Just another "dum post" that might prove to be of value to some. Specialized literature (checked it out for youself!) on banking by top authors on the subject indicates that an ordinary ongoing viable financial institutions include on their budget preferred dividends and/or their redemption if planned on a given year as a cost of doing business (just like salaries, rent water and power etc.). As I stated before, suspending the divy is an unequivocal signal that RBS is now an insolvent financial institution unable to comply with elementary standard budgeting procedures let alone long term financial planning. Preferred Dividend suspension has less to do with competition but with prolonging survival (i.e. delaying liquidation to get the most out of asset sales). Neither ING nor LLoyds were affected in this manner by Neelie Kroes they took their lumps but did not compromise their solvency in front of the public to this degree suspending dividends.RBS PF I believe were offered at USD 25 with an A rating so that is not unthinkable that a good lawyer with proper DD could very well present a case of misrepresentation or even embezzlement on scale without precendent (Someting like USD 15 billion in securities ?). Is this situation what probably prompted financial authorities after trying their best for over a year, to proceed with a two year suspension (for starters). Citi , ING, LLoyds were capable of managing it differently and will get ahead. This version that "Neelie just wanted blood" does not hold water.
Its sad to see people doing the arithmetic of cashflows, NPV etc caused by the suspension, and price considerations hypothesizing if at this or that price is a good deal without due regard to structural elementary credit analysis concepts. This mess is just begining to unfold I sincerely hope that it has a happy ending in spite of the adversity.