out,glowing like candles with the bonuses they were earning, and lay reassuring hands on their proprietors and managers.

The AM, the Dutch regulator, could also have blocked the bid for ABN, but no doubt Gordon Brown would have come down on the AM like a ton of bricks for being protectionist.

and a worthwhile Tyler Cowen piece;



Gets more focused on banking/finance towards the end.

According to an old ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ news story, RBS were part of a consortium that bought ABN, Santander and Fortis were the other two involved, They beat Barclays in a bidding war! Did none of these organisations know the fruit was rotten ? It seems the RBS board were not the only clowns in this circus.

Perhaps this time we could have the following:

A regulator who actually has some power
A regulator that does not have bankers and those with a vested interest in shareholdings with major financial institutions running the regulatory body. Without that its all just a scam to make people believe they are protected when really only the bankers are ! One of the biggest scandals our country has ever faced.

. At 13:28pm on 15th Dec 2010, Letsgetreal wrote:
"It is not in the FSA's interest to publish this or any other report because to publish would not only highlight the failings and incompetence of the firm under investigation, it would also highlight the failings and incompetence of the FSA!"

The failings and incompetence of the FSA may or may not be true.But the FSA as a government organization does not have the legal power to hide the parts of the report which highlight its own role,providing it does not implicate RBS and its directors.

The more general point about the RBS takoever of ABN,or the banking collapse generally,is that its is CEOs of banks who are responsible for their actions not the FSA which is an arms length organization.Whatever the failings of the FSA,personal responsibility is central to any stable system of corporate management.That is something that cannot be devolved to supervisory authorities when things go wrong,,as much as the banks and their friends in government would like it to be.

What can the report say that we cannot construct from what we know?

RBS took over ABN thinking, as many did at the time, that all the derivatives and dodgy paper were worth as much as the Rating Agencies said they were. One might argue that with thorough Due Diligence this house of cards would have been detected but that has been the systemic failure of this whole crunch and it seems as if no lessons have sunk in anywhere.

TYIW

I heard a whisper that the ABN execs performed a slight of hand with their multi-million pound art portfolio as the takeover went through, and sold it all to charity for 1 EURO. Another reason why RBS shareholders can feel hard done by.

Anyone know if this is true?

Now, call me stupid (and many do) but since the UK government owns a majority stake in the equity of RBS, then surely a refusal by the Board of RBS to allow public access to this information is simply a refusal (by proxy) by the government of the UK to let its citizens, many of whom were deluded enough to vote for them, have access to a report on the governance of a company which is owned by "our" government? Or have I got it all totally wrong, as usual?

15. At 13:31pm on 15th Dec 2010, RobertoPeroni wrote:
HOLD ON - is everyone losing their memory ... I'm still waiting for the banks to start repaying the loans that the government made to them with my (and your) money. I hear banks are now starting to make profits again (or am i wrong?) and they still pay out obscene bonuses to total plonkers who got us into this mess in the first place (or am i deluded?) - or maybe thats yesterdays news ... forget it ... move on - banks are above the common law that you and I have to submit to and anyway we'll only be paying for it until we die and then so will our children
...........
The Greeks dont seem to keen for their children to pay for it, and why should we.

NOT ONLY SHOULD THE FSA RELEASE THE REPORT, THEY ARE LEGALLY OBLIGED TO RE-OPEN THE INVESTIGATION IN LIGHT OF NEW EVIDENCE - COURTESY OF WIKILEAKS!

WikiLeaks cables: RBS chairman said directors 'failed to live up to their duties'


Sir Philip Hampton's reported claim of breach in 'fiduciary responsibilities' will raise pressure on FSA over RBS inquiry.
Lawyers said Hampton's reported remarks could be crucial for any shareholders trying to bring legal action for the losses they sustained on their shares during the Β£12bn cash call made on shareholders in the spring of 2008 – and should be of interest to the FSA.

Two things come to mind regarding RBS's takeover of ABN AMRO:
1) Why was there no 'material adverse change' clause in the acquisition agreement? If there was one, why was it not used to stop the deal from completion? Surely anyone with a pair of eyes and rational thoughts would have come to the conclusion that the world has changed a lot between August 2007 and the time when the deal went through in spring 2008. What were the non-exec directors doing?
2) How thorough was the due diligence carried out by RBS and their advisors? You don't need to be a mortgage specialist to understand that ABN AMRO had a load of exposures to US sub-prime RMBS. If not, why not? Did the people who looked at the books actually knew what they were looking at? Who signed off the due diligence from the advisors? If their recommendation to RBS was a 'buy', didn't they gave poor advise? What aren't they being dragged out in the public and exposed as greedy, incompetent auditors/bankers/lawyers?

Last week, the FSA said they found no lack of integrity by RBS or a failure of governance on the part of the board. The FSA used section 348 of the Financial Services and Markets Act as a reason not to release the Price Waterhouse Coopers Report into events at RBS (before it was bailed out).
Under current FSA rules information from FSA investigations is released at the point of a successful enforcement action.
Wow, talk about running around in circles! You have to be guilty before the documents can be released, but you can't release the documents until you're subjected to a "successful enforcement action".
In 2007, a consortium of buyers led by RBS completed the biggest takeover in banking history. All of the relevant details can be found at this site:

The history is traced between April 16, 2007 and November, 2, 2007.
SEC filings are those documents that we are required to file by virtue of listing on the New York Stock Exchange. They contain mainly financial information.
These documents are also available for viewing on the SEC website at www.sec.gov. The Company will send any holder of the Company's securities, upon request, a hard copy of the Company's complete audited financial statements free of charge. Requests may be made by writing to:
Group Secretary and General Counsel
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc
RBS Gogarburn
PO Box 1000
Edinburgh
EH12 1HQ
(Madoff trustee claim also targetted RBS: ABN AMRO
Dutch bank ABN AMRO said that $270M claim filed against it by a trustee seeking to recoup money for victims of Bernard Madoff related to operations now owned by British bank RBS.)
I haven't had the time to wade through all the documents; but, the headings and general information, I think, leads pretty well to where an inquisitive mind may want to go...unless of course, you would rather wait for Wikileaks (banks).

#27 Averagejoe:
UK banks are making money, but that's only because their investment banking divisions are making money. If I'm not mistaken, their UK retail banking operations are just about breakeven.
Unlike the Greeks and Irish, the UK does not enjoy implicit guarantee from the German state as we are not in the Eurozone.

As stanilic has already pointed out, when do the police get involved?

Especially as there is now a very strong suspicion that the RBS directors deliberately
ran the bank into bankruptcy through the mis-representation of it's operations, i.e. (risk exposure, capital levels, asset valuations etc.) whilst filling their pockets with the loot in the process.

The best way to rob a bank is to literally run one (huge bonuses to retain top talent indeed).

This is fraud!

And fraud is a criminal act. Not resolved by slapping a "parking fine" on already wealthy people:

/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2010/11/the_first_law_of_twitter_every.html

18. At 13:43pm on 15th Dec 2010, bryhers wrote:

"I think Mr.Preston is referring to a belief in rational markets,i.e.,that the market cursor will reflect the true value of an asset over time."

...which of course it doesn't - it may pass through the true value between it's boom value and it's bust value - but then there are a lot of other values it passes through during that time.
Over time might be correct - but what time, eternity - as with most probabilities - only the theoretical infinity holds the true solutions.

"This has certainly worked for Warren Buffet investing in individual corporations."

I'm not sure about that - Buffet makes his wealth from Capital gains (these days anyway) - so generally he's buying distressed companies (who are desperate and prepared to agree to anything - see GS deal and the 10% dividend requirement) - and then selling the stakes at some point in the future, after the initial oversell has occurred.

However Warren will be selling his GS shares well below the GS average historical price - just above the price at which he bought them.

It's amazing what you can do when you're playing 5 card stud and you have 47 cards in your hand to choose from!

21. At 13:56pm on 15th Dec 2010, AudenGrey wrote:

"According to an old ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ news story, RBS were part of a consortium that bought ABN, Santander and Fortis were the other two involved, They beat Barclays in a bidding war! Did none of these organisations know the fruit was rotten ? It seems the RBS board were not the only clowns in this circus."

