Remove ads

Dash for cash

swynn
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 199
Joined: November 18th, 2016, 7:27 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Dash for cash

#128051

Postby swynn » March 26th, 2018, 10:52 am

From the SME Alliance website:

"What is truly shameful is that many of us did not need this report because we have known about these abuses for years. Not only that, hundreds of SME victims have been telling the FCA and just about everyone else in any kind of powerful position, that this was all going on."

Most people seem to have first heard of the Dash for Cash scandal following the Tomlinson Report in 2013. But for example there had already been articles in the press, and Ian Fraser had been writing about it on his website for three years previously.

swynn
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 199
Joined: November 18th, 2016, 7:27 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Dash for cash

#129015

Postby swynn » March 30th, 2018, 2:28 pm

Promontory says that the Tomlinson Report is not entirely accurate. On the contrary, the Tomlinson Report is entirely accurate. It is the Promontory s 166 report which is not accurate. Starting with RBS did not manipulate valuations.

swynn
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 199
Joined: November 18th, 2016, 7:27 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Dash for cash

#129295

Postby swynn » April 1st, 2018, 3:05 pm

I am interested in reading what Bully-banks says about the Promontory report. But unfortunately they seem to have changed their website URL. Was http://www.Bully-banks.co.uk. Does anyone know the new one? http://urlm.co.uk/www.bully-banks.co.uk

swynn
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 199
Joined: November 18th, 2016, 7:27 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Dash for cash

#129511

Postby swynn » April 2nd, 2018, 2:30 pm

I quoted from the debate in parliament 1 February 2016 re the IRHP redress scheme:

"One of my first questions, which I still have, was about the arbitrary way in which 10,000 businesses were excluded from the scheme for no apparent reason."

If MPs don't like this exclusion, then why did they allow it? Who is running country. parliament or banks?

swynn
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 199
Joined: November 18th, 2016, 7:27 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Dash for cash

#130345

Postby swynn » April 6th, 2018, 11:23 am

There are drastic contradictions between the Promontory Report and the Tomlinson Report. For example referring to transfers to GRG the Promontory Report says:

"there was not a widespread practice of identifying customers for transfer for inappropriate reasons, such as their potential value to GRG, rather than their level of distress;"

The Tomlinson Report says that on the contrary this process was widespread "systematic and institutional":

"However, it became very clear, very quickly that this process is systematic and institutional. Conversations with whistle blowers, experts and lawyers have also confirmed that it is often, in fact, the better businesses that enter such a path as there is more to be gained by the bank from this than from a less asset rich business. This suggests an element of intent in the bank’s decision to distress these businesses."

swynn
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 199
Joined: November 18th, 2016, 7:27 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Dash for cash

#130428

Postby swynn » April 6th, 2018, 4:54 pm

The Promontory Report says:

"there were no cases identified where the purchase of a property by West Register (as opposed to by another person) alone gave rise to a financial loss to the customer."

How is it possible to be sure that West Register has paid a fair market price if the property is not marketed? It says in the GRG policy and procedures manual "a full marketing process is not required":

https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/das ... enNMV2dXPr

So West Register was able to acquire properties "at cut prices", as reported by the Tomlinson Report:

"There are multiple accounts of West Register buying properties later down the line when the business has gone into insolvency at cut prices."

swynn
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 199
Joined: November 18th, 2016, 7:27 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Dash for cash

#130977

Postby swynn » April 9th, 2018, 7:24 pm

Ian Fraser on RBS, from his website:

"Arbitrarily pulling the rug on business customers - even ones that were trading successfully and had never missed a loan repayment - became more prevalent after an internal decision was made at RBS as it desperately sought to prevent collapse in August 2008. From that moment on, as reports to the UK Government have suggested, there is evidence to suggest that the bank was effectively seeking to put viable, asset-rich business customers out of business in order to prosper at their expense. After alluding to this behaviour in television interviews including one on BBC news in July 2012, I was deluged with correspondence from owners and managers of affected firms, some of whom cried down the phone as they alleged that RBS had snuffed out their life's work."

swynn
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 199
Joined: November 18th, 2016, 7:27 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Dash for cash

#131169

Postby swynn » April 10th, 2018, 12:46 pm

Lawrence Tomlinson makes the same point as Ian Fraser in my last post that RBS was interested in asset-rich businesses:

"The points made by the ex-banker suggest that there is a process by which businesses are assessed for their potential value to GRG not their level of distress. In fact, two businesses could be operating at similar levels of performance, but one may have assets whereas the other does not. The one without assets could be allowed to continue trading as normal as there is no additional value for the bank in putting it into GRG, whereas the business with assets will enter GRG as there is more value to be made from that than continuing to lend to the business as normal. "

This contradicts the Promontory Report:

"there was not a widespread practice of identifying customers for transfer for inappropriate reasons, such as their potential value to GRG, rather than their level of distress"

The Promontory Report contradicts both Fraser and Tomlinson in other respects. Ian Fraser is an authority. He has written a best selling book about RBS. So to contradict him seems unwise.

swynn
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 199
Joined: November 18th, 2016, 7:27 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Dash for cash

#131434

Postby swynn » April 11th, 2018, 12:40 pm

"When a shop went under, GRG staff were invited to cherry-pick items for themselves." is on several websites, as you can find using Google. This is cannibalism. GRG feasting on the corpses of businesses it has made bankrupt.

swynn
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 199
Joined: November 18th, 2016, 7:27 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Dash for cash

#131512

Postby swynn » April 11th, 2018, 6:17 pm

The Promontory Report is a cover-up. Trying to cover-up the fact that GRG was engaged in cannibalism. Putting healthy businesses out of business in order to feast on their corpses.

swynn
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 199
Joined: November 18th, 2016, 7:27 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Dash for cash

#131632

Postby swynn » April 12th, 2018, 10:52 am

The Promontory Report says:

"SME customers transferred to GRG were exhibiting clear signs of financial difficulty"

Jon Pain for RBS refers to "customers who get into financial difficulty" because of the recession. But according to the Tomlinson Report healthy businesses were put into financial difficulty by RBS:

"The cases and experiences of businesses we received can be categorised as part of an overall process as follows:

1. The bank artificially distresses an otherwise viable business and through their actions puts them on a journey towards administration, receivership and liquidation."

swynn
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 199
Joined: November 18th, 2016, 7:27 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Dash for cash

#131913

Postby swynn » April 13th, 2018, 11:34 am

The Promontory Report is a useful addition to the literature, especially the "Just Hit Budget!" memo. But it is largely cobblers. E.g. it says:

"RBS did not set out to artificially engineer a position to cause or facilitate the transfer of a customer to GRG"

This is contrary to the Tomlinson Report, Ian Fraser, and debates in parliament. E. g. 18 January:

"we were an unsuccessful part of what was called “project dash for cash.” The plan was to seize assets through perceived default, and between 2007 and 2012 more than 15,000 companies were moved into GRG to await their fate. From my own experience, I have no doubt that many of those customers were not treated with proper care and attention.

I also have no doubt that the FCA’s conclusions, to which I referred earlier, are wholly wrong and that there was a widespread practice of identifying customers for transfer to GRG for inappropriate reasons."

"the swirling belief that refuses to go away that businesses referred to GRG were cash-poor but asset-rich, and artificial default events were engineered. In short, the businesses were asset-stripped.

These allegations are made all the more persuasive by the fact that, as we now know, GRG had a commercial objective and was part of “project dash for cash”; and by what we have seen since the Treasury Committee published the “Just Hit Budget!” memo and the memo from 2008-09."

swynn
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 199
Joined: November 18th, 2016, 7:27 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Dash for cash

#132113

Postby swynn » April 14th, 2018, 9:50 am

Nicky Morgan said in the debate:

"Given all that, it is unfortunate that the FCA and RBS decided to state that

“the most serious allegations made against the bank have not been upheld”"

The most serious allegation is that GRG was systematically asset-stripping healthy businesses. "Not upheld" implies that Promontory has the last word on the topic, which is ridiculous.

swynn
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 199
Joined: November 18th, 2016, 7:27 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Dash for cash

#132200

Postby swynn » April 14th, 2018, 5:20 pm

The FCA is hair splitting it makes a distinction between "poor practice" and "inappropriate treatment":

"Whilst some isolated examples of poor practice were identified"

"inappropriate treatment of SME customers by RBS was identified in the Report as being widespread"

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-relea ... ring-group

swynn
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 199
Joined: November 18th, 2016, 7:27 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Dash for cash

#132359

Postby swynn » April 15th, 2018, 5:56 pm

Nicky Morgan said:

"The overarching priority at all levels of GRG was not the health and strength of customers, but the generation of income for RBS, through made-up fees, high interest rates, and the acquisition of equity and property."

"made-up fees, high interest rates, and the acquisition of equity and property" is asset-stripping. But the Promontory Report apparently talks only of "inappropriate treatment". (I find it impossible to do a word search.)

swynn
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 199
Joined: November 18th, 2016, 7:27 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Dash for cash

#132989

Postby swynn » April 18th, 2018, 10:05 am

I have started to set up a website http://www.asset-stripping.com I expect this will be mostly or entirely about the Promontory Report, pointing out this is largely cobblers. "Inappropriate treatment" is deflecting criticism. The real problem is asset-stripping. Any suggestions how to proceed with the website will be welcome.

swynn
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 199
Joined: November 18th, 2016, 7:27 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Dash for cash

#133685

Postby swynn » April 21st, 2018, 8:45 am

Is anyone familiar with WordPress, which I am using for website? I have some issues.


Return to “Catastrophe Corner”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest