Barclays Bank will go bankrupt!

by Steve Wallis

4th November 2007

 

[I am sending this document far and wide, including to discussion forums where it is “off-topic”. I will undoubtedly annoy some people, who will regard it as “spam”, but surely savers with Barclays Bank, Citigroup (the biggest bank in the world which recently rebranded itself Citi) or any of the other banks mentioned in this message will want to know that they are likely to lose their savings unless they withdraw it very soon, rather than waiting until their bank’s problems are in the news or they spot massive queues outside branches. This document contains some very important leaked information about Barclays Bank. It and my previous document on financial meltdown are the most important I have ever written, so if I get chucked off or put under moderation on the odd forum as a consequence of sending either out then it’ll be worth it…]

 

In a document I wrote on Friday the 2nd of November entitled “Financial meltdown soon – prepare for revolution” (available at www.socialiststeve.me.uk/meltdown-revolution.htm), I pointed out that the world economy is heading towards a severe crisis, mainly due to debt held by governments and individuals (particularly those with “subprime” mortgages), and rich people and companies exploiting tax loopholes and tax havens to pay little or no tax.

 

I urged (left-wing and mainstream) political parties to demand the closure of those loopholes and havens, and threaten to confiscate the assets (including money in bank accounts, shares on stock markets, call centres, factories, warehouses, oil rigs, stock, raw materials and  equipment) of those who use any remaining tax havens in the world or try to relocate overseas to avoid paying tax. I predicted that the influence of left-wing activists and masses of the population, if people follow my lead, would ultimately lead to a financial meltdown that could only be stopped by closing all the world’s stock markets.

 

When I wrote and distributed that document, to individual contacts, mailing lists/discussion groups with hundreds of thousands of members on, as well as putting it on other forums on the web (Google Groups and the News forum at anarchist website www.libcom.org), I was unaware that a partial meltdown was already taking place. I didn’t expect financial meltdown to take place until political parties adopted such policies, with it perhaps being necessary for those parties to come to power, although I did predict severe stock market fluctuations as a result of sending out my message. Perhaps I was being over-modest and wary of making too bold predictions that may not come true, but it is now clear that events will take place much more rapidly than I expected. I made the point that stock market investors will need somewhere to transfer their assets to, and all of them could be under threat of taxation or confiscation whatever they do, but it is now clear that the rational decision of many has been and will continue to be to avoid banking shares because they are particularly risky. Whereas a meltdown of entire stock markets is not on the cards in the near future, a very severe meltdown of banking shares is under way (with investors switching to shares in safer companies) and will soon lead to many financial institutions around the world going bankrupt.

 

150 mortgage lenders in the USA have already gone bust, as a result of the “subprime” crisis – lending money to people with poor credit records, at interest rates that start off low but soon increase massively. A TV programme I saw on the crisis recently pointed out that mortgages in the USA, unlike in the UK, are normally at fixed rates for the entire term (until they are completely paid off) and most subprime borrowers have therefore been tricked into signing up to extremely bad deals unaware that their payments will rise. Some were told that signing up to the deals was the only way of getting a home. As is the case with most ordinary people, they failed to read the small print. The main priorities of salesmen (and saleswomen) and mortgage companies were to get as many people to sign up as possible; the debts were sold on to other companies so it made no difference whether the borrowers could afford to pay the money back. Those buying the mortgages didn’t care either since they could get the money back by repossessing homes, until the massive recent collapse in the US housing market. The debts have been sold and resold around the world in extremely complicated financial “vehicles” and virtually nobody knows whether a particular vehicle is worth the piece of paper it is written on! This has meant that banks are very reluctant to lend to each other, fearing that the borrower will go bust and they won’t get the money back.

 

The subprime problem is not limited to the USA, partly because the debts have been passed on to financial institutions around the world and also because subprime mortgages have been sold in other countries too. About 8% of UK mortgages are subprime, compared with 20% in the USA, and presumably other Western countries have them too.

 

There are two reasons why UK subprimes will not cause problems as great for banks and building societies selling them (but they will be very big for the borrowers losing their homes), however. Many of them are for council houses purchased under the Tories’ “right to buy” legislation at a big discount for those who have lived in council houses for many years. Also, there is a shortage of homes in the UK, which will probably prevent the UK housing market falling to the same extent as in the USA where there are many more homes than people require – although current prices are unsustainable due to mortgages being given at six times people’s salaries (three times, or three and a half times at most, was the limit 20 years ago) with interest rates likely to rise and pay increases kept down (New Labour is trying to restrict public sector pay increases to 2% which is likely to lead to considerable strike action). Some analysts, including Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, have nevertheless predicted a big collapse in UK housing prices, and prices have already started falling in many parts of the UK in the last two or three months. The council house factor and the housing market not falling as much would mean that financial institutions get back more of the debt when homes are repossessed than would otherwise be the case.

 

Shares in Barclays Bank on the London stock exchange fell by 6.4% on Friday the 2nd of November due to rumours it had been forced to approach the Bank of England for funding following big losses in its investment banking arm Barclays Capital (they had fallen by 8% earlier in the day but recovered a little). Some commentators are underplaying Barclays’ problems, including Sylvia Pfeifer who (in the 4th of November Sunday Telegraph) said “Even the fact that Barclays happily continued its share buyback – in the event of any real liquidity problems the bank would surely have stopped it – failed to halt the slide.” Obviously if Barclays had halted the share buyback, commentators and investors would have realised that their problems were much greater than their bosses are trying to make out, and their shares would have fallen far more.

 

Shares in the Royal Bank of Scotland also fell considerably on the same day, by 4.7%. Lloyds TSB shares also fell significantly. Maybe they will go bust too…

 

Some right-wing commentators blamed the BBC for revealing, as the main item on their evening news TV programme, that Northern Rock needed funding from the Bank of England, saying that they should have been leant billions of pounds without the public finding out. The consequence was a run on the bank starting the following morning, with many customers queuing outside branches desperately trying to withdraw all their savings. Few people trust politicians, bankers or economists, so their claims that savers’ money was safe understandably failed to allay their fears. Those right-wing commentators would presumably hope that savers lose their money without any warning!

 

When, a few years ago, the New Labour government announced a scheme to compensate the savers of banks that go bust, giving all of their first £2,000 and 90% of the next £33,000 (with nothing for any remaining savings), they were criticised for allocating a very small amount of money to the scheme that would be insufficient if a big bank went bust (never mind more than one at once). This limit of the scheme has not been mentioned in any coverage I have seen in the media of the subprime crisis; there would of course be enormous pressure on the government to find the money from somewhere (presumably by increasing borrowing beyond the £38 billion already projected by Chancellor Alistair Darling for this financial year) to reimburse savers. Even if they did find the money, 10% of thousands of pounds is a lot of money to lose and the promise to reimburse the money within six months was hardly reassuring for Northern Rock savers! The Northern Rock run prompted Darling to promise a new scheme, with the full £35,000 (or even £100,000!) paid back “immediately”. This would supposedly be funded by some sort of levy on banks, but he failed to explain how the banks would contribute sufficient money to compensate for the bankruptcy of a big company like Northern Rock, never mind Barclays (which is one of the biggest banks in the world), in the near future by gradually paying some sort of levy. Besides, no legislation on this has yet been passed, so it will be too late for savers of banks that will go under soon (and it is looking very likely that at least one will go bust in the coming week).

 

If the media keep quiet about an important deal involving billions of pounds, there will still be some people who know about it and they won’t be able to prevent the truth coming out about it indefinitely. At lunchtime on the first day of the Northern Rock run, Channel 4 News reported that four other banks had suffered big falls in share values that morning – Alliance & Leicester, Bradford & Bingley, Barclays and the Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS). Many stock market investors clearly knew that Barclays was in trouble as a result of the credit crunch, possibly including the fact that Barclays received two emergency loans from the Bank of England in the summer.

 

As I said above, the truth comes out eventually. The fact about the loans to Barclays was leaked in the Herald (a Scottish broadsheet newspaper) on Saturday the 3rd of November. Ian McConnell, the paper’s Business Editor, in the main back page article entitled “Banking fears prompt further market jitters” said “the Bank of England said it had not made any emergency loans through its penalty-rate standing facility on Thursday, a source which was tapped twice by Barclays during the summer for technical reasons.” Come to your own conclusions what the “technical reasons” were, but I strongly suspect that the main “technical” reason was Barclays Bank running out of money!

 

Herald articles normally appear on Google News, but this one isn’t and I received an error when trying to read it on the Herald website (http://www.theherald.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1807184.mostviewed.banking_fears_prompt_further_market_jitters.php). Censorship? Surely not! You can however view the article on-line at http://theherald.newspaperdirect.com if you want proof of the leak – you need to register (you can have a three day trial subscription free of charge) and may need to download viewing software; go to the main newspaper (select “The Herald” from a pull-down menu), choose the 3rd of November and view page 28.

 

There is bound to be an international run on Barclays, with queues outside their branches in many countries of the world, as a result of people finding out about the leak, including by reading this document. It is not a question of whether this will happen but when. The liquidity problems Barclays faces now will be nothing compared to those they get as a result of the bank run. The Bank of England has already lent £23 billion to Northern Rock, equivalent to £730 for every UK taxpayer (but funded by additional borrowing to the £38 billion this financial year mentioned above). The government (who would surely make such important decisions on behalf of the supposedly independent Bank of England) won’t keep lending to a bank as big as Barclays in the same way as Northern Rock (which solely operates in the UK), and they won’t be able to justify the continued support of Northern Rock when other banks are in the same boat. Barclays Bank will go bust, and probably very soon. The government won’t be able to bail out savers internationally, and it is highly dubious whether they will give any compensation to UK savers, especially with other banks likely to suffer the same fate in the near future.

 

I must admit to being rather pleased about the prospect of Barclays Bank going bust, due to their record of propping up the apartheid dictatorship in South Africa, while feeling sorry about the plight of ordinary savers unaware of the bank’s historic role who will lose money. Those who have mortgages with Barclays will be delighted – they will no longer have to pay them off and own their homes completely. Those with Barclays loans or overdrafts will similarly be happy. [I’m not sure whether Barclaycard owners will get their credit card debts written off, or if Barclaycard is independent of Barclays.]

 

Some banks would go bust whatever happens, and it would be more satisfying if it is primarily the less ethical ones that go bust. It will serve the shareholders right for investing in an unethical company. It is actually rational for unethical financial institutions to suffer more than ethical ones from the subprime crisis, since if they are less ethical in other ways they are likely to have less qualms about ripping off poor mortgage holders.

 

The Royal Bank of Scotland is likely to have more right-wing savers than other Scottish banks, due to them choosing a bank with “Royal” in the name and therefore having a tendency to identify with the relic of feudalism that is the English royal family. So, like with Barclays, I won’t be too disappointed if the Royal Bank of Scotland goes bust. The Queen still has a lot of power, including the power to dissolve governments, and she could be wheeled out in an emergency. [Incidentally, in his first speech to the House of Commons after becoming prime minister, Gordon Brown gave a long list of powers which he was transferring from the monarchy to (parts of) the government that I didn’t know the monarchy had.] Let’s face it, banks going bust and the consequences in terms of huge numbers of ordinary people taking action to demand their money back, a change of government and fundamental changes to the way society is run – probably not just demonstrating but launching a general strike, maybe involving the occupation of factories and forming of blockades on the streets like in Bolivia in 2005 – will certainly be a crisis! Fortunately, the monarchy is not as revered as it once was, so the ruling class will not be able to save unethical capitalism by wheeling the Queen out but they may well try…

 

If you live in the UK and want my advice on a safe place to put your money, I recommend the Nationwide Building Society (being by far the biggest building society and having the best ratio of savings to investments of any bank or building society according to Channel 4 News) or National Savings & Investments (being run by the state). If there are big queues outside Nationwide branches, it would be to pay money in!

 

Many ordinary people will lose out as a result of the financial crisis, particularly those of us who use pension funds. Whereas I do not feel sorry for shareholders who have made massive sums of money at our expense by gambling on the stock market over the years, we have no choice about where the managers of the pension funds risk our future livelihoods. The Socialist Party of England and Wales (formerly known as the Militant Tendency) and similar organisations elsewhere in the world linked to it via the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI) call for nationalisation of the companies that dominate the economy with compensation on the basis of proven need. If companies are taken over, either as a result of a mass movement from below or nationalisation from above, I would advocate that only pension funds are compensated. Nobody explained to me how people would prove they need the money, or how it would be decided how much of the money they lost they would get back, during my eight and a half years membership of the Socialist Party/Militant, and the massive numbers of court cases it would surely involve would be impractical.

 

There is a big difference between how the Bank of England has responded to the credit crunch and the US Federal Reserve. Initially the Bank of England refused to bail any banks out of the crisis, whereas the Federal Reserve has ploughed many billions of dollars into the US stock market to prevent banks from going bust. Presumably the Federal Reserve has lent money to a large number of banks, and the particular banks helped and amounts lent have remained secret (or at least fairly secret). When the Bank of England offered £10 billion a week for four consecutive weeks to banks who needed to borrow money, none of them took the bait because news of which banks are in trouble would have been made public. Of course, bearing in mind that Barclays have been funded secretly, there is no guarantee that some other British banks haven’t received similar secretive help…

 

The pumping in of funds by the Federal Reserve is not stopping banking shares in the USA from falling heavily. Citigroup (Citi/Citibank), the biggest bank in the world, has massive problems at the moment; its shares have fallen 25% in the last three weeks (32% so far this year) and chairman/chief executive officer (CEO) Charles “Chuck” Prince has resigned. Merrill Lynch shares fell by 14% in two days.

 

Most capitalist commentators claim that the credit crunch, with the reluctance of banks to lend to each other, is a temporary problem. In reality, the problem won’t go away until there is some sort of revolution, with a complete reorganisation of society! Whether a more ethical form of capitalism or a (hopefully democratic and ethical) form of socialism will result from such revolutions remains to be seen, and attempting to build an ethical form of capitalism may lead to a further revolution resulting in socialism. The solution may be different in different countries of the world, leading to a (partially or completely) ethical world in which citizens can democratically choose the sort of society they want – capitalist or socialist – without interference from conspiratorial organisations like MI5/MI6, the FBI/CIA and others outside the realm of the state that infiltrate different organisations in society trying to preserve unethical capitalism (perhaps striving to make society worse). There are good conspiratorial organisations too that are striving for an ethical world, which will be able to be dissolved when/if it is achieved.

 

For more of my economic analysis and ideas on what left-wing activists should do in the struggle for ethical capitalism or socialism, read my document entitled “Financial meltdown soon – prepare for revolution” (available at www.socialiststeve.me.uk/meltdown-revolution.htm).

 

For more recent discussion of the economic crisis, visit my Banks & Building Societies page or the Economics bulletin board on my Revolutionary Platform Network forum.

 

Ø   Back to Steve Wallis' socialist web page