Grim Reading

If you want to really make yourself angry ready for a showdown with the boss or to get in the mood for a hard game of rugby, please read the attached description of the Asset Protection Scheme as pertaining to our wonderful investment, RBS.

On the face of it, there is nothing new in there. We have known for some time that as taxpayers we would be underwriting about £280bn of toxic assets accumulated by the bank. In many respects we were led to believe that the grimmest story was contained within ABN AMRO bank, the ill fated and disastrous acquisition made by RBS just prior to its demise. How glad we must be to find that in fact half of the stupid lending at RBS was plain old loans to the UK public, small businesses and property companies - what may be described as banking basics. There are quite a few derivatives in there too but not half as many as you might think.

Now, cast your mind back to when our glorious leader said boldly that it was sub-prime mortgages in the US that precipitated the Credit Crunch. How wrong he indeed was. His good friend, the man he knighted, Fred Goodwin was hard at getting the very basics of banking wrong. Fred 'The Shred' was well known for acquiring companies and then shredding costs and getting supposed 'value' for the assets, but he wasn't actually much good at banking per se, it appears. The risk assessments and controls at RBS must have been pitiful because most of the assets we are now underwriting, frankly, should not be there.

Where, oh where, was the FSA when all this was going on? Where, oh where, was the Government? The problems stemmed from the basic, basic rules of banking, and knowing that RBS was leveraging money on the wholesale money markets to finance his business big time, could we not see that this was a company doomed to fail? Yet even up to the wire, the Government and regulator reckoned RBS was a company with enough capital to survive.

It is a story of incompetence and hubris that runs through the entire credit crunch story. We only needed sub-prime to expose the rottenness underneath - it was merely the bit that was showing at the time. RBS was doing its own 'sub-prime' right here under our noses - the US had very little to do with it as it may as well have started right here.

I read the grim details of what I am insuring this morning and while I got very angry with RBS, I was more angry with the fact that people in senior positions did not know what was going on - like at the FSA and Government. It really reflects how little our most senior and supposedly intelligent people know about how the Credit Crunch actually came about and therefore casts more than my major doubt on the measures they have taken to get us out of it.

To be precise about that - Alistair Darling is now bickering about introducing a windfall tax on bonuses and excess profits at banks. However, the problems that were created were right at the very heart of the banks - the basics. That is where the real flaws exist and the whole ability to trade poorly assessed debt is where the money is made. Any debt was good as it could be traded many, many times for vast profits and no one ever cared about the original debt itself or the assets it financed or the ability of the person or company to service it. It did not matter - the money was in the trading of the debt, not the debt itself. The money to buy more debt was cheap and plentiful and no need to get deposits to pay for it - the world was perfect and still is. This is a basic but subtle difference in semantics but it's where the whole problem originated.

The crisis was about what banks do, not about the money they and their employees make. Taxing them may help purge the soul and win votes, however impractical it will be to implement if at all, but it will not stop it all happening again.

A Sense of Perspective

So the Board of RBS will resign if the Chancellor uses a veto to stop payments of up to £1.5bn in bonuses in their investment banking arm this year.

As a taxpayer and an interested party in the matter as I participate in the 70%+ shareholding we have in that bank, I say the door is there and mind it doesn't smack your backside on the way out.

Why are we arguing about this? A year ago this company was broke and dead, thanks to the board of directors who are largely the same as before with a few notable exceptions. Had we allowed them to fail then they would have collapsed owing hundreds of billions - that's how bad it was. Even though we rescued them they made thousands of redundancies of everyday banking staff who were not party to the mindless decisions to squander money on such stupid activities as playing poker to buy ABN AMRO or for that matter loan Dubai World around $2bn.

So they have turned £6bn in profit - thanks, we will take that as we generously allowed them to write off a further £8bn in loans only a few weeks ago.

For the public at large, it is incredible that a few strutting peacocks in the city dare hold us to ransom when we came to their aid and preserved their way of life not 12 months ago. They tell us the 'talent' that is capable of winning and losing so capably will go and join other banks if we don't pay and then we'll be sorry - and that by paying them they are doing good by their shareholders.

Hi guys - welcome to the real world. The public is your major shareholder and the 'talent' can leave whenever it likes - don't let us stop them. I'm a shareholder, that's my vote.

The Dawn Of A New Era

RBS finally gave us the full force of the bad news this morning. It was nothing less than what we expected, to be fair, as they clocked up UK Corporate record losses of £24.1bn for 2008.

It means the bank will be radically reformed and the first thing that will happen is that around £325bn will be sidelined as bad debt and insured under the Government's Asset Protection Scheme which will allow it get back to lending to firms and individuals.

Chairman Philip Hampton blamed the loss of 'massive turbulence' in the financial market - absolutely nothing to do with the massive over-extension of the company through raising borrowing under Fred Goodwin.

Outcomes

One of the most obvious effects of this massive loss, aside from the minor detail of largescale unemployment, is that sport will be hit big time. RBS had embarked on an unprecedented spending spree to sponsor sport and sports people making several famous individuals highly paid ambassadors to sport for RBS - some appointed just weeks before RBS' demise. These include Sachin Tendulkar, Jack Nicklaus, Jackie Stewart and Zara Phillips. Many other sports will be deeply affected by the loss of RBS money and F1's Williams Team will need a new sponsor soon as will Andy Murray to name a couple while the deal with the RBS Six Nations was recently extended. However most deals have a longevity to them so they are no way immediate cuts.

Some Things Remain The Same

But warm your heart as some things about RBS remain the same. Thankfully the £650,000 annual pension granted to ex-CEO Fred Goodwin remains in place and he can draw it merrily. He is just 50 years old and he has a pension pot worth £16m .

Sir Fred was the man at the helm when the proverbial hit the fan and he was the man who out-white-knuckle rode the competition to buy ABN AMRO Bank who were widely seen as the most vulnerable to the credit crunch, handily placing them in the taxpayers' check out trolley when the music stopped on the merrygoround. RBS is now 70% owned by a group of notsowell-heeled mugs called The Taxpayers.

Treasury Minister Stephen Timms has realised that this pension payment is slightly embarrassing when read in conjunction with record losses and so he has has UK Financial Investments Ltd, the company set up to manage our portfolio of dead donkey companies we now own, to try and claw back some of the payment.

We all know Gordon Brown was 'angry' about bonus payments being made after the Government bail outs as if he was totally unaware that banks pay them when he negotiated the clever deals to save them. Now his Ministers seem dumbstruck by the intensity of the money-siphoning bank executives were guilty of and seem once again not to have anticipated such embarrassing details coming to light later. Why Timms cannot just instruct a lawyer to go and claw the money back is beyond me but once again the dark influence of the banking advisers at the side of the Government's decision making seem to be at work.

They seem to divert the PM's attention from the obvious and make him focus on the 'Big Picture' - how to make a small number of people very rich again at the expense of smaller individuals and companies.

So Fred Goodwin has the last laugh - after being fired he had set himself up for life, we find. All very convenient, it's as if he always had his insurance policy ready and that the Ministers who presided over the incompetent bail outs never suspected.

To my mind it proves that Goodwin and others knew far more about the possible outcomes than they make out.

The Obvious

There are two things that struck me about Fred Goodwin's disgusting pension situation. One is that he should be personally appealed upon at minimum to defer any pension until he is at genuine retirement age rather than just firing age. The second, who on earth granted such a show of appalling largesse?

Company Remuneration Committees are generally the odd company executive and then a bunch of relaxed, well-heeled Non-Executive Directors who are too fat, rich and have too many other such freebie engagements with other companies to either notice or care about what is going on. They are not going to rock the boat and stop executives paying themselves ludicrous bonuses or grant daft pension rights as they can easily be voted off at the next Board Meeting - so they just nod, take the free lunch and pick up the cheques.

Something has to change. The UK must break this stranglehold of members of the Non-Executive Club who have portfolios of watchdogs and FTSE 250 companies where they literally do nothing and get fat fees - making sure their pet executives who pay them get what they want.

Defined Benefits

Goodwin argued at the Treasury Committee that he had the same pension as everyone else at the bank - a defined benefits scheme. I suspect his worked slightly better than the other thousands of staff who will shortly lose their jobs due to his incompetence.