John Wright Posted February 14, 2020 Share Posted February 14, 2020 So, RBS is to change its name. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51500062 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted February 14, 2020 Share Posted February 14, 2020 Toxicity? No problems, a change of name and the plebs will forget all the past and present ills that they stumped up billions to bail out. Isn't that right, (Sir) Fred? There was a good documentary on what went on with RBS the other night. "Executive excess" comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 14, 2020 Share Posted February 14, 2020 1 hour ago, Non-Believer said: Toxicity? No problems, a change of name and the plebs will forget all the past and present ills that they stumped up billions to bail out. Isn't that right, (Sir) Fred? There was a good documentary on what went on with RBS the other night. "Executive excess" comes to mind. Excuse me but that was all the fault of Gordon Broon. Because Roger said so.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted February 14, 2020 Share Posted February 14, 2020 The RBS brand is toxic for sure, but it is also an insurance policy for a move to London should "Indyref2" come about and produce the wrong result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted February 14, 2020 Share Posted February 14, 2020 2 hours ago, P.K. said: Excuse me but that was all the fault of Gordon Broon. Because Roger said so.... Yes it, and more, was and I've explained why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 14, 2020 Share Posted February 14, 2020 4 hours ago, woolley said: The RBS brand is toxic for sure, but it is also an insurance policy for a move to London should "Indyref2" come about and produce the wrong result. It's toxic with doubling it's profit over 12 months to £3.1 bn...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted February 14, 2020 Share Posted February 14, 2020 2 hours ago, P.K. said: It's toxic with doubling it's profit over 12 months to £3.1 bn...? Misunderstood as usual. The brand is toxic in the marketplace. They clearly want to junk it and appear more London-centric. The underlying business is sound now that PPI and the US penalties are out of the way. I bought some shares when they announced the resumption of dividend payments. I reckon they are undervalued for the long term prospects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 14, 2020 Share Posted February 14, 2020 1 hour ago, woolley said: Misunderstood as usual. The brand is toxic in the marketplace. They clearly want to junk it and appear more London-centric. The underlying business is sound now that PPI and the US penalties are out of the way. I bought some shares when they announced the resumption of dividend payments. I reckon they are undervalued for the long term prospects. The term "toxic" is yours Woolster, not mine. I was making the very reasonable point that it can't be that toxic because it doubled it's bottom line in only 12 months. Plus it would take a completely idiotic investor who didn't know the history of the organisations they were dealing with. Have to say the search for leverage is getting a tad desperate... Read up on the crash this pm. It seems that Broon did not bring down Lehman Bros from Downing Street after all Roger. In fact some of the blame lies with the appalling Thatcher creature. That's the same dreadful woman who imperiously ordered me to the Home Office to "regularise my status" in an attempt to cover up how she should take some of the blame for the Falklands Conflict... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted February 14, 2020 Share Posted February 14, 2020 1 hour ago, P.K. said: The term "toxic" is yours Woolster, not mine. I was making the very reasonable point that it can't be that toxic because it doubled it's bottom line in only 12 months. Plus it would take a completely idiotic investor who didn't know the history of the organisations they were dealing with. Have to say the search for leverage is getting a tad desperate... What does your last sentence mean? I certainly know the history of companies I invest in. Shall I explain further? Its bottom line is becoming healthier for various reasons. It has largely withdrawn from high risk markets and retreated from territories it entered during the reckless expansion phase under Fred the Shred. It has consolidated its core business. The RBS brand is certainly acknowledged as toxic. They already branded to NatWest outside Scotland a few years back, and now they are going the whole hog by rebranding the group. Perhaps this earlier rebrand, which covers the vast majority of their business, has been a major driver of the turnaround. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/30/rbs-to-strengthen-natwest-brand I even found an article backing up my take on them getting ready to quit Scotland if the SNP gets independence. Clearly they would do so given the majority ownership by the UK taxpayer. https://inews.co.uk/news/business/rbs-latest-scottish-independence-snp-natwest-rebranding-1741581 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted February 14, 2020 Share Posted February 14, 2020 ‘Royal’ in your brand name is pretty toxic these days. Who’d want to be associated with this tight lipped individual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 14, 2020 Share Posted February 14, 2020 52 minutes ago, woolley said: What does your last sentence mean? I certainly know the history of companies I invest in. Shall I explain further? Its bottom line is becoming healthier for various reasons. It has largely withdrawn from high risk markets and retreated from territories it entered during the reckless expansion phase under Fred the Shred. It has consolidated its core business. The RBS brand is certainly acknowledged as toxic. They already branded to NatWest outside Scotland a few years back, and now they are going the whole hog by rebranding the group. Perhaps this earlier rebrand, which covers the vast majority of their business, has been a major driver of the turnaround. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/30/rbs-to-strengthen-natwest-brand I even found an article backing up my take on them getting ready to quit Scotland if the SNP gets independence. Clearly they would do so given the majority ownership by the UK taxpayer. https://inews.co.uk/news/business/rbs-latest-scottish-independence-snp-natwest-rebranding-1741581 So you agree that your label of "toxic" hasn't held them back from turning in a decent performance. Good... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 47 minutes ago, P.K. said: So you agree that your label of "toxic" hasn't held them back from turning in a decent performance. Good... No. You missed the point again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 1 hour ago, woolley said: No. You missed the point again. Just because you say so? Don't think so holier than thou.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 8 hours ago, woolley said: No. You missed the point again. A business that is doing well can hardly be described as having a toxic brand. If that was the case no one would invest. I would agree that the association with the banking crash and subsequent Government intervention damaged the brand but clearly not to such an extent that customers abandoned it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 16 minutes ago, manxman1980 said: A business that is doing well can hardly be described as having a toxic brand. If that was the case no one would invest. I would agree that the association with the banking crash and subsequent Government intervention damaged the brand but clearly not to such an extent that customers abandoned it. So why are they changing the brand? You fellows are very hard work sometimes. ETA: Go Google RBS toxic brand and see how many results you get from all shades of opinion confirming what I said. It isn't even an issue. RBS can be used as the very definition of a toxic brand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.