Skip Navigation
 

Royal Bank Of Scotland’s Right Royal Mess

<%=_author %>

By

Stuart J Watson

From the Fool blog

Local Police Station Is Useless!

Published in Investing on 8 August 2008

Sub-prime strikes again as Royal Bank of Scotland registers a loss of almost £700m.

Royal Bank of Scotland has been making the headlines for all the wrong reasons this year. A few months ago, its £12bn rights issue was the biggest in UK corporate history. This morning it revealed its first loss for 40 years which also had the distinction of becoming the second-biggest loss ever made by a UK bank.

As had been outlined back in April, the damage was done by writing off £5.9bn in relation to those nasty old sub-prime investments. This took the Royal Bank from a profit of £5bn for the first six months of 2007 to a loss of £691m.

These results meaning the banking hall of shame is pretty much complete. The table below summarises the results for the first half of 2008 for the eight listed UK banks, plus Northern Rock, compared to the first half of 2007.

 

Bank

H1 2008
Profit/(loss)
£m

H1 2007
Profit
£m

% change

Alliance & Leicester (LSE: AL.)

2

290

-99%

Barclays (LSE: BARC)

2,754

4,101

-33%

Bradford & Bingley (LSE: BB.)

Due 29 Aug

180

tbc

HBOS (LSE: HBOS)

848

2,997

-72%

HSBC (LSE: HSBA)

5,123

7,080

-28%

Lloyds TSB (LSE: LLOY)

599

1,993

-70%

Northern Rock

(585)

296

n/a

Royal Bank of Scotland (LSE: RBS)

(691)

5,008

n/a

Standard Chartered (LSE: STAN)

1,293

990

+31%

 

----------

----------

 

Total

9,343

22,935

-60%

 

Bradford & Bingley isn’t due to report until the end of this month but due to its small size the overall picture is unlikely to change. UK banking profits are 60% down on the pre credit crunch period with only one bank, Standard Chartered, managing to record a profit increase.

The steadiness of the economy in recent years has meant that many investors have forgotten just how sensitive banking profits can be to the strength of the economy. The last six months have been an unpleasant reminder in this respect.

Yet there could be more to come. Most of the fall in profits has come from banks writing down their investments in various sub-prime related investments. Their underlying profits are yet to receive any major hit from the higher level of bad debts that accompany any slowdown in the economy, either from their corporate clients or from individuals. In fact it’s surprised many people just how well underlying profits have held up so far among the major banks. Just how bad this second hit will be is far from clear, but few people doubt that it is coming.

Royal’s performance

It would be interesting to see how different Royal Bank’s share price performance would have been had it not proceeded with the joint takeover of ABN Amro last year. Much of its write downs came from the businesses taken over and it also weakened the bank’s capital ratios resulting in the need for the rights issue launched earlier this year.

Yet it could still turn out to be a good acquisition.... eventually. It cost Royal Bank around £13bn and revenue and cost savings are predicted to be £1.6bn in 2010, almost four times the profits the acquired businesses achieved in 2007. The integration is also said to be ahead of schedule.

Elsewhere, the bank’s targets for capital ratios at the end of this year look like being met. This has been helped by the recent disposals of Angel Trains and the 50% share of Tesco Personal Finance. Royal Bank has also been looking to sell Direct Line and Churchill but it’s unclear whether this is still necessary to meet its capital ratio targets. Like many of the big banks, RBS looks like it has benefited from the reduced competition from the smaller players in the market in recent months with interest margins increasing slightly.

The interim dividend will be paid in shares, at a rate that works out at just under 6p per share. This compares with the 10.1p interim dividend paid last year, although this figure has not been adjusted for the recent rights issue. Going forward, the group still hopes to pay a final dividend in cash and see dividends being paid in the mid 40% range as a percentage of its underlying earnings. This makes a total of 18p for this year look like a reasonable expectation.

The shares touched a low of 145p three weeks ago but have since recovered strongly to 237.5p. Despite this recent rally, like all banks, its shares are ostensibly pretty cheap provided you don’t think the downturn in the economy will be longer than the one to two years most people seem to be expecting.

Royal Bank’s management team seems suitably chastened by recent events and, given their success in integrating NatWest, will almost certainly be given more time to repeat the same trick with ABN Amro. All things considered, I reckon there is a good chance that the shares will be quite a bit higher in three years’ time but how they will make that journey is anyone’s guess.

You can buy and sell shares via The Motley Fool Share Dealing Service.

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

1Dee 11 Aug 2008, 9:56pm

Am I to understand that RBS has now integrated with NatWest? Is there no financial instituition that the Scottish banks don't have a finger in? I used to have an account with Halifax then BOS got involved and the service at Halifax got so bad I closed my account. I have had dealings with RBS in past years and weren't overly impressed with their customer service. They were great all the time you didn't have a problem then everything changed especially their attitude towards me. Can you recommend a bank that doesn't have either BOS of RBS involved with them as I really am serious about not having anything to do with either of them.

mrTcrazyfool 12 Aug 2008, 8:20am

1Dee - Do keep up! RBS integrated NatWest in 2001/2002. Yes there are plenty of Banks that are not part of RBS - Lloyds-TSB, Barclays, HSBC, to name but a few, but it seems a bit odd to move a bank just because it has Scottish connections.

MikeGG1 15 Aug 2008, 12:38am

Stuart

You have 2 showing n/a. NR should be -298% and RBS should be -114%. It is exactly the same calculation as the others -(A-B)/A, where A is 2007 & B is 2008. The only difference being that B is negative and if you subtract a negative figure it is the same as adding a positive figure.

Join the conversation

Instructions

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: <b>bold</b>, <i>quoted text</i>. All other tags will be removed from your post.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.