|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : Europe
: Britain
Northern Rock: the crisis mounts for British government
By Jean Shaoul
24 October 2007
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
The ever increasing financial support for Northern Rock, Britains
eighth largest bank, by the Bank of England is testimony to a
growing financial crisis that the government is powerless to contain.
Northern Rock had no involvement in the US sub-prime market
and its bad debts on British mortgages were low. It was a victim
of the credit squeeze following the sub-prime crisis and needed
a bailout. But despite repeated and unprecedented measures, including
a £16 billion cash injection from the Bank of England, the
government has been unable to resuscitate the bank. Northern Rock
is now bleeding cash to the tune of £3 billion a week and
its shares are not worth the paper they are written on, as financial
commentators have admitted.
The Sunday Times, writing in the context of potential
take-over bids from private equity groups, including Richard Bransons
Virgin Group, JC Flowers and Cerberus, said that there is
a strong possibility that despite the takeover speculation that
has pumped up the [share] price to 273p, its real value could
be close to zero.
The Bank of England and the government intervened to prevent
the institutional lenders from pulling out and Northern Rock collapsing,
inflicting massive damage to the financial sector upon which so
much of the UK economy depends.
Now, not only is it clear that the bailout has failed, but
it also threatens to engulf not just the bank but the British
governments financial resources.
It is not just Northern Rock that is a victim of the credit
squeeze. The collapse of inter-bank lending threatens many other
financial institutions, while the credit squeeze will lead to
a slow-down in lending by other mortgage lenders and send house
prices spiralling downwards, ruining many families.
The International Monetary Fund has said that the global economy
faces a marked slow-down as a result of the crisis in the financial
markets. The lack of liquidity in the banking markets may
test the strength of the current expansion and its effect
on the US and UK housing market would be a significant drag on
the world economy. The IMF has downgraded its estimate of next
years growth from 5.2 percent to less than 5 percent.
The UK, with the worlds most overvalued housing market,
would be particularly vulnerable if the credit squeeze continues.
Thus the collapse of Northern Rock is not an aberration but portends
a much broader economic crisis not just for the UK, but the rest
of the world.
The collapse
Northern Rocks lending was based not so much on deposits
but on the loans it could raise in the short-term credit market.
Its deposits were worth £22 billion compared with a loan
book of £113 billion.
It raised loans by bundling its mortgages together and pledging
their future income, a debt instrument known as securitisation,
to service the loans. It issued these loans via a series of transactions,
off-shore trusts and registered charities, including its Granite
companies, so complex that few understand them despite their ubiquity
within international finance. More than 50 percent of its mortgage
lending was raised in this way.
This enabled the bank to increase its loans to home buyers
at a much faster rate than its competitors, enlarge its market
share and boost its profits. It compensated for its low margins
with high-volume lending.
This strategy, described in the Observer newspaper as
one of the most admired business models in the business
market, worked only as long as credit was freely available.
It began to unravel in August, when the credit squeeze started
to bite and inter-bank lending all but came to a halt. As Northern
Rocks position became known in the City, its shares plunged
and depositors scrambled to withdraw their money.
The Bank of England had at first refused to intervene to increase
general liquidity in the interbank lending market, which underpins
the credit market as a whole. It also refused, as lender of last
resort, to lend to Northern Rock. This was because it contradicted
the Banks practice that financial institutions engaged in
high risk activity should not be bailed out: it would only encourage
others to follow suit in similar high risk strategiesthe
so-called moral hazard argument.
On September 12, the Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn
King, wrote to the Treasury Select Committee criticising some
banks for their lending and borrowing decisions and, by implication,
criticising support from other central banks since it would sow
the seeds of a future financial crisis. Rescues would only
be organised when there was a threat to the entire financial system.
Just two days later on September 14, as depositors were queuing
up to withdraw their money, King reversed his position. He stepped
in to provide short-term emergency credit at what are believed
to be penal rates of interest, several percentage points above
the normal rate.
His U-turn could only mean that the UKs financial system
was indeed in peril. So, far from reassuring depositors, the Banks
action only confirmed the publics lack of confidence.
Their distrust was entirely justified. The penal rates of interest,
about 7 percent, meant that Northern Rock was unviable. Should
it close its doors, its depositors would take second place to
the institutional creditors. Under the official Financial Services
Compensation Scheme, only the first £35,000 is covered and
only up to 90 percent of that.
As the implications sank in, shares in other major mortgage
lenders fell precipitously. When the queues of depositors waiting
to pull out their money did not abate, the Treasury was forced
to guarantee retail (small depositors) and wholesale deposits
(commercial loans from other banks) in order to reassure the institutional
creditors and restore inter-bank lending, which had all but dried
up.
None of this was enough. On October 9, the Treasury extended
its guarantee to new deposits made after September 13, to attempt
to reassure prospective savers. Without new deposits, Northern
Rock would become unviable as a going concern and
thus unsaleable, leaving the Treasury as the de facto owner.
That was not enough either. Two days later, the Treasury said
it would continue its guarantees until February by which time
it hopes to have found a buyer. The February date is crucial as,
after six months, the government would have to withdraw its support
for Northern Rock or fall foul of the European Unions rules
on State Aid. Public support beyond a six month period amounts
to rescue aid and is outlawed.
The Bank of England has been lending Northern Rock at least
£2 billion a week and the amount has been rising. In other
words, the bank needs ever more funds each week, not less. With
no end in sight, the Bank of England has now lent a massive £16
billion, a sum unprecedented in the history of UK government bailouts.
Furthermore, it has reduced the terms of its emergency lending
conditions and is now prepared to accept Northern Rocks
high-risk, sub-prime loans as collateral, all the rest of its
more secure loan portfolio being already pledged.
The Treasury has said that should Northern Rock fail to repay
the Bank, then itfor which read the British taxpayerswill
make good the Banks losses. This comes on top of Chancellor
of the Exchequer Alistair Darlings previous announcement
that the government would introduce legislation raising the maximum
amount of deposit that was fully insured to £100,000 in
order to reassure savers.
The Treasury also announced that it would extend its guarantees
for Northern Rocks depositors, at a potential cost that
is now believed to be £24 billion, until next February,
by which time it hopes to have found a buyer for the bank, to
promote financial stability and protect consumers
and taxpayers.
Just to put this in context, £24 billion guarantees are
more than the governments entire annual transport budget.
With small savings believed to be worth £2 billion, this
means that the Treasury is guaranteeing £22 billion worth
of loans from Northern Rocks senior creditorsthe financial
institutions.
The Bank of England does not have the reserves to cover its
position and the government has itself had to step in as ultimate
guarantor to prevent a further run on the bank and a broader banking
collapse. But Northern Rock has £14 billion
debt due in the second half of next year and £30 billion
in the following 12 months.
Taken together, this means that the government has pledged
at least £40 billion pounds of taxpayers moneyand
this sum is rising daily. It is far higher than the failed £3
billion rescue operation that the Conservative government mounted
to prop up the pound when sterling fell out of the Exchange Rate
Mechanism in September 1992.
This is both a major financial crisis and a political crisis
for the Labour government. It was, after all, the prime minister,
Gordon Brown who as chancellor for the last 10 years did more
than anyone to promote the City of London as an international
financial centre and so enrich the financial elite.
Now the chickens are coming home to roost.
All this time, Northern Rock has continued to trade its sharesnow
worth one-third of their pre-crisis valueon the London Stock
Market. The government has worked to ensure such an outcome, so
as not to upset the markets. As a Financial Times columnist
was moved to ask: is there a case for the Financial Services Authority
to investigate the government for creating a false market in Northern
Rocks shares?
Northern Rocks directors have received more than £30
million in salaries, bonuses and share options in the last five
years, more than a third of which went to Adam Applegarth, Northern
Rocks CEO, whose take home pay last year was £1.6
million. They have remained in office throughout the crisis.
When giving evidence last week to the Treasury Select Committee,
Applegarth and his co-directors refused to accept any responsibility
for the crisis. He insisted that Northern Rock had a good business
model, although it had never been tested for stress conditions.
Top management could not be blamed for having failed to have prepared
for unforeseen events such as that credit crunch and
the lack of inter-bank lending. Blame lay with the Bank of England
which had refused to provide a two year £30 billion loan
without a penalty rate of interest to a potential bidder for Northern
Rock before its plight became public knowledge.
While there are apparently several private equity funds, but
significantly no banks, interested in taking over Northern Rock,
it is far from clear that any takeover will go ahead. Northern
Rock can only be a viable concern if there is a cut in interest
rates and the cost of its loans falls below the 6 percent yield
on its lending, hence the Treasurys guarantees to encourage
deposits.
Otherwise, the bank will have to close itself to new business
and put its mortgage book into run off, leaving the Treasury to
pick up the tab. At the very least, any prospective bidder will
seek to take advantage of a desperate government anxious to offload
this all-but-nationalised bank. And it will need government help
to refinance the bank.
Even if a deal is negotiated, that may not be the end of the
matter, as a current US experience demonstrates. One of the potential
buyers, J C Flowers is currently trying to claim a material adverse
change on its $25 billion acquisition last April of Sallie Mae,
the US student loans company, to get the price slashed or it might
pull out of the deal.
See Also:
Northern Rock
Britain: Government attempts to stem banking crisis
[20 September 2007]
Credit crisis spreads as British
bank collapses
[17 September 2007]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |