Lansdown sells shares for $137 million

[Sheltons Army]

critics should bear in mind that , I assume one of the reasons he’s decided to live in Guernsey is Inheritance Tax

%40 

So , as he’s worth somewhere around 2 billion give or take a few million

Would YOU be happy to hand over £ 800 Million of your lifetime achievements to HMRC rather than it going to your family or wherever you want it to 

**** That

[CodeRed]

26 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

critics should bear in mind that , I assume one of the reasons he’s decided to live in Guernsey is Inheritance Tax

%40 

So , as he’s worth somewhere around 2 billion give or take a few million

Would YOU be happy to hand over £ 800 Million of your lifetime achievements to HMRC rather than it going to your family or wherever you want it to 

**** That

I'm sure - were I in the scenario you describe - that my family could happily manage on the remaining  £1200 million.  

[Sheltons Army]

1 minute ago, CodeRed said:

I'm sure - were I in the scenario you describe - that my family could happily manage on the remaining  £1200 million.  

Easy to say when you haven't got it

[nebristolred]

11 hours ago, Sheltons Army said:

critics should bear in mind that , I assume one of the reasons he’s decided to live in Guernsey is Inheritance Tax

%40 

So , as he’s worth somewhere around 2 billion give or take a few million

Would YOU be happy to hand over £ 800 Million of your lifetime achievements to HMRC rather than it going to your family or wherever you want it to 

**** That

If our government was known for investing in the social system, healthcare, education, etc and not just giving it to their mates, then yes that's exactly where I'd want it to go. Wealth desperately needs a fairer distribution. 

[BTRFTG]

18 hours ago, IAmNick said:

Right, so once they realised they'd royally screwed up they tried to scramble and fix it, but it was too far gone by then.

So you are basically saying: Government lends to banks. Banks lend to people. In that chain you blame government and people, not the banks? Surely the banks both borrowed AND lent too much and unsafely?

Lets check the reports following the crash http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/Financial_Crisis/FinancialCrisisReport.pdf:

Fairly clear who that blames.

You can blame regulation by government, that's probably partly fair. Who do you think was endlessly lobbying the government to reduce regulation and encourage all this?

Please don't quote me as saying something I did not. I also don't understand why you've included a Senate report that has little to do with the Financial Crisis experienced in the UK (which I did reference.)

So if you read the latest NAO reports to note the cost to UK taxpayers of 'bailing out the banks' the answer is, well, basically it's nothing. There's technically £26bn secured yet outstanding, but that's nearly all secured and will be repaid when due ( or Treasury decide to cash in.) Of the '£1 trillion underwritten' as a result of Government action only 14% was ever committed.

So as I wrote, the bank's themselves weren't the problem, Government, it's spending, it's commitment to cheap credit at all costs, the public's voracious appetite to spend beyond its means, THAT caused the crisis. As for regulation, well the key change as demanded by the banks, the change that was introduced (though under Carney it's difficult to see how,) was to remove the direct link between Treasury and BoE such The Government may no longer dictate interest rates.

But in the modern politics of envy let's blame bankers anyway.

[Phileas Fogg]

12 hours ago, Sheltons Army said:

critics should bear in mind that , I assume one of the reasons he’s decided to live in Guernsey is Inheritance Tax

%40 

So , as he’s worth somewhere around 2 billion give or take a few million

Would YOU be happy to hand over £ 800 Million of your lifetime achievements to HMRC rather than it going to your family or wherever you want it to 

**** That

That's a very good point. 

[IAmNick]

 

2 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

But in the modern politics of envy let's blame bankers anyway.

Firstly, as you've attempted to boil down a complex subject into such a trite response just shows you're either incapable of or unwilling to entertain any other view.

I'm also not sure how I've given the impression I'm envious of bankers, or what I ever would be envious of them for. I assume you think it's because they are stereotypically wealthy, but if you have read my other posts I'm strongly in favour of wealth redistribution so that doesn't really add up, does it?

2 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

Please don't quote me as saying something I did not. I also don't understand why you've included a Senate report that has little to do with the Financial Crisis experienced in the UK (which I did reference.)

It wasn't a quote. I was paraphrasing. I would say that the cause of the global recession in 2008 is relevant.

2 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

So if you read the latest NAO reports to note the cost to UK taxpayers of 'bailing out the banks' the answer is, well, basically it's nothing. There's technically £26bn secured yet outstanding, but that's nearly all secured and will be repaid when due ( or Treasury decide to cash in.) Of the '£1 trillion underwritten' as a result of Government action only 14% was ever committed.

That's a ridiculously simple stance. 12 years on it's only £26b outstanding, and I'm sure that's the only effect the bank (enabled by government) recklessness had on society.

Regardless though, what the monetary cost now to the taxpayer is a different discussion. We were talking about what caused it and who was to "blame".

2 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

So as I wrote, the bank's themselves weren't the problem, Government, it's spending, it's commitment to cheap credit at all costs, the public's voracious appetite to spend beyond its means, THAT caused the crisis. As for regulation, well the key change as demanded by the banks, the change that was introduced (though under Carney it's difficult to see how,) was to remove the direct link between Treasury and BoE such The Government may no longer dictate interest rates.

Banks took obscene risks in the lead up to the crisis, which they then got bitten for when fortunes changed. If their risks had continued to pay off they would have continued to make incredible sums of money which you would be congratulating them for no doubt. However when the gambles don't pay off, it's everyone else's fault.

If they are willing to lend Joe public money far beyond his means to repay that's on them in my opinion. Their responsibility is to lend money safely, not lend it recklessly and hope it turns our alright / count on a bailout when it doesn't.

[BTRFTG]

3 hours ago, IAmNick said:

If they are willing to lend Joe public money far beyond his means to repay that's on them in my opinion.

Not only your opinion but also that in Law. That's why banks have to conduct due diligence when assessing to whom to issue credit. Lend money to somebody who has no ability pay it back and, no surprise, one doesn't have to.

The signal point you either miss or refuse to accept is where you have a situation whereby financial institutions agree to baseline credit at, say, 5% yet The Government informs they'll ALWAYS undercut them by a few percentage points where do you think borrowers will turn? Where UK Government FORCES banks without need of support to seek protection, not because they need it, rather because they've created a situation where the market will exploit should they not, that's the issue and why saving RBS was such a disasterous call. It's akin someone having a mortgage against which they're easily making repayments only for The Government to demand it's repaid by the end of the week. What do you think happens to bridging loan rates in such circumstance?

Note high-spending Governments also have a vested interest in skewing the markets. Shortly before the 'crisis' I was delivering a 'minor' Government programme. The financial business case worked out at £471m plus 10% contingency (all spent and wasted on a Blair vanity project,) so under Green Book rules they sure as hell want nominal interest rates to remain as low as possible (not it makes much difference in the real world but against reportable balance sheets it gives them a real headache to the electorate.)

You also appear to suggest banks primarily borrow from Government (they don't.) The crisis on both sides of the pond arose as a direct result of Governmental, political intervention in the market. It wasn't de facto a worldwide recession as plenty of economies whereby financial policy is wholly controlled by Governments did quite well out of it.

I actually think financal institutions should be restricted to turning profits in accordance with the degree of risk or benevolence they adopt. In short, I don't think there should be a licence to print money, though by the Government's own actions they created a market whereby greed was good. It was volume transactions and not their quality they wanted. Cars, holidays, homes, luxuries folks couldn't afford but that Government told them they should have. Banks ended up as the mechanism through which their policies were enacted.

[Major Isewater]

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/bristol-city-owner-steve-lansdown-4745751 
 

must be nice to sell a few shares.

 

[City oz]

Hey major, lets hope his few shares can put some funds injected in to Bristol City. I bet you got heaps of shares  too 

[EmissionImpossible]

[Marina's Rolls Royce]

36 minutes ago, City oz said:

Hey major, lets hope his few shares can put some funds injected in to Bristol City. I bet you got heaps of shares  too 

blimey, how do you get your news in Australia ? Carrier snail?

 

I hate to break this to you but we've sold Paul Agostino but as it's almost Christmas.... we also got rid of Neil Kilkenny.