...but what about all those misguided Barclays shareholders who still believe theirs is a 'well run bank'??
Oh how it could all have been different if the RBS consortium had not got their act together - then it would be 'well run RBS' and 'Badly run Barclays' - such are the finer details of this disaster.

...but Barclays shareholders can still dream...

26. At 14:13pm on 15th Dec 2010, haufdeed wrote:

"Now, call me stupid (and many do) but since the UK government owns a majority stake in the equity of RBS, then surely a refusal by the Board of RBS to allow public access to this information is simply a refusal (by proxy) by the government of the UK to let its citizens, many of whom were deluded enough to vote for them, have access to a report on the governance of a company which is owned by "our" government? Or have I got it all totally wrong, as usual?"

Fascism - the merger of corporation and the state to defraud the people. No, you haven't got it wrong at all.

Come on, the FSA is on the way to the treasury! - we should swing by there on our way to DEMAND OUR MONEY BACK!
(although be careful, apparently trying to break into the Treasury to demand your own money back is now a serious criminal offence and will result in the FULL FORCE OF THE LAW being used against you)

...this is opposed to any other crime where you will only receive a small fraction of the force of the law against you - especially if you wear a white collar and are already a knight.

A special mention goes out to the losers in the x-factor final.....I hear there were 20 million of them.

Re my #28

I left out this extract from the Guardian piece on the Wikileak...

'The cable reports Hampton as acknowledging that RBS had made "several enormous mistakes".

"Top among them was its heavy exposure in the US subprime market and the bank's purchase of ABN Amro, which occurred at the height of the market and without RBS doing proper due diligence prior to the purchase. The board of directors never questioned this purchase, which Hampton termed a failure of their fiduciary responsibilities," the cable said.'

Firstly, many people, who were shareholders in the bank's glory days are still shareholders. Surely these people are entitled to an explanation from the regulator why the directors allowed their company to go belly up. You mention two incidents above, but there is another, namely, the Abacus debacle. How was it possible for a board of directors to put one billion dollars of their shareholders' funds at risk without being unable to carry out the most cursory of checks?

Secondly, it seems that you are advocating that the current bank's directors are entitled to conceal information that could assist shareholders at the time to receive restitution for their losses. Is this not the sort of immoral behaviour that led to the downfall of RBS in the first place?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Yeah - what does anyone know about 'the law' and 'legality' these days?

/news/uk-politics-12001909

Are we surprised that students want to smash things up? They have watched the bankers and politicians commit crimes and walk away without charge. Why are they not afforded the same priviledge?

Early morning arrests for 160 odd CHILDREN - making their parent weep - and still the scum of politics and finance continue to glutton themselves in the trough - unchallenged by our pathetic media and protected by our 'orders before morals' police force.

#24. At 14:05pm on 15th Dec 2010, Toldyouitwould wrote:

RBS took over ABN thinking, as many did at the time, that all the derivatives and dodgy paper were worth as much as the Rating Agencies said they were. One might argue that with thorough Due Diligence this house of cards would have been detected but that has been the systemic failure of this whole crunch and it seems as if no lessons have sunk in anywhere.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem the banks have is, all the Due Diligence in the world could untangle the derivatives to determine accurate risk.

Hoisted by their own petard's.

41. At 15:13pm on 15th Dec 2010, NorthSeaHalibut

........The problem the banks have is, all the Due Diligence in the world could untangle the derivatives to determine accurate risk.
++++++++++++++++++++++


Agreed entirely. Neither could the FSA, the SEC, BoE or the RATING AGENCIES.

As far as I can tell, this is still the case! There will be another crunch if it is not sorted soon. Kings new clothes comes to mind.

Anyone who believed that the FSA report on RBS would be made public is not living in the real world. There's no way that RBS want their dirty laundry aired in public as lets face it it could lead to an even bigger backlash against them and other banks and their shares become worth even less than they are now, if that's possible. It would also bring the credibility of the bail out into question which lets face it the politicians don't want. As for ABN, there's definetely something dodgy there which RBS does not want found out. Mind you the Christmas bonuses will still be rolled out, just goes to show even failure is rewarded.

#41. At 15:13pm on 15th Dec 2010, NorthSeaHalibut :
The problem the banks have is, all the Due Diligence in the world could untangle the derivatives to determine accurate risk.

