RBS shuts down startup accounts (Smarkets and others)

Re:RBS shuts down startup accounts (Smarkets and others) by mseebach on Monday February 06, 2012 @12:35PM (#3558282)

> RBS’s actions are all the more unforgivable given that the bank is now mostly owned by taxpayers

Taxpayers didn't bail out RBS because of a deeply felt desire to help British businesses with banking facilities, but because it was deemed at the time that allowing it to crash would hurt the taxpayer more than the cost of the bailout.

The only priority for the government in RBS is to shed any and all unnecessary risk from its balance sheet and sell its shares as soon as possible.

I don't envy Smarkets' situation, but insisting that RBS behaves in a certain way different from this is effectively throwing good money after bad.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:RBS shuts down startup accounts (Smarkets and others) by Isofarro on Monday February 06, 2012 @12:51PM (#3558370)

RBS failed because it contained a portfolio of financial assets that overnight became valueless. That value just disappeared.

I don't see how that situation is related to a company whose revenue stream is a commission on bets placed. If the number of bets placed is zero, Smarkets doesn't end up with an asset that goes from billions of dollars of value to zero, and creating a massive black hole in a Balance Sheet.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:RBS shuts down startup accounts (Smarkets and others) by mseebach on Monday February 06, 2012 @12:59PM (#3558412)

I wasn't reacting to NatWest's treatment of Smarkets, but to the assertion that being taxpayer owned somehow obliges RBS/NW to treat them in a different manner.

[ Parent | on HN ]