Monday, 9 February 2009  A bad Barclays  According to Robert
Peston, Barclays' share price appears not to reflect the
underlying state of the bank. It raised £10bn in new (private,
not public) capital last year and made £6bn in pre-tax profits
(between £4bn and £5bn post-tax). Thus, in theory, its balance
sheet should contain around £15bn of new capital since this time
last year. Not to mention whatever was on there before.  And
yet, its shares are valued at under £9bn. Presumably this is
because of uncertainty about the value of some of its assets,
and the fear that they will be written down - eliminating the
capital base of the bank.  So why doesn't Barclays take - on its
own initiative - the advice many economists have given to the US
government, and create its own "bad bank"? It could simply split
itself into two or more pieces, with the better half of the
assets in Bank A and the riskier half in Bank B; and provide the
minimal required capitalisation to bank B. B would carry off a
big chunk of capital bu