Skip to main content

The UK Banking Rescue - Investment commentary

I want to have a more detailed look at the proposals for the UK banking rescue.

Firstly this is based upon the system used in Sweden. It was, in fact, the Liberal Democrats that proposed this first. The idea for the equity is that the government underwrites a rights issue. A rights issue is where people who already hold shares are allowed to buy more at a cheaper price than they originally bought.

If they decide not to put any more money in then the underwriter buys the shares. The underwriter charges a fee. In this case the underwriter is the government.

The question, of course, is the price of the rights issue. For RBS the current price is around 68p. It is difficult to find published figures as to the rights price, but a broker I know believes it is 65p.

The other thing the government is doing is putting in some subordinated debt. The point about such debt is that it is more secure than equity. In the UK they are charging a rate of 12% whereas in the US it is 5-6% (figures from newspapers).

Actually I think the UK approach is right. Taking RBS again this would involve the £5bn of debt getting £600m interest a year.

Firstly if you start with the RBS profit of £9bn (or so) that is not that much. Secondly, it encourages private sector finance to replace the government finance (actually almost immediately unless you believe that the company is going bust).

Look at it from the investors point of view. If you invest in these bonds at say 11% it pays better than even the Icelandic banks. Your only problem is if the bank goes bust, but it is clear that this won't happen. The interst charge is not actually that painful to the bank.

So we now have say £8bn of operating profit (apart from any exceptional losses).
This works out at about 90p per share.

So we now have the shares at 65p. The governent is going for a rights issue that could give 60% to the government. So that is 1 1/2 times 65p. Viz near enough £1.

So if you buy a share at 65p and pay £1 you have 90p of profit.

Realistically on a "going forwards" basis a bank should trade on a price earnings ratio of at least 10 which gives a price for this "share" of £9. So if you buy a share now and then pay the rights you get a share of £1.65 which is worth £9 (over time).

That's at the rights price. This gives a potential gain over time of more than 5 times.

That is why I would be surprised if the rights issue is not mainly taken up by private investors. I would also be surprised if private investors don't replace the government's planned debentures/preferntial shares/bonds (whatever you want to call them).

So. If that is the logic you would say why don't you put your money where your mouth is. Well, I have and mainly at 63p. Someone has to show confidence in the UK market. It matters to a lot of people mainly through pensions etc.

Peak Oil as an economic issue remains important. There will be a quite a few "exceptionals" as a result of property over valuation, but confidence should have been restored to the banking market at least.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

The Labour Candidate's Book Promotion Tour and Why It Matters

In the 2015 General Election the Labour Candidate criticised John Hemming for having an external interest and made a pledge that she would be a "Full Time MP for Yardley and my only other job will be mom & carer ...".  Here is a copy of that pledge:


Since that point she has been working on paid Television Programmes and has also written a book. John Hemming has made no secret of the fact that he chairs the board of the company he founded in 1983. This involves one meeting a month. When he was the MP for Yardley he was a full time MP and the Job of being MP for Yardley came first. The Labour candidate has reported 1,274 hours of work other than being an MP in the two years she has been elected and her income in the last year was over £131,000.

Ignoring the question as to how she reconciles that with her "pledge" the question is raised as to what extent her external activity conflicts with the role of Member of Parliament for Yardley. She is supposed to de…