RBS
THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC
stockNYSE

> Not as low as 7.8x P/E You're completely wrong and frankly you seem to know nothing about UK stocks or this stock in particular. RBS was trading CHEAPER than 7.8x P/E back in 2007. Here's an article where the P/E is referred to; I'm not even cherry picking a particular date. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2007/sep/15/moneysupplement.moneyinvestments1?utm_source=chatgpt.com

you would be surprised... I can actually see the responses via notifications even if a user deletes it, which most of them have been. Not sure why you find me calling it RBS as a big issue. It's just easier to address the structure of the bank. I mean at the end of the day, it will always be RBS's NatWest. Not NatWest standalone.

No one thinks that. And the company is called Nat West. There’s no such listed company as RBS. You cannot buy RBS shares

I would argue that UK banks are the best all around. They have had to compete with fintechs since day one of their forming like Revolut and Monzo. Many other banks in other countries have not had such intense competition like in the UK. This has caused UK banks to modernise much quicker vs other banks in other countries. RBS is the largest lender to SMEs in the UK as well.

Curious why you keep referring to it as RBS. It is NatWest, plain and simple. There isn't a secret cabal of Scrooge McDucks running things upstairs.

The bank has nothing to do with pre-1999 Natwest management, hence why i keep reiterating it's RBS. Makes it easier for me to share my point and also considering the fact that many people here seem to think that Natwest bought RBS, i would say it's better to just call it RBS to show the distinction.

It’s not the daisy wheel. All RBS staff call it the cats arsehole.

You keep saying RBS. It’s called NatWest now.

RBS are heavily exposed to UK consumer credit and the wider UK economy. Labour are doing there best to bankrupt the country so the price includes the risk of widespread consumer default

RBS was shite at least back during the GFC. They used to have an A level grade filter for front office which led to them hiring a bunch of muppets lmao.

NatWest was bought by RBS Group in 2000

Not a chance. RBS don't attract the calibre of banking people to take it up a level. It's change management function is stuck in the 1990s PRINCE2 mumbo jumbo and is inefficient. It will die off or get split up at some point.

You won’t have choice soon, this move isn’t unique to RBS. Barclays have announced 5000 job losses globally for the same reason

RBS Group acquired the old NatWest Group, it merged in an operational sense, but RBS bought NatWest. That’s a well understood fact, including by the bank itself: In 2000 the Royal Bank of Scotland Group acquired [National Westminster Bank](https://www.natwestgroup.com/heritage/companies/national-westminster-bank-plc.html), along with its subsidiaries [Ulster Bank](https://www.natwestgroup.com/heritage/companies/ulster-bank.html), [Isle of Man Bank](https://www.natwestgroup.com/heritage/companies/isle-of-man-bank-ltd.html), [Lombard North Central](https://www.natwestgroup.com/heritage/companies/lombard-north-central-plc.html) and [Coutts & Co](https://www.natwestgroup.com/heritage/companies/coutts-and-co.html). https://www.natwestgroup.com/heritage/companies/natwest-group-plc.html This was much to the chagrin of the, now former, CEO Rose. She was lower management in old NatWest and apparently held a grudge long enough to see her change the name of the group. The rationale at the time was to reflect the larger customer base and try and disconnect the company from the baggage of the 2008 crisis, there is a thread of truth in that but it was largely nonsense of course. Infamously, she was later forced to resign having been way too facilitating in a conversation over dinner with a journalist, concerning a well known (in the UK at least) asshat.

the 280 one next door is the old RBS hq lmao

No. RBS was eaten by NatWest in the fallout from the GFC. Even before that, no.

RBS already moving forward with US expansion. [https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/natwest-revives-us-expansion-plans-114043489.html](https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/natwest-revives-us-expansion-plans-114043489.html)

imo it's valid to expect RBS to be worth more and surpass Lloyds' BV. NWG is reaching upwards RoTE of 21% on a much smaller, leaner asset base, yet Lloyds is trading at a higher ratio. Buying a cleaner, more capital-efficient engine at 1.19x book while its inferior peer trades at 1.32x isn't really NWG being at it's fair value is it? FYI Lloyds bank is the same group that is undergoing an expensive car finance scandal which adds on the fact that it's heavily undervalued. It has no legacy assets bogging it down like Lloyds bank, yet it's somehow worth much less?

I'm Scottish. RBS is dogshit. Case closed.

Yeah, I thought it was crazy no one else has mentioned this bank on this sub, so I made this post to see what people's opinions are vs the casual big tech posts. The main reason RBS has been facing such a valuation drag wasn't the business itself; it was just sheer incompetence by the UK government. They clung onto their shares for way too long and only decided to finally exit in 2025, almost two decades after the bailout. That constant government selling pressure artificially suppressed the stock price for years, which is exactly why the P/E is so compressed right now. RBS is literally an outlier compared to other UK banks. It has repeatedly beaten expectations and is now giving Lloyds a serious run for its money, despite being a much leaner and smaller bank. Just to note, Lloyds has been fully privatised since 2017, so it's a massive accomplishment that RBS is catching up this fast. The heavy restructuring occurred while it was under public ownership, and that's the core of the bull case: the market hasn't priced in the unrealised value of a bank that has practically been remodelled into a highly efficient, fintech-style legacy player. Also, your point about the local economy overlooks how these banks actually make money. The UK banking sector sits on massive amounts of sticky retail deposits that don't flighty move around, allowing them to pocket huge margins on interest rates. Plus, these institutions don't just rely on local high streets; they outsource income by connecting to global markets in the US and Europe. A great example is RBC (Royal Bank of Canada), which has huge wealth management operations abroad so its stock isn't entirely dragged down by a lack of Canadian domestic growth. NatWest operates with that same kind of structural resilience, which is why a 7.8x multiple makes zero sense for a bank printing a 21.6% RoTE. Even if we agree about the UK being an economic drag, it doesn't make sense to put Natwest at such a discount vs other domestic competitors.

Not as low as 7.8x P/E For reference, Barclays, which has a very risky and heavy wall street division, trades at a P/E of 8.3x - RBS being at a lower P/E ratio of Barclays makes no sense when it's no longer got risky stuff such as RBS Greenwich, or anything that could be a bog down for the group such as Citizens bank USA etc. It's one of the most efficient banks there ever has been and what's funny is how as punishment, they had to close down all RBS branches in England and Wales. "Oh no don't threaten me with a good time" because now no UK bank wants to have a lot of branches open as it's easy cost-cutting when barely anyone uses them.

Per institution. So RBS nat West. Probably couttes etc all lumbered together... The US seems better but I'd be wary of banks