The Money Thread - Public Bank ownership expands (RBS@70%)

[Midtown]

There's always money to be made, heavy losses always create opportunities eventually.

Although, the last thing you want now is a Maxi ISA, they're generally spread across the FTSE 100 and their performance relates to the general market performance.

[Hexx]

There's always money to be made, heavy losses always create opportunities eventually.

Although, the last thing you want now is a Maxi ISA, they're generally spread across the FTSE 100 and their performance relates to the general market performance.

What? A Maxi ISA can be invested in pretty much any listed Stocks/Shares you want.

Sounds like just your fund is a FTSE tracker.

[Midtown]

They're not sold that way though.

Most banks offer packaged ISAs whether they're FTSE Trackers or specific funds, like an International Growth Fund for example, they're not normally a collection of shares from a grouping decided independently by the customer. Banks will always push their package of funds and I'd think that's how the majority of people's ISAs are set up.

Ultimately, an ISA is an investment that is taken out on the high street by a fairly large number of people and they aren't neccessarily aware enough to decide the composition of their ISA.

[Hexx]

They're not sold that way though.

Most banks offer packaged ISAs whether they're FTSE Trackers or specific funds, like an International Growth Fund for example, they're not normally a collection of shares from a grouping decided independently by the customer. Banks will always push their package of funds and I'd think that's how the majority of people's ISAs are set up.

Ultimately, an ISA is an investment that is taken out on the high street by a fairly large number of people and they aren't neccessarily aware enough to decide the composition of their ISA.

There's so much wrong with that.

Maxi ISA (and now S&S ISA's) are predominatly sold via intermediaries will who advise/decide on the share package - often using a funds platform to invest switch (e.g. CoFunds).

Also an ISA isnt an investment, it's a wrapper (basically)

Anyway we're arguing semantics - it's not a good time to be invested anwhere.

Anyway....AIG's been "saved"

The US Federal Reserve has announced an $85bn (£48bn) rescue package for AIG, the country's biggest insurance company, to save it from bankruptcy.

AIG will get an $85bn loan, in return for an 80% public stake in the firm

Given that and Frannie/Freddie...how much have the Republicans just increased the public sector?

[Hexx]

So...Investment Banks are now becoming Banks.

The last two major investment banks in the US have changed their status to become bank holding companies, allowing them to take deposits from investors.

The changes should enable Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to raise more funds by opening commercial banks.

The move - part of a huge restructuring effort on Wall Street - will also give them access to Federal Reserve support.

In a move likely to upset Cal, this now opens them up to even more Government support.

[Hexx]

On the BBC ticker now!

Dow Jones falling fast

[Hexx]

The lower house of the US Congress has voted down a $700bn (£380bn) plan aimed at bailing out Wall Street.

The rescue plan - the result of tense negotiations between the government and lawmakers - was voted down by 228 votes to 205 votes. Members of President George W Bush's Republican party were strongly opposed to it and many refused to back it.

Shares on Wall Street plunged within seconds of the announcement, following steep falls in earlier trading.

Mr Bush had earlier appealed to lawmakers to pass the bill, saying it would restore economic confidence.

The vote came as banks failed in the US, Europe and the UK.

The fourth largest US bank, Wachovia, is being bought by Citigroup after becoming the latest to hit problems.

In Europe, Benelux giant Fortis was bailed out by three governments, while in the UK the Bradford & Bingley bank was nationalised.

The US Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and eight other central banks announced further moves to combat the crisis, by making a further $330bn available to provide liquidity to global money markets.

Speaking ahead of the vote, Mr Bush had argued that the bail-out plan was a "bold" one which he was confident would restore strength and confidence to the US economy.

But after a several hours of impassioned debate, the bill's opponents - the majority of whom were from the Republican Party - got their way.

[Fatal Exception]

[Jango]

I'm actually shocked at this happening.

Like, seriously.

[Cuttooth]

Hey, at least this will probably help Obama some.

[Hexx]

:o

I'm actually shocked at this happening.

Like, seriously.

news.bbc.co.uk

Front page.

[Jango]

Didn't the Democratic Speaker in the House, who had all the votes necessary to pass this basically said she wouldn't if it leaves Obama in a worse situation, as he would be connected, as a Democratic, to a plan that would have failed/hurt the tax payer, despite Ed Paulson, head of the US Treasury, going down on one knee and begging her to pass this?

And this will hurt McCain loads, after he promised not to leave the talks until it was resolved and now this, which will make his early departure last night to get to a Presidential debate have even greater effects on his campaign IMO.

[Hexx]

The imrpession I got was that most of the earlier compliants were from Dems not happen with the level of oversight/control/accountability, and this vote failed because Republicans (mainly) refused to expand public debt.

[Hexx]

(Times are GMT btw)

[Cuttooth]

It's just a little broken, it's still good, it's still good.

[Jango]

Marx will laughing in his grave, though.

So it's all good.

[Hexx]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7631321.stm

A really good break down of the current problems, and the bail out plan.

[Jango]

Well, theoretically, if we live in a Capitalist society, then the failing Banks should be left to fail and that the government would have no role to play, such as intervention at all. In the long run, this would shore up the banking firm, as it would make sure that the old practices that have not become viable anymore would be 'cleansed' away and the banking sector would become stronger.

However, the amount of people that this effects means that the government simply can't sit back and let the banks fail, which in theory they should, as this would cause mass panic, huge chaos, a huge social problem and the spread of anarchy in society. So the governments have intervened in an attempt to keep some sort of normality in a market which is telling the banks that it can't, that the way they've operated can't work anymore.

So now, the banks have become dependent on the government taking them over so this bail out plan not working is a sign that government intervention on such a scale is over and that the banks are left to clear up the mess they've created, which could spell some problems for the consumers here in the future, with a huge revamp of the banking sector looming, the scale of which has not been seen since the Great Depression. So basically, we should have let the banks fail if the government did not want to force the banks into safer banking procedures, instead letting the banks gain huge profits with some unsustainable procedures.

Either that, or they should have imposed regulations that meant that this wouldn't have happened. But now because thee is so much at stake, both politically and socially, the governments have to intervene, although it shouldn't have got to that state or in theory, they should fail.

EDIT: That makes hardly any sense, I'll try and sort that out after Ive got some food in me.

[Hexx]

Well, theoretically, if we live in a Capitalist society, then the failing Banks should be left to fail and that the government would have no role to play, such as intervention at all. In the long run, this would shore up the banking firm, as it would make sure that the old practices that have not become viable anymore would be 'cleansed' away and the banking sector would become stronger. However, the amount of people that this effects means that the government simply can't sit back and let the banks fail, which in theory they should, as this would cause mass panic, huge chaos, a huge social problem and the spread of anarchy in society. So the governments have intervened in an attempt to keep some sort of normality in a market which is telling the banks that it can't, that the way they've operated can't work anymore. So now, the banks have become dependent on the government taking them over so this bail out plan not working is a sign that government intervention on such a scale is over and that the banks are left to clear up the mess they've created, which could spell some problems for the consumers here in the future, with a huge revamp of the banking sector looming, the scale of which has not been seen since the Great Depression. So basically, we should have let the banks fail if the government did not want to force the banks into safer banking procedures, instead letting the banks gain huge profits with some unsustainable procedures. Either that, or they should have imposed regulations that meant that this wouldn't have happened. But now because thee is so much at stake, both politically and socially, the governments have to intervene, although it shouldn't have got to that state or in theory, they should fail.

EDIT: That makes hardly any sense, I'll try and sort that out after Ive got some food in me.

Could you paragaph it. It hurts my eyes.

[Jango]

After I eat then yes. Although if you're desperate for some paragraphs...