Latest news with #financialcrash
Reuters
5 days ago
- Business
- Reuters
James Graham on why the 2008 crash still defines our politics
Few British institutions have escaped James Graham's spotlight. The British playwright's 2017 West End hit 'Ink' examined Rupert Murdoch's Sun newspaper and the rise of tabloid journalism in Britain. Two years later came 'Brexit: The Uncivil War,' a televised drama dissecting the personalities and strategies behind Brexit's victorious Vote Leave campaign. In his acclaimed 2024 show 'Dear England,' Graham turned to soccer, telling the story of former England manager Gareth Southgate and the men's national team's impact on the country's psyche. In his forthcoming show 'Make It Happen,' starring "Succession" actor Brian Cox, Graham sets his sights on the Royal Bank of Scotland — which claimed one of the world's largest bailouts after collapsing under risky investments — and its role in the 2008 financial crash, the consequences of which he says remain acutely felt today. 'I've always been obsessed by that moment and why it happened,' he tells Reuters from Edinburgh, where the show is set to open on July 30. The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Why tell the story of the 2008 crash now, and why through the Royal Bank of Scotland? I guess I feel the paralysis that a lot of people feel politically and culturally at the moment. Every 25 to 30 years, the West tends to go through these momentous moments of reset and rebirth. A new contract emerges from the collapse of one era and you arrive at a consensus in another one, whether that's World War II or the fall of the Berlin Wall. That didn't happen in 2008. It felt like we limped through the crisis and no new idea, no new proposition, emerged. Seventeen years on, we're still living in the shadow of that huge crisis — whether that was the decade of austerity in the UK or the stagnation in our politics (and) our public life that led to Brexit or (Donald) Trump in the U.S. I can't take any credit for the Scottish angle. The National Theatre of Scotland came to me to suggest the frame of the Royal Bank of Scotland, which was at the time the biggest bank in the world (and) therefore needed the biggest bailout. Brian Cox came onboard and suggested that if we're going to do it as a Scottish story, to go all the way back to the Scottish Enlightenment and Adam Smith and the birth of this idea of free markets and modern-day capitalism. What was your experience of the crash like? I just moved to London. I was in my early 20s and I was finding my feet. I was very economically insecure, doing lots of part-time work in bars and factories and warehouses, trying to make my way as a writer. So I remember feeling quite a selfish, immediate fear. We'd been promised that this was the end of history and that everything was inevitably going to be a linear advancement towards progress and improvement. I remember having a visceral reaction — what is this going to mean for the arts, for theatre? I had no idea the longer, bigger crises and anger that was going to be coming down the line. It felt like a very American story: Lehman Brothers and images of people walking out of downtown Wall Street with boxes in their hands. I never saw Edinburgh Castle or Arthur's Seat or statues of Adam Smith, and I think that (Edinburgh) really was the epicenter of this — certainly for the UK, but for the world. All roads now, to me, clearly lead to that city. You credit Cox for bringing Adam Smith into the show. How does he feature? When he first said Adam Smith should be in it, we were having dinner, and it was the first time I'd ever met him. I didn't think he meant literally; I just thought it was Adam Smith's ideas, and I was like, well yeah sure, he's the father of modern economics. Of course he's going to be in it. And he went: 'No, no — in it as a character, and I want to play him.' I like looking at systems and processes and making sense of them in quite a literal, often humdrum way. So having this sort of magical quality in what I thought was going to be a play about corporate banking in Scotland immediately shocked me but rocked me in a great way. It expanded it into something slightly more operatic and gothic and mythic, and I think Edinburgh demands that in a way. It's a city full of ghosts; it's haunted. Its neoclassical architecture demands a drama of scale and of opera and of theatre. So I ran off with that and thought well of course, I can have Adam Smith appear as a ghost that's going to torture (former RBS chief) Fred Goodwin and challenge him about whether Adam Smith's ideas about markets and government regulations and capital and wealth have been misappropriated and weaponized. It's Dickensian, it's Greek. Edinburgh as a canvas gives you that permission to do something quite overtly theatrical. I was really grateful that Brian gave me what I thought initially was a really shit idea because it liberated me from men in suits talking about CDOs and futures. How do you think Scottish audiences will receive this story? I think about that a lot because the people in Edinburgh have to necessarily be a kind of character in it. I come from a mining village in Nottinghamshire of which there was one single industry and that was the mines and the pits. And when they closed, it felt like everybody was a character in that story, whether you worked down the pit or didn't. And it got to the point in which RBS — as a lender and a creditor but also as an employer and a symbol of Scottishness and of Edinburgh — turned the capital of Scotland into the capital of capital. It meant everybody was involved in that story, possibly in an uncomfortable way. Like all of us, we asked the question: In what way were we all complicit? Clearly, this was too good to be true and no one questioned it and we were very happy to take those mortgages when they were available to us. I'm fascinated to see the response from people in that city. I hope this is an empathetic way to look at what people understandably find a quite difficult chapter in their history. After dramatizing the works of Parliament, England's Football Association (FA), and now the banks, which institution do you think is the most broken? It's certainly not the FA. What I find really inspiring about the (former England manager) Gareth Southgate story is it's almost the one singular example I can find in our national life over the past 10 years where an individual or a group has gone into a place and recognized its flaws and its weaknesses but also seen its potential and its opportunity. I know he's got his detractors because he didn't win the World Cup, but he took something that everyone was feeling really bad about and that was in a pretty constant decline and went on the most successful regeneration that's ever happened in its history, and he did that by telling a better story about ourselves. I find it fascinating that (UK Prime Minister) Keir Starmer used a lot of Gareth Southgate's language when he tried to come into power. I think he sees in Gareth Southgate's language this idea that we need to write a new story. I think Keir will be the first person to say that even though he recognizes that's the challenge, what that new story is (has) yet to be identified, and I think that's the case across our institutions. I look at every other part of our national life when it comes to government, our news, or our culture and certainly our finances — none of it feels like it's able to reset and regenerate. What role do you think theatre plays in shaping public conversation today, particularly amid so much division? The thing that frightens me the most, which feels so insurmountable, is the fundamental threats to reality itself. Every other challenge, whether it's foreign policy or domestic policy — I think, well, we can probably tackle all that. But the thing I don't know how anyone even begins to fix is the shift in a commonly accepted reality amongst all of us. The real superpower of theatre, of course, is (that) it demands physical proximity in a space and you just have to be one community and you have to turn your phone off for two-and-a-half hours and share a reality. Theatre demands we see the same thing together and I think that's so socially important, probably more important than it's almost ever been. 'Make It Happen' is billed as a fictionalized satire. What does humor allow you to do that drama doesn't? It's historically a very effective weapon in liberating the tension from something and giving you permission to breathe as an audience. All these moments, especially this one, have a real human cost to it — whether it's your pension that you lost or your job or your small business or your reputation. But there are always natural absurdities in these stories as well, especially when they're of that scale. The hubris of it, the size in which that bank grew itself seems so obviously reckless now. There is a natural absurdity to the human foibles and the human condition that I think it's almost kinder to laugh at and roll your eyes at ... We do need to be able to laugh at ourselves, even if it's through grimaces and winces.
The Independent
15-07-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Rachel Reeves' mortgage gamble is the move of a chancellor who is running out of options
According to Treasury sources, Rachel Reeves wants the public to start taking risks again. The analysis she is working from is that the financial crash of 2008 – which saw several banks go under or need to be nationalised – has made the country too risk-adverse. But the biggest risk taker may well be the chancellor herself, with her plans to free up the mortgage market and slash red tape for financial services in the City. Like many gamblers, though, Ms Reeves' spin of the financial services roulette wheel, to be announced in her Mansion House speech this evening, is largely prompted by the fact that she is running out of options. After all, when Labour won the election just over a year ago, Ms Reeves came into office with economic growth as her 'number one mission'. For all of the talk of 'having the best economic growth in the G7', it has actually been negligible and, in fact, in the last quarter it has gone slightly backwards. She also insisted she did not want to raise tax, and even said during the election that she would prefer to cut tax. Once in power, however, she oversaw a massive increase in spending fuelled by £40bn of tax rises in her first Budget, mostly a hike on employer contributions to national insurance which is now impacting the jobs market. Attempts to bring spending under control by tackling welfare has ended with U-turns on winter fuel payment cuts for pensioners, costing her £1.25bn, and planned welfare cuts mostly on disability benefits which has cost her a further £5bn. The frustrations and pressure on Ms Reeves could not have been better illustrated than the tears visibly rolling down her face during a recent session of PMQs, where the prime minister Keir Starmer could not even guarantee her future as chancellor. The one break she got was after that unfortunate incident, Sir Keir was forced to give her a belated vote of confidence to prevent the markets tanking at the thought she might be sacked. But now, faced with the prospect she will have to bring in yet more painful, growth-killing taxes – possibly so-called wealth taxes on pension funds or dividends, or stealth taxes by freezing income tax thresholds, or both – Ms Reeves only has one way to find growth. That is to return to the pre-2008 model on financial services and mortgages to encourage investors and first-time buyers to start taking risks again themselves. It is exactly what fed the high growth which characterised the last Labour government under Tony Blair. Most of the country's economic success was floated on the 'get rich' model of the City. The problem is that the result of that model was 2008 when the deregulated financial services industry took several risks too many, and the blogabl economy was plunged into crisis, taking whole banks with it. Part of the reason for that was because of the mortgage market, where it had become far too easy for people to borrow unsustainable amounts that they could not pay back in so-called sub-prime mortgages. Ms Reeves is nodding back in that direction. By reducing the minimum wage for people to have a mortgage and increasing the ration from 3.5 times salary to 4.5 times she is not quite repeating the mistakes of the 2000s where people could literally self-certify their income. However, she is heading slowly in that direction and it brings an enormous risk, as well as potential for short-term economic growth. Possibly the greater worry for Ms Reeves, though, is if this does not work and her bonfire of red tape does not produce the increase to the nation's wealth that she needs to help fund the bill for public spending increases before the next election. There may not be any more dice for Ms Reeves to throw if that is the case. And, despite his recent assurances, that could mean that the prime minister ends up looking for someone else to do the job.
Globe and Mail
05-06-2025
- Business
- Globe and Mail
Robert Kiyosaki Just Warned ‘Millions Will Be Wiped Out' in ‘Biggest Crash in History,' But Says Do This To ‘Become Very Rich'
Robert Kiyosaki, the renowned author of Rich Dad Poor Dad, has issued a stark warning to investors, claiming that the 'biggest crash in history' is imminent and could unfold throughout the summer of 2025. In a tweet now viewed by millions, Kiyosaki referenced his 2013 book Rich Dad's Prophecy, asserting that his long-standing prediction of a historic financial collapse is now coming to fruition. This comes at a time of extreme market volatility and uncertainty due to ongoing trade wars, high interest rates, inflation concerns, and more. However, Kiyosaki does say there is hope for investors who are willing to invest intelligently and capitalize on the current opportunities the market is presenting. A Dire Warning for Boomers and Traditional Investors Kiyosaki's message is particularly pointed toward Baby Boomers, whom he believes are at greatest risk. He predicts that millions in his generation could see their retirement savings and investments 'wiped out' as stocks, bonds, and real estate markets tumble. 'Crash time is now and through this summer,' Kiyosaki posted, emphasizing that the downturn will not be limited to equities but will extend across all major asset classes. Amid the anticipated chaos, Kiyosaki forecasts a massive migration of capital into alternative assets — specifically gold, silver, and Bitcoin (BTCUSD). He argues that as traditional markets falter, 'billions will rush into gold, silver, and Bitcoin,' with these assets serving as safe havens during the turmoil. Silver: The 'Biggest Bargain' of 2025 While Kiyosaki remains bullish on gold (GCQ25) and Bitcoin, he singles out silver as the most compelling opportunity. He claims silver (SIN25), currently trading around $35 an ounce, is still 60% below its all-time high and could triple in value by the end of 2025. 'The biggest bargain today is silver. In 2025 silver may 3X,' he wrote, urging investors to buy physical silver rather than exchange-traded funds (ETFs), which he dismisses as 'fake money.' 'Silver is priced around $35 an ounce, which means almost everyone anywhere in the world…has a chance to grow richer…while millions grow poorer,' Kiyosaki stated, encouraging followers to act decisively to protect and grow their wealth. Don't Miss: Advice: Take Action or Be Left Behind Kiyosaki's message is clear: those who are proactive and shift their portfolios into what he calls 'real assets' may not only preserve their wealth but could become 'extremely rich' during the downturn. He ended his tweet with a call to action: 'What are you going to do tomorrow…grow richer or grow poorer? Please choose to get richer.' However, critics have pointed out that Kiyosaki has called '9 of the last 0 market crashes.' Resurfaced tweets show he has made similar calls in December of 2023, July of 2023, September of 2022, and September of 2021. His track record suggests that while it's good to be wary of market conditions, as is true at any time as a prudent investor, it's unclear how much stock you should actually put into his latest warning. Regardless, it's never a bad idea to consistently reassess your portfolio, adjust to the times, and hedge your bets. On the date of publication, Caleb Naysmith did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. For more information please view the Barchart Disclosure Policy here.
The Independent
16-05-2025
- Business
- The Independent
New 100% mortgage launched for buyers with no deposit
Homebuyers have been given the chance to purchase a property without a deposit after a lender announced it will start offering a 100 per cent mortgage. April Mortgages is offering the deal to UK residents who earn at least £24,000 income (including as a household) and are looking to buy or remortgage a house that's valued at more than £75,000. Borrowers must lock in their interest rate – starting at 5.99 per cent and automatically decreasing as they pay down the mortgage – for a fixed term of 10 or 15 years. Such products were more commonplace and were popular before the financial crash in 2008 but have become The deal, which has been described as a 'game changer', is typical of the type of mortgage products that were available before the 2008 financial crash, but have now largely disappeared. What it means for buyers April's decision to add a 100 per cent mortgage option is a boost in terms of options for those who struggle to get a sizeable deposit together, but there are of course drawbacks. Newbuilds and flats are not available for the deal, but there are no fees for overpayments and the interest rate payable on the loan will also reduce as more of the total amount owed comes down. However, as the loan to value (LTV) rate is higher, so too is the interest rate payable when compared to 'normal' deals on the market, with April Mortgages' deal starting from 5.99 per cent. April is not the only company offering 100 per cent mortgages: Skipton has had a 'Track Record' offering for two years which offers those who have rented the chance to get on the property ladder, while Accord mortgages offer a £5,000 deposit mortgage for up to 99 per cent LTV. It's also important for buyers to note other fees they may have to pay. Stamp duty, legal costs, broker's fees and other costs - including changing interest rates at the end of fixed terms - should all be considered. Pros and cons The biggest concern for individual buyers can be falling property prices. If you take a 100 per cent mortgage and the property value decreases over the next few years, the owner will have negative equity - in other words, they will owe more than the house is worth. If they need to sell, they may end up having to find more money to pay off a property that they initially put no deposit down on. David Hollingworth, associate director at L&C Mortgages explained the big consideration for borrowers before taking on such a decision - and why April's rules on the product might prove beneficial. 'We know that borrowers struggle to pull together the big deposits that are so often required to buy in the current market. April's new deal will add another option to those that have strong affordability but can't amass a deposit, whilst meeting high rents and living costs,' he said. 'Borrowers will need to evidence their ability to meet mortgage payments. In addition, they should think about the higher potential for negative equity if property prices were to fall. 'Negative equity becomes a problem for those that need to sell, crystallising any loss. The stability of a fixed rate will provide shelter from fluctuating interest rates, which could help them ride out a dip in prices.' Another factor is that interest rates on mortgages can be significantly different if buyers are even able to raise a small deposit - last month's rates showed that a five per cent deposit on a £200,000 house would be mean repayment terms were £3,500 cheaper to pay over a five-year period. With the UK government prioritising housebuilding and getting people on the property ladder, a succession of changes have happened this year in the mortgage market. One key issue has been the battle for remortgaging clients, with interest rates dropping this year. Barclays recently announced their lowest rate of the year at 3.85 per cent, MPowered Mortgages have cut three-year fixed rate mortgages to 3.88 per cent and Nationwide are starting from 3.84 per cent for both new and existing customers. Nationwide has also become the latest company to reduce their stress test rates, meaning lenders could borrow up to £28,000 more than previously. Santander did likewise last month, while Skipton recently brought out a mortgage product with no repayments for the first three months.
