In message , at 23:44:19 on
Wed, 21 Jan 2009, D1039 remarked:
Escrow accounts against which the supplier could borrow? Bombardier would
pay cash into an account that both sides need to agree that it is released,
Bombardier to agree to release on delivery, with mediation built in in case
of disputes, and the banks could lend as secured borrowings.

Isn't that in effect what a "letter of credit" is, used for a great deal
of international trade.

Except no-one would take the risk.

The risk of what?
--
Roland Perry

In message
wrote:

[snip]

This is the sort of thing that the vast sumes of money going to the
banks was supposed to stop - if it hasn't then isn't it time to name
and shame the banks concerned?


Barclays
NatWest
LloydsTSB
HBOS
RBS
HSBC
Lehmann Bros
Northern Rock
etc
etc
etc

They are all as bad, there is no such thing as a good bank. I see they are
still paying themselves bonuses though.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

On Jan 22, 7:37*am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 23:44:19 on
Wed, 21 Jan 2009, D1039 remarked:

Escrow accounts against which the supplier could borrow? Bombardier would
pay cash into an account that both sides need to agree that it is released,
Bombardier to agree to release on delivery, with mediation built in in case
of disputes, and the banks could lend as secured borrowings.

Isn't that in effect what a "letter of credit" is, used for a great deal
of international trade.

Except no-one would take the risk.

The risk of what?

Probably the risk of the bank going bust and their escrow money
disappearing

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 23:44:19 on Wed,
21 Jan 2009, D1039 remarked:
Escrow accounts against which the supplier could borrow? Bombardier would
pay cash into an account that both sides need to agree that it is
released,
Bombardier to agree to release on delivery, with mediation built in in
case
of disputes, and the banks could lend as secured borrowings.

Isn't that in effect what a "letter of credit" is, used for a great deal
of international trade.

Except no-one would take the risk.

The risk of what?
--
Roland Perry

Sorry Roland, I didn't make myself clear. I meant that if there is a risk
that in the event of a dispute the mediator/arbitrator ruled against the
supplier, then the bank will find their loan has gone but they don't get
paid, ergo in current conditions the bank probably wouldn't loan against it.

Patrick

In message , at 19:13:41 on
Thu, 22 Jan 2009, D1039 remarked:
Escrow accounts against which the supplier could borrow? Bombardier
would pay cash into an account that both sides need to agree that it
is released, Bombardier to agree to release on delivery, with
mediation built in in case of disputes, and the banks could lend as
secured borrowings.

Isn't that in effect what a "letter of credit" is, used for a great deal
of international trade.

Except no-one would take the risk.

The risk of what?

Sorry Roland, I didn't make myself clear. I meant that if there is a risk
that in the event of a dispute the mediator/arbitrator ruled against the
supplier, then the bank will find their loan has gone but they don't get
paid, ergo in current conditions the bank probably wouldn't loan against it.

It would be unlikely that the shipment was rejected (and in effect sent
back to the factory), rather than some "snagging" done and paid for.
--
Roland Perry

wrote in message
...
On 20 Jan, 15:14, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:10:58 on
Tue, 20 Jan 2009, Paul Scott remarked:

"BRITAIN'S only remaining train builder, Bombardier Transportation, has
been
forced to lay off 77 workers at its Derby factory - despite having a
full
order book - because some of its suppliers have had credit facilities
withdrawn by their banks.

In one of the strangest examples so far of the perverse effects of the
credit crunch Bombardier, which has had all its production lines working
at
full capacity, said banks have put such a squeeze on credit that
supplier
firms are finding it impossible to borrow to pay for extra equipment and
employees to meet Bombardier's growing demand for components."

Bombardier could shock horror offer to pay the relevant suppliers
cash with order, if it's that much of an issue.
--
Roland Perry

I don't think they'd risk that - COD maybe but with a history of
suppliers going bust during big production runs (seats and toilets
spring to mind) I can't see Bombardier, or anyone, risking cash up
front.

This is the sort of thing that the vast sumes of money going to the
banks was supposed to stop - if it hasn't then isn't it time to name
and shame the banks concerned?

Tony

Let's name and shame the gutless Prime Minister that gave the banks £700
billion and wont stand up to them, even the nationalised ones.

Kevin

"Zen83237" wrote in message

wrote in message
...
On 20 Jan, 15:14, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:10:58 on
Tue, 20 Jan 2009, Paul Scott
remarked:
"BRITAIN'S only remaining train builder, Bombardier
Transportation, has been
forced to lay off 77 workers at its Derby factory - despite having
a full
order book - because some of its suppliers have had credit
facilities withdrawn by their banks.

In one of the strangest examples so far of the perverse effects of
the credit crunch Bombardier, which has had all its production
lines working at
full capacity, said banks have put such a squeeze on credit that
supplier
firms are finding it impossible to borrow to pay for extra
equipment and employees to meet Bombardier's growing demand for
components."

Bombardier could shock horror offer to pay the relevant
suppliers cash with order, if it's that much of an issue.
--
Roland Perry

I don't think they'd risk that - COD maybe but with a history of
suppliers going bust during big production runs (seats and toilets
spring to mind) I can't see Bombardier, or anyone, risking cash up
front.

This is the sort of thing that the vast sumes of money going to the
banks was supposed to stop - if it hasn't then isn't it time to name
and shame the banks concerned?

Tony

Let's name and shame the gutless Prime Minister that gave the banks
£700 billion and wont stand up to them, even the nationalised ones.

He did -- the instructions were that they had to act prudently, fix
their balance sheets, and repay the money pronto. In other words, the
one thing they weren't allowed to do was to lend money. He then
complained that they weren't lending money.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"Zen83237" wrote in message

wrote in message
...
On 20 Jan, 15:14, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:10:58 on
Tue, 20 Jan 2009, Paul Scott
remarked:
"BRITAIN'S only remaining train builder, Bombardier
Transportation, has been
forced to lay off 77 workers at its Derby factory - despite having
a full
order book - because some of its suppliers have had credit
facilities withdrawn by their banks.

In one of the strangest examples so far of the perverse effects of
the credit crunch Bombardier, which has had all its production
lines working at
full capacity, said banks have put such a squeeze on credit that
supplier
firms are finding it impossible to borrow to pay for extra
equipment and employees to meet Bombardier's growing demand for
components."

Bombardier could shock horror offer to pay the relevant
suppliers cash with order, if it's that much of an issue.
--
Roland Perry

I don't think they'd risk that - COD maybe but with a history of
suppliers going bust during big production runs (seats and toilets
spring to mind) I can't see Bombardier, or anyone, risking cash up
front.

This is the sort of thing that the vast sumes of money going to the
banks was supposed to stop - if it hasn't then isn't it time to name
and shame the banks concerned?

Tony

Let's name and shame the gutless Prime Minister that gave the banks
£700 billion and wont stand up to them, even the nationalised ones.

He did -- the instructions were that they had to act prudently, fix their
balance sheets, and repay the money pronto. In other words, the one thing
they weren't allowed to do was to lend money. He then complained that they
weren't lending money.
So he gave £500 billion pounds to the banks but didn't think about insisting
that they actually leant some of it. The reduction in VAT was a fiasco as
well.

On Jan 24, 10:41*pm, "Zen83237" wrote:
So he gave £500 billion pounds to the banks but didn't think about insisting
that they actually leant some of it. The reduction in VAT was a fiasco as
well.

s/'fiasco'/'reasonably good idea' and you sound like less of an
ignorant git.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org