Hoisted by their own petard's.
====================
Very interesting situation that. A petard is a mine usually in the form of a wooden crate filled with gunpowder and with a fuse. Are we in the situation now where the fuse is lit, the petard is on the ground having pulled up the bankers and when it goes off they are blown up or fall to the ground?

as major shareholders we should demand a copy of this report. We have control over the bank for goodness sake - if we haven't despite our investment then the deal should be broken up and our investment withdrawn and let RBS go to the wall.

This speaks volumes about the relationship between the FSA and the City.

I'd give them until Friday to produce this report in full or set the hackers on them.

Is the fact that the FSA is about to be abolished anything to do with the fact that it carried out this investigation, and although it is not being allowed to publish the report in full, has said enough for everyone to speculate that the full version is good Wikileaks material?

WOTW wrote "So reposessions might be 'slightly up' next year - is this based on the CML's 'finger in the air' estimate - or maybe the fact that 350,000 mortgage holders in the UK are currently in arrears and less than 10% have agreed a restructuring with their lender?"

There are currently 25 million households in UK, obviously not all have mortgages so lets assume 50% have not got a mortgage (I am sure someone will check the figures), that means that there are using your figures and mine, 350,000 households out of 12.5 million or so who are in arrears or a little under 3% of total.

At a macro level this is not that unusual

December 24th would be a good day to release it.

Writing on the wall.33

"I think Mr.Preston is referring to a belief in rational markets,i.e.,that the market cursor will reflect the true value of an asset over time."

...which of course it doesn't - it may pass through the true value between it's boom value and it's bust value - but then there are a lot of other values it passes through during that time.
Over time might be correct - but what time, eternity - as with most probabilities - only the theoretical infinity holds the true solutions."

As Keynes` remarked,in the long run we are all dead.Most traded assets over time don`t go from boom to bust but return a steady flow of profit to the company,tax to the exchequer and dividends to shareholders.Taking the asset value of footsie 100 ordinary shares,their average dividend is around 3.3%, their p/e ration about 16.
Profit indirectly reflects the risk of failure,so 3.3/100 gives you a probalistic rule of thumb.

You then wrote:

"I'm not sure about that - Buffet makes his wealth from Capital gains (these days anyway) - so generally he's buying distressed companies (who are desperate and prepared to agree to anything - see GS deal and the 10% dividend requirement) - and then selling the stakes at some point in the future, after the initial oversell has occurred."

I think you will find that he buys sound companies whose assets and potential are undervalued like Coca Cola.He holds them for many years as their true value unfolds.These are perfectly rational decisions made on his judgement of risk vs benefit.

re #48,
Justin, Justin, Justin, you must be a beginner on here

You have this strange concept of coming up with things like "actual facts" to support your argument. This is WOTW we are talking about. He is never wrong. He never adapts statistics to suit his arguments, or takes them out of context. He is like an Oracle.

He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the internet, and can always find a link to support his case - astonishingly among all those billions of web pages, all of which are proven, thoroughly researched and completely unbiased! He never confuses opinion with "fact".

He has a great job in financial services, and yet is able to be by far the most prolific commentator on any Peston blog during working hours. Of course he is not disgruntled with his own personal situation. He believes the revolution is imminent for purely selfless reasons.

Try clicking on his name, and seeing his contribution history. The unfeasibly large volume of posts is all incisive, well balanced and I would never suggest it is exactly the same old dogma irrespective of the subject.

(Quite frankly don't bother, he is tireless, and obviously has a life mission to monopolise these threads with repetitive drivel.)

The FSA, after a 17-month β€œinvestigation”, has concluded that none of the RBS directors did anything wrong.
The more I read, the more I think: β€œcover-up on a massive scale”.
By whom?
Both the FSA and PwC (Price Waterhouse Cooper).
The very idea to outsource this inquiry to PricewaterhouseCoopers seems suspicious.
Why was it done?
Likely to ensure the conclusions that would be favourable to the FSA.
Why PwC?
PwC (in case you don't know) isn't the most reliable forensic accountancy firm. The firm is understood to have colluded with management of other financial clients to misrepresent their financial position; this is generally called: β€œabuse of off-balance-sheet vehicles” or (the one I really like), "the burial of risk".
PwC's is itself under investigation by regulatory bodies.
Why?
Flawed auditing of financial institutions.
In September 2008, PwC was asked by the Irish government to investigate the loan file/book of Anglo Irish Bank. The PwC Report was superficial. It failed to identify the bank’s toxic loans. PwC didn’t even bother to examine any loans less than €330m; in fact, it focused on only 62 cases. PwC did not discuss the bank’s profit and loss statement with management.
What does this mean?
It means PwC took the word of Anglo Management. Just like it probably did in its inquiry into RBS.
The PwC report into Anglo Irish was key. It led to the decision to re-capitalise and eventually nationalise the bank in 2009; it was key to the blanket guarantee to depositors in Irish banks in 2008. It nudged Ireland like a lamb to the slaughter: to the brink of national bankruptcy necessitating the €85 billion EU/IMF bailout.
(PwC is also defending charges that it facilitated a fraud re Jon Asgeir Johannesson to siphon $2bn (Β£1.4bn) out of collapsed Icelandic bank Glitnir, but let's not get too far afield.).
PwC was also responsible for auditing Landsbanki. Not only did PwC audit the bank’s 2007 financial statements, it endorsed them for the first half of 2008. Landsbanki’s administrators, Deloitte, have accused PwC of forensic audit negligence.
PwC also failed to identify the fact that the US investment bank JP Morgan was paying up to Β£16B of clients’ money into the WRONG BANK ACCOUNTS β€” activity for which JP Morgan got fined Β£33.3m by the FSA.
I am aware of several of cases in which PwC have mishandled forensic accountancy.
Why would they do it?
Get rich.
The RBS investigation seems standarde PwC accounting:
(a) a whitewash
(b) a cover up.
If you were PwC would you release the report?
The Accountancy & Actuarial Discipline Board (part of the Financial Reporting Council) is launching an inquiry into PwC’s audit of the collapsed social housing provider Connaught.
All of this explains why the public need demand that FSA Chief Executive Hector Sants makes the RBS Report public and makes it public now!
Parliament must demand that the RBS Report be published now.
Taxpayers paid Β£45B to keep RBS alive. Doesn't that merit an explanation to them?
Note: US investment banks escalated their presences in London during this same period, as though they kinew they could rely on the FSA to walk around blind, deaf and dumb.
Dear Brits,
Wake-up. You have been scammed massively. There is a tight group of auditors, bankers, regulators and government that has become really professional at defrauding you.

This is akin to the Yorkshire Ripper killing all those women and then refusing to let the Police charge him - an utter farce.

If as the article says "the financial services regulator is only legally able to make a unilateral decision to publish the details of its investigation if enforcement action is to be taken against the culpable party" then it's time for another look for culpability and also a change in the rules to ensure we move away from this mad expectation that turkeys will willingly vote for Christmas.

Either that or just publish it and let RBS sue - a stance the Irish Government effectively just took regarding the bonuses payable by a bust bank.

I can't ever recall reading something so ridiculous.

Since as a taxpayer I own RBS, I give my permission for the report to be released - or have I got that wrong ???

> Lord Turner, the chairman of the FSA, has now put on the record - in
> a letter to Andrew Tyrie, chairman of the Treasury select committee - that
> the FSA can only publish a report on the near collapse of RBS with the
> consent of RBS, and that RBS has not given this permission.

That must be safely put to one side. At critical times in the history of our nation, the reputations and welfare of individual perpetrators, such as RBS directors, count for nothing whatsoever. Only the welfare of the entire nation is paramount.

No foot dragging can be tolerated. We will see the whole, unexpurgated report. And see it soon.

Publish and be dammed. I mean what are RBS going to do, take it to court and sue the FSA, I don't see it happening.
I'd love to learn how all the due diligence done on ABN Ambro was a pile of pants it had to be. That is what you should be focusing on Robert.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

19. At 13:52pm on 15th Dec 2010, chezareid wrote:
"The AM, the Dutch regulator, could also have blocked the bid for ABN, but no doubt Gordon Brown would have come down on the AM like a ton of bricks for being protectionist."

O dear Chezareid,the vanity of retrospective wisdom.

Well said BluesBerry, Jacques.
It's clear that the subject of bonuses is a ruse to distract people away from the real issues. And I think the media are complicit in perpetuating that ruse.

At 18:08pm on 15th Dec 2010, You wrote:

I would love to know why my post 39 has been stuck in moderation all afternoon. All I tried to say was that the police are pretty useless at investigating fraud, except at the very lowest level, and anyway, what were the auditors doing in the first place. The role of auditors in the financial collapse has received minimal comment over the 2 years since the collapse began. I don't actually expect a lot from the police in terms of investigating major fraud. But compare police pay with an audit partner's "package" at PWC, for example. Now I AM entitled to expect a great performance from people on that sort of money. So, auditors, what were you doing while all these shenanigans were going on?

Why not try asking Barclays?

They were going to pay a mere Β£45bn for whatever it was that ABN had to offer, before they were trumped by RBS, Fortis and some other bunch of financial geniuses who thought whatever it was was actually worth Β£48bn.

well said Bluesberry 52

So let me get this straight - the FSA were tasked with investigating RBS, which they farmed out to PwC, and the terms were that it wasn't to be made public unless the company under investigation gave permission!!! WHAT? whose decision was that?? it has WHITE WASH written all over it.

The only reason it is back on the agenda is the Wikileaks cable.

I repeat again my post that wasn't published yesterday, the CURRENT RBS chairman Hampton, after 6 months in the job, considers the previous regime to "have failed in their fiduciary duty" = legal proceedings, no?

....and the FSA says nobody did anything wrong !!! and the country is on the hook for 83% of RBS i.e hundreds of billions!

You'd think the establishment had a lot to hide or something. Who knows, if the RBS investigation goes public next thing you know people will be asking for an investigation the Lloyds take over of HBOS.......and we can't have that now can we!

@62 Avulcan. Yep it's amazing. And RBS is one piece of a giant jigsaw that fell on the floor. It makes you realise the enormity of the Financial Crisis. Nothing is safe from the fallout. From Iceland to small finance companies in New Zealand.

Figuring out where the rot started may not be easy. Obviously easy loans in the US sub-prime mortgage market grabbed our attention, but I suspect the rot began many years ago. The Nixon Shock was another significant event. US Bank (de)regulation another. The RBS reckless drive for growth yet another. Probably countless events - some large, some small, but all adding to the mess.

All in all, it makes you realise that although the whole system is badly flawed there are many, many men in grey suits with a keen interest in hiding the truth and keeping the thing going - for the sake of their survival. Bonuses are just a smokescreen to give the public something to shout about.

In the UK you can blame the FSA, the Banks, Individual top bankers, Mervyn and the BoE, politicians, or even the man with an unaffordable house and mortgage, or some combination of the lot. But this is such a disaster somebody owes the country a proper and full explanation.

But in the usual British style the stories will get out one by one ( HBOS next?) and not until sufficient time has elapsed will someone piece the whole story together and say - Look at this!

I'm no fan of Wikileaks but I hope they are around long enough to gives us the facts.

"Move along please.....there's nothing to see here....."

Really?

As an RBS account holder of 20 years and now a shareholder (84% I understand) I demand to see the FULL REPORT, not some redacted version to suit the bank directors or FSA.

Who is this toothless little Turner man in the grey suit?

Oh yes, another banker!

Grow some balls and publish the full report now. Let them sue if they dare.

Presumably damning evidence uncovered by the FSA will also be uncovered by lawyers acting on behalf of the relevant parties in the US. A somewhat strange logic in which bankers look to place their 'reputations' on temporary life support, a vegetative state, until the US courts and the US media switch the reputational machine off with all the glee that Americans display in exposing British arrogance and folly.

12. At 13:21pm on 15th Dec 2010, stanilic wrote:
Never mind the civil courts when is this case going to be heard in the criminal courts? Or are the police only used when it is children being childish?

-----------------------------------------------------------

Criminal Courts???? theyre bankers not part of the ethnic minority! Jeez even nazis dont get prosecuted in this country, what makes you think upperclass white guys do time??