Talk:2008 United Kingdom bank rescue package

"Cost to taxpayer"

I've removed this statement - it's pretty silly. The number's been estimated, as far as I can tell, by dividing the total sum loaned by the number of taxpayers; it'd only be meaningful should every bank default on all the loans made to it by the government. Which isn't particularly likely, and if it is the taxpayers will have bigger worries! Shimgray | talk | 07:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Preference shares

As I understand it, the BRF - the outright injection of capital - will buy preference shares, which so far is in RBS and HBOS/Lloyds. The reports suggesting the government will have "normal" shares is due to a second approach, where they will underwrite new share issues by the banks - which means that they'll buy any shares not taken up by the market. These shares will be standard shares, as held by normal investors... Shimgray | talk | 19:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference to 19/Jan/09 rescue package?

Have started a 2009_United_Kingdom_bank_rescue_package that is about the second bailout package, and thought that this page could reference to that? I also note that lots of the categories/portals refer to the 2007-08 financial crisis: shouldn't that include 09 as well? Peterkeltie (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2008 United Kingdom bank rescue package. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011062730/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/statement_chx_081008.htm to http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/statement_chx_081008.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011062714/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/press_100_08.htm to http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/press_100_08.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Loss to taxpayers: nonsensical sentence

The penultimate sentence in the article seems to make little sense:

"The loss to the tax payer of the first round of RBS share sell off is stated by the BBC to be £1.07bn compared to when they were sold."

The phrase "compared to when they were sold" makes no sense here. IMO, the sentence should be rewarded along the lines of either:

"The loss to the taxpayer resulting from the first round of the RBS share sell-off is stated by the BBC to be £1.07bn."

or

"The first round of the RBS share sell-off is estimated by the BBC to have cost the taxpayer £1.07bn as a result of the shares having been sold at a lower price than when they were acquired." Rgrayuk (talk) 09:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Article probably needs a major rewrite

Not wishing to diminish other editors who have worked to make sense of a very complex topic, but we are probably at the point where there are more and better data sources that justify a major overhaul of the article.

Some examples of issues to be addressed:

- The numbers quoted seem to be from an out-of-date newspaper article and do not correspond with the figures being cited by official sources

- The topic only covers 2008, whereas the timeline for bank bailouts/interventions started in 2007 with Northern Rock and continued into 2009. I know there is another article re 2009, (but not for 2007) but surely it makes more sense for there to be a single article with the full end-to-end narrative?

- There are some major gaps, such as explanations for the Special Liquidity Scheme (mentioned twice, no explanation), the Credit Guarantee Scheme (not mentioned), the Asset Purchase Scheme (not mentioned) the role of UK Asset Resolution (not mentioned), and so on.

Unless there are any objections, I will have a go at a rewrite. Lord Mauleverer (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)