Breakingviews- Don’t bet on RBS good bank/bad bank split

Thu Jun 20, 2013 5:13pm IST

Photo

Credit: Reuters

Stocks

   

(The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

By George Hay

LONDON, June 20 (Reuters Breakingviews) - Don’t bet on a good bank/bad bank split at Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS.L). George Osborne, the UK chancellor, used his Mansion House speech on June 19 to announce a study on the possible hiving off the state-held lender’s ropey assets. It doesn’t mean that will happen when the Treasury reports back in the Autumn.

Splitting RBS has been batted about since 2010, when the idea of separating roughly 150 billion pounds of non-core assets was considered. The logic was that the remaining good bank would be more likely to lend, and easier to sell at a higher multiple. The government ultimately balked, fearful of issuing more gilts on the scale needed to fund a separate silo of bad assets. That would have increased national debt just as the euro zone crisis was beginning to worry markets.

Bad bank advocates, such as the outgoing Bank of England Governor Mervyn King and the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, argue that the same logic is relevant today, even though the stock of non-core bad assets has shrunk to 40 billion pounds. With the euro zone less fractious, the UK may be more willing to take on more debt. RBS could even throw in Ulster Bank and investment banking assets, pushing the offloaded entity up towards 100 billion pounds.

It remains hard to argue that such a plan could meet the objectives Osborne outlined in his speech. For a bad bank to be “in the interest of UK taxpayers”, the sale price of the good bank would have to outweigh any associated separation costs. These could involve the government having to take on losses on bad assets over and above where they are provisioned, plus paying over 6 billion pounds to buy out minority shareholders. Osborne last night swore that no new taxpayer money would be committed during the process.

A spruced-up RBS lending boldly would benefit the economy. But if the issue is lack of demand, splitting from the bad bank will make little difference. Given that Osborne now appears in less of a hurry to privatise the bank, the easier and safer path would be to wait for a recovering economy to improve RBS’s value over time. That’s why the chancellor’s statement just looks like a way to keep bad bank bulls happy.

<^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

SIGN UP FOR BREAKINGVIEWS EMAIL ALERTS:

www.breakingviews.com/TOPNewsSubscription

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>

CONTEXT NEWS

- The UK government is to investigate whether it should split toxic assets at Royal Bank of Scotland out into a separate bad bank, Chancellor George Osborne announced in his Mansion House speech on June 19.

- Osborne said a bad bank would be established if it supported the British economy, was in the interests of taxpayers, and if it accelerated the return to private ownership. If the government believes it will not, it will not press ahead.

- A decision will be made in the Autumn. Osborne also said he would examine how to get rid of RBS’s dividend access share, which blocks dividends from being paid.

- Osborne also said that RBS was “some way off” returning the bank to the private sector.

- RBS shares were trading at 315 pence on June 20, down 1.3 percent in a falling market.

- Reuters: Britain to look at RBS split, start Lloyds sale soon [ID:nL5N0EV4EH]

- For previous columns by the author, Reuters customers can click on [HAY/]

(Editing by Pierre Briançon and Sarah Bailey)

((george.hay@thomsonreuters.com))

((Reuters messaging: george.hay.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net)) Keywords: BREAKINGVIEWS RBS/

(C) Reuters 2012. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing, or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

Comments (0)
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

  • Most Popular
  • Most Shared