I am Lee Baillie

NORTHERN ROCK: WHAT WENT WRONG?

northern-rock

Northern Rock has been the biggest story in British banking this year. But some people may be asking themselves why. There are many people who don’t quite know what went wrong with Northern Rock and why it caused such a stir among the City, the Government and retail bankers alike.

Northern Rock was founded in 1965 as a result of the merger of two building societies in the North East of England. During the 1980s, Building societies were allowed to start upgrading to bank status. By now, this meant that one of the primary objectives of the new banks was to make a profit, as banks should, rather than exist for the core benefit of its members, as a building society should.

In 1997, Northern Rock decided it wanted a piece of this profit pie and went from Northern Rock Building Society to the slick, Northern-favourite bank that we see in our high streets today. For some people at the time, this was a concern; Northern Rock Building Society was a big source of support for Northerners and, increasingly so, everybody else too. A building society can be trusted. One can be sure of its intentions when it is handling one’s money.

To overcome this concern, the Northern Rock Foundation was formed. The sole purpose of the Foundation was to divide five per cent of the Rock’s profits between good causes in the North East of England.

adam-applegarth-315.jpgSo, when the Rock demutualised and the Northern Rock Foundation was formed, we had a bank that was very, very generous. This went some way to dismissing fears that Northern Rock was about to become just another British money-making bank. The City looked very favourably upon this and, with the induction of new chief Adam Applegarth, things were looking bright for Northern Rock.

Applegarth had decided that he wanted Northern Rock to become a big player in the mortgage market. His plan was to lend 125 per cent of the value of customers’ houses. One problem with that was that the Rock was still a relatively tiny bank. So, to work around that Northern Rock would borrow more and more money from other banks.

Borrowing between banks is was nothing uncommon. In fact it was very common indeed. But Northern Rock was borrowing 75% of its money from these banks, shifting their financial footing onto progressively riskier ground. But at this time, nobody foresaw the crisis looming with the sub-prime mortgage market in the States.

In laymens’ terms, a sub-prime mortgage is one lent to somebody who is less likely to be able to pay it back, and ‘default’ on their loan. Sub-prime lending had become increasingly popular in America and more and more money was being lent and borrowed between banks in small pieces; security protecting against the risks of lending in the sub-prime market. The American banks severely underestimated just how many people would take advantage of the offers and then be unable to follow through on their repayments.

Never has the word unfortunate been used so literally and, with the sub-prime mortgage market now floundering, the system came grinding to a halt on the 9th of August this year. A French bank decided to suspend three of the credit funds that were open to banks in the US to borrow from. This had a domino effect and, in the ensuing panic, virtually all banks stopped lending each other money. Those who did, lent the credit on massively inflated interest rates. The European Central Bank then had to plough more than £70bn into the European banking system. The extra funding gave the markets a boost in liquidity, but did little to assuage the concerns of the major international banks.

It soon became too much for the Rock, who had relied all-too-heavily on borrowing at the previously manageable rates. On the 14th of August 2007, the Financial Services Authority alerted the head of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, of the effects that the global credit crunch might have on Northern Rock.

By the 4th of September, the rate at which London banks lent to each other (London Interbank Offered Rate, or LIBOR) had reached its highest level in nine years. The credit marked dried up completely, with banks practically refusing to lend to each other whatsoever. Mervyn King made it clear that the Bank of England would provide emergency funding to any bank which might need it. But he would not be injecting money in to the banking system itself, unlike the European Central Bank and the US Federal Reserve.

On the morning if the 13th of September, the news broke that Northern Rock had sought emergency funding from the Bank of England to keep its repayments up to other London banks. The Bank of England is known in situations like this as the ‘Lender of Last Resort’, and is one of the country’s last resort contingencies to ensure the fluidity of the British financial system.

The very next day, confidence in the Rock is severely shaken and analysts and customers alike are not convinced by Adam Applegarth’s reassurances that it was “business as usual”. Customers began to queue outside their local branches of the Rock and withdrew more than a billion pounds of their deposits, largely from branches in the London and the South East. The value of shares in the company also plummeted by more than thirty per cent. Customers began to realise that their money may not be safe, despite assurances, and crashed Northern Rock’s Web site and phone system while trying to withdraw more money.

The following day, the crisis worsened and queues formed again, this time taking over £2bn. Share prices in the company plunged a further forty per cent, with the crisis showing no sign of letting up. Confidence in the banking system itself was at serious risk of being shattered, so the Chancellor Alistair Darling announced that every customer who had money in Northern Rock would have their funds underwritten by the Treasury, meaning that the Government would pay back every penny the Rock owed them, should the bank go bust.

This was, however, severely criticised by financial analysts as being a move tantamount to bailing out an already sinking ship – inconceivable, and out of proportion in that the bank was unlikely to go bust anyway. Where would he get the money if he did have to repay the £24 billion that was ‘at stake’? His announcement was seen as a way of boosting confidence with words, but nothing more. At this point, Lloyds TSB was asked by the Bank of England to buy Northern Rock, but nothing materialised.

Things calmed down for a while and the queues outside Northern Rock branches countrywide waned. Northern Rock took out double page spread adverts in national newspapers claiming that the bank would “prevail” and that the situation would get better.

On the 20th of September, the Bank of England injected ten billion pounds into the banking system in an attempt to lower the interest rates at which the major banks were lending each other money. This came despite their earlier vow not to do such a thing.

By late September, Northern Rock announced that it would cancel the dividends it was due to pay its shareholders, costing them sixty million pounds. It was then that the bank began to look for offers from other major consortia and large firms who may wish to buy Northern Rock. This would mean that the debt the bank owed would be passed on to a buyer who can afford to repay it.

In mid-October, it was announced that a consortium led by Richard Branson’s Virgin Group had made an offer to buy the bank. As part of the proposal, Northern Rock would be kept as-is but under the Virgin Money brand.

With the resignation of Adam Applegarth as Chief Executive earlier this month, and today’s announcement that Virgin’s bid was the favoured one, it looks as though the Northern Rock brand has been well and truly ripped to pieces, despite massive faith in the bank in Northern England.

What was once a solid bank and one of the country’s leading mortgage lenders has now become something of a blister on the body that is the British banking system. Without careful and cautious management over the healing period, the bank could start haemorrhaging money again. But under new leadership, a new brand and what now seems like proper support from the Government and the Bank of England, you can bet your bottom dollar that Northern Rock as you knew it yesterday, will not be the bank of tomorrow.

Author: Lee
EDITOR

Contributor: Tom Loze-Thwaite
SCIENCE EDITOR

VOICE OF THE LONDON UNDERGROUND: SACKED!

The name Emma Clarke may not mean a lot to you. In fact you may never have heard of her at all. But Emma Clarke is the woman commonly referred to as the ‘Voice of the London Underground’.

Underground bosses have decided to silence her for allegedly criticising the Underground, something which she denies. Unfortunately for her and indeed Londoners who listen fondly to her friendly voice as they go about their daily business, London Underground are having none of it and have decide to let her go.

Clarke, who is 36 and has two children, has worked for London Underground since 1999. Her voice has told Londoners to ‘mind the gap’ and that ’smoking is not permitted anywhere on the London Underground’.

Emma Clarke claims that she was misquoted in an interview, having said that using the Underground would be a dreadful experience for her. What she actually meant was that she would hate to hear her own voice throughout the entire journey.

We would like to remind our American tourist friends that they are almost certainly talking too loudly.

On her Web site, Clarke has created some spoof announcements (click here to listen). London Underground, however, deny this played a part in her dismissal.

The Underground is not Clarke’s only client, however, and you are likely to have heard her voice on television, radio and various advertising campaigns and telephones around the country and indeed the world. You may even have heard her ask you to ‘calmly evacuate the building’ when there’s an emergency.

Maybe we’ll start to hear less of her on the Underground, but have no doubt that we’ll continue to hear her voice on TV and radio for years to come.

MURDOCH’S RULE: SKY NEWS VS. FOX NEWS

Our favourite Aussie granddad Rupert Murdoch has told a House of Lords Communications committee review that Sky News could be more popular if it emulated its American counterpart Fox News a bit more.

Most people are aware that a rule exists for UK news broadcasters regarding impartiality. Broadcast news must remain so, meaning political bias is a big no-no in the United Kingdom. So Rupert Murdoch’s idea for a more ‘American’ Sky News seems to imply that a change in the law is required.

Sky News is owned in full by BSkyB (Sky), a 39% owned subsidiary of Murdoch’s News Corporation. Sky News’ chairman also happens to be James Murdoch, Rupert’s son.

Recently, Rupert Murdoch also told the Committee that he takes editorial control over his tabloid papers in the UK, The Sun and the News of the World. He decides what political party to support and what the papers’ stances are on Europe.

It’s against the law for him to operate the same control over his two other papers, The Times and the Sunday Times.

But in a country that is already heading further and further in to a wholly-owned and operated media conglomerate of political bias and cheesy entertainment being pushed out as ‘news’, can Murdoch’s comments really be taken with such a pinch of salt as they usually are?

There’s no denying that the Murdochs have massive power over the entire media world what with news broadcast, print and films all long-established with News Corp. but, who is Rupert, an Australian with his loyalties to his American business, to decide what the UK’s favourite papers and news broadcasters support politically? It’s comparable to a Yank telling a Brit how best to run their country.

Okay, that’s an exaggerated analogy, but they both equate to a blow to national pride, something that Americans and Australians feel just as strongly about, I’m sure. Or maybe we’re all just too stupid to take notice of the state of the country’s news media. Perhaps we’re just used to the ever-changing face of the news. Perhaps it’s just the way the cookie crumbles, as our cousins across the Pond would say. Or maybe, just maybe…we don’t care enough?

Death of the Free Web

French President Nicolas Sarkozy today announced the formation of a new Anti-Piracy body, designed to combat the illegal sharing of media content on peer-to-peer (P2P) networks in the country. This isn’t a surprise; the French government has been brokering a deal with the country’s media companies over the past months with the aim of tackling what they call ‘casual piracy’, and reducing the number of illegal transfers and downloads of music and videos.

P2P networks have often been lambasted by the world’s big media companies as being detrimental to the health of the music industry, due to the fact that users are able to share songs easily by using free, downloadable applications such as Limewire or Kazaa. Firms like Sony and Naxos have long protested against the supposed lack of control over such internet activity, but for so long (at least in the UK) media usage and copyright laws have been deemed sufficient to regulate file sharing to an acceptable level.

However, the US Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) published a report in August this year which details results of a study conducted to investigate the impact of illegal P2P activity in America. The results were startling – according to the report, the country’s economy lost out on a cool $12.5 billion in 2006 alone. That’s half a million dollars more than the entire US media industry’s earnings per annum, and the media companies themselves suffered a loss of $2.7 billion. In fact, the job cutting associated with such a downturn in revenue across the country runs to a total of over 71,000 positions, and over 26,000 of those were in recording and production.

Understandably, the big boys of the media world aren’t happy, and have been pushing the governments of the most problematic countries to try and bring about a drastic change in the way that the law (and broadcasting companies’ policies) regulates digital media and broadcasting. And its not just confined to filesharing; webpage browsing, video streaming – even the way we receive our broadband internet connections – our media rights are under serious threat.

Several cable companies in the US are now developing geographical borders which they can apply to the internet , by regulating where certain data is allowed to be transmitted across the web. For example, if you live in California, CBS may decide that they’ll only allow you to stream certain shows or recordings. Similarly, cable television users who also have their internet provided by the same company may find that they are unable to record or download certain content, based on their location – even using their DVD or HDD recorder. They might have exactly the same programme schedule as another user watching from Nebraska, but by stealthily releasing software updates with media restriction policies included, the right to free home recording and viewing is silently being snatched away from the consumer.

However, it’s not all doom and gloom; many broadcasters in Europe – and a certain number in the US – have been jumping onto the virtual bandwagon by making as many shows available to their viewers online as possible. With the exception of public service broadcasters, many companies are realising that revenues from advertising can potentially be as high online as they can on TV, and some broadcasters are now also generating extra revenue by selling cheaply downloadable content through sites like iTunes or Amazon.

Despite this, times are changing rapidly, and what has become the general trend in the US is now (inevitably) spreading into Europe and Asia. The control of media on the internet is changing dramatically, following the explosion of broadband usage across the developed world over the last few years. Instead of being a medium for the sharing of data and files, the internet is increasingly becoming our one-stop shop for entertainment. And this gives media companies increasing power over what we can access.

If there’s one thing that will always dominate the media industry, it’s the power it has to shape our daily lives; the way we think and how we act. Whether we’re watching TV, surfing the net, or downloading music – we’re going to have to be increasingly careful in preserving the rights that we hold as internet users, to make sure that it remains how it was intended to be –
- free.

Author: Tom Loze-Thwaite
SCIENCE EDITOR

BBC NEWS SLIPPING INTO BAD HABITS

bbc-breaking-news.jpg

When Sky News decided to introduce their current graphics to a somewhat mixed reaction almost a year ago now, I wasn’t too impressed. But, none-the-less, they have come to grow on me.

I do, however, have one big anxiety about it… The never-ending ‘BREAKING NEWS’ banner that scrolls ominously at the bottom of the screen in bold yellows and blacks.

I recognise instantly a massive similarity between this and CNN’s own ‘BREAKING NEWS’ banners, with the bumblebee style yellow and, in fact, all the rolling news stations have started to mimic this style.

But, back to the point, BBC News 24. They’ve started to do the same thing themselves with that annoying scrolling banner which is allegedly giving us breaking news. Lets get one thing straight… News does not break over three hours.

There may be one or two developments, but that most certainly does not warrant such an obtrusive banner. This should be reserved for national or international catastrophes; not a ship that is sinking somewhere near the Shetland islands.

Warning: A comedy quote that has been completely fabricated for effect follows:

“Don’t worry, folks. Those people who were rescued from the ship two hours ago; they’re still rescued. But the bloody ship, it’s sunk another centimetre! STOP PRESS!

The constant stream of this ‘breaking’ news on my screen which is only there because, lets face it, the newsters and journos really have nothing else to tell us, wouldn’t even bother me that much. But it covers up the ticker! So I have to sit there and wait fifteen minutes until they read out the headlines… But surprise surprise! It’s all about that holed ship again.

At this point I have my own sinking feeling. I just want to cry! All I want to know is what else is going on in the world.

Trying to keep me watching just drives me to the Internet instead. Too bad Mrs. Beeb. Until you sort out that God-awful red ticker banner… I’m just not watching. I expect this from the likes of Sky News, but honestly… My PSB?!

I tweet, I tweet

Orange Squash gives me an itchy back and makes me sneeze. Why?

Tweeted about 12 hours ago

I'm at MintTwist Towers. http://4sq.com/aWmeWq

Tweeted 10:11 07 September, 2010

RT @LittleMissTV: Tube workers are arseholes

Tweeted 10:00 07 September, 2010

GetTweets was written by my friend and colleague @andrefigueira, developer and designer at DesignFront.

 

Yes sir, I can boogie

Some of the albums I listen to the most in alphabetical order. Click the album to view it in the iTunes store.