Weather
Monday: Between 2º and 5º with light snow or sleet. Around zero at night. Similar Tuesday
|
||||
| Home | | | Opinion | | | Features | | | International | | | In Dutch | | | Dictionary | | | What's On | | | Jobs | | | Housing | | | Expats | | | Blogs | | | Books |
|
Weather
Monday: Between 2º and 5º with light snow or sleet. Around zero at night. Similar Tuesday
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ex ABN Amro boss slams split-up go-aheadWednesday 03 February 2010 The finance ministry and central bank should have refused to approve the break up of the ABN Amro banking empire following its takeover, former CEO Rijkman Groenink said on Wednesday. Groenink, who was CEO at the time of the takeover in 2007, was answering questions from the De Wit commission which is investigating the cause of the economic crisis in the Netherlands. ABN Amro, once one of the biggest banking groups in the world, was taken over by a consortium of Royal Bank of Scotland, Fortis and Santander for €71bn. Groenink had backed a takeover by Barclays. Hostile 'They should have told the leader of the consortium that their analysis showed the takeover would not be prudent,' he told the commission. 'Other central banks would not have backed such a hostile takeover,' Nos tv quoted him as saying. Fortis took over most of ABN Amro's operations in the Netherlands and both banks have since been nationalised. According to news agency ANP, Groenink said he did not feel that he had had sufficient support from the bank's supervisory board in his fight against the break up. In the Netherlands there is a sense developing that supervisory boards should be more on the side of shareholders, he said. 'And they [shareholders] were well served by two bids [the consortium and Barclays]'. €30bn If the consortium had failed in its efforts, ABN Amro would probably have merged with Barclays and the government would not have had to bail it out with €30bn, he said. According to news agency ANP, Groenink also told the commission he should perhaps have resigned when the consortium joined the takeover battle. 'I regret the bank has gone. I regret the fact that all of us in the Netherlands were not able head it off and I regret the fact I was not able to convince the ministry, the central bank and the supervisory board not to do it,' he said. © DutchNews.nl
oh this is just brilliant. The guy who made millions out of flogging what he knew to be a very dead horse then blames everyone except his greedy little self. the arrogance and total lack of remorse shown by all these bankers is truly stunning. By john | February 3, 2010 3:54 PM Reminds me of a Rat. Eating away the grains, and then the first one to jump the sinking ship with millions. If he had been a real captain, he would have been there giving his best to save the ship. He has the gall to say that he didn't want a breakup. He had already made a deal with BOA to carve up the Banks US assets. By yugtrams | February 3, 2010 5:24 PM He may be arrogant, but he's also right that breaking up ABN was a really stupid idea. We should also remember that the first time it was suggested was by The Childrens Fund - an activist hedge fund. NOW you're looking at the REAL culprits. By Chris | February 3, 2010 5:49 PM Never trust a man like this one, he fully knew the risks involved. and did not tell the full story. Notice in this video (Full screen) how his hands are behaving, he knows he's guilty, big time! By stevie | February 3, 2010 7:57 PM Chris, it was widely known that Richman Grabman wanted a deal with Barclays in which ABN would have been cut up, only differently. So his complaints are laughable. He just wanted a better deal for himself, not shareholders. Notice how he says shareholders getting a raw deal and not customers though. That's the true language of banking and big business these days. By John | February 4, 2010 7:55 AM 'I regret the bank has gone. I regret the fact that all of us in the Netherlands were not able head it off and .... By Fleur | February 4, 2010 8:58 AM John, The Barclays deal was COMPLETELY different, and Groenink only wanted it because it was less bad than the consortium, which was always going to be a disaster. They STILL have not finished separating the banks, two complete years later. If Groenink had behaved differently, neither deal would have been possible, but the split up was a really stupid idea, and in that (if not much else!) Groenink is right. By Chris | February 5, 2010 10:56 AM
Comments have been closed for this article. |
| Newsletter | | | RSS | | | Advertising | | | Business services | | | Mobile | | | Friends | | | Contact | | | About us | | | Tell a Friend |
|
and said bankers arent guilty of waisting money and being inept lol, pot + kettle + black lmao (the pot calling the kettle black, like the blind leading the blind)
By adhd | February 3, 2010 3:52 PM