|Bradford & Bingley
||EPS - Basic
||Market Cap (m)
Bradford & Bingley Share Discussion Threads
Showing 19476 to 19495 of 19500 messages
|But does not seem, as yet, to apply to RBS retail investors:
"Two other groups of shareholders suing RBS will not be part of the settlement.
These are the RBoS Shareholder Action Group, representing 27,000 retail investors, which has vowed to ensure that the bank's former top executives appear in court, and the RBS Rights Issue Action Group, which is being represented by law firm Leon Kaye."|
|Would be great if we did get something back, but we were not state backed, even thou we should have been.|
|I note this release this morning...
"The state-backed Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) is this weekend on the verge of agreeing to pay out hundreds of millions of pounds to shareholders over a £12bn fundraising led by former boss Fred Goodwin, even as its executive responsible for conduct and regulatory matters prepares to quit the lender.
Sky News can reveal that RBS is within days of announcing that it has settled with two groups of claimants who allege that they were misled into buying shares when the bank tapped investors for £12bn to shore up its finances just months before it almost collapsed.
Sources close to the situation said that a final agreement with the two groups was likely to be announced next week although they cautioned that it had still to be reached and could yet face further delays"
Will this open the way for similar payments to B&B shareholders who were misled into buying the Bradford & Bingley rights issue?|
|Its very difficult to change anything in this country because the systems of governance are not particularly democratic. They may pretend to try to be but the whole thing is a very unfair charade which is both self serving, autocratic. The capacity of such a system to protect the inept is quite staggering.|
my retirement fund
|Nothing will ever change, we have an electoral system that was put in place to ensure continuity & maintain the status quo.|
|All those that caused the problems walked off with large payoffs, large pension pots and probably into high paying jobs - the ordinary shareholder lost their investment even though they did not do anything wrong. Nothing has changed 8 years on.|
|optomistic - I know you can't/won't change your viewpoint from "it's all just GB's fault" to "remember what happened to Western banking in 2007/8", but unless you really do think GB personally organised the entire banking collapse (What for? And it happened in the US too.) I just don't know how you can understand what happened.
Once more, the government was, I imagine, much more concerned about the much larger number of ordinary depositors than the rather smaller number of significant holders of the risk capital. Not to mention the mortgagees.
If everything was as hunky-dory as you and others believe, then why was the share price falling? Surely it should have been rising and rising? Is the above B&B share chart displaying upside down?
Why was there a rights issue?
Why did the rights isue fail?
|pvb We are not talking about losing money on a share that has traded badly but a share that has been taken off the market by the government to the detriment of the shareholders. The facts, yes facts, before Broons intervention are all well documented in earlier posts on this thread.
Oh and just to mention I like many others on this thread I am sure have lost money on share dealings and accepted that it is part of the risk of holding shares.
But not the way the loss was imposed upon us with our BB holding.|
|Err... Shares are RISK CAPITAL. That means what it says on the tin. You don't get "compensation" for losing on shares. That's the whole concept.
Anyone here who disagrees..... well, send me your address. I can send you a list of shares where I lost money. I'm sure you will personally be up for "compensating" me, no? ;-)
Come on! This is a done deal. It's yesterday's (or even the day before yesterday) news. Give it a rest.|
|debbgee...and so I did BB and Lloyds in good measure, however with good fortune Lloyds (now a much larger position) will take care of my BB losses although I feel that what Broon did to BB was most wicked!|
|Well its not only for us whatabout all the pensions and pensioners were also always advised if they had spare capital to buy bank or buiding society shares ?|
|debbiegee...perhaps George will bring that subject to the fore in his speech tomorrow...or perhaps not :-/|
|OOPS it was all such a long time ago !
So could there be any chance shareholders could get some compensation ?|
|debbie - It was the Deposit business that was sold to Santander for £600mln while to mortgage side of things was taken over and Nationalised by the Government.
Just one year after both parts were making good profits for their now new owners.|
|Thanks for passing that on.
It seems we had £123m market cap when the govement took hold and the mortgage business was sold to Santander.
Is it possible shareholders could be in anyway compensated ?|
|LRJ - This is what I find so upsetting about B&B Nationalization, how one minute Richard Pym says everything's OK with B&B, then literally the next minute B&B's deposit book is sold to Santander, the same bank Pym sold Leicester ad Alliance to the rest is Nationalized. