The glories of mutual banking

We really ust replace those dreadful shareholder owned banks with mutuals, must we not?

To fill a £1.5bn capital hole in its banking subsidiary, the Co-operative Group has drawn up plans inject £1bn itself and force bondholders to bear a £500m loss on their £1.3bn investment. However, the rescue needs the approval of 77pc of bondholders and, if they reject the deal, the group has threatened to put the bank into “resolution” with the Bank of England.

Under resolution, bondholders would potentially lose everything, but sources close to the situation confirmed that taxpayers would also be “at risk”. They said that, although the Government would not have to inject capital as it did with Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group, it might have to provide a bridging loan.

Because as we know it was purely the greed of the shareholders for profits that led to the failure of those banks, wasn\’t it?

1 thought on “The glories of mutual banking”

  1. I keep seeing the threat of resolution. I wonder if this is as strong a card as the Coop is suggesting. For example I wonder if the Coop has not written explicit guarantees for its banking subsidiary or written letters of comfort. How interlinked is the Coop Bank with the other financial parts of the Coop group such as the insurance arm that it proposes selling to fund the bank?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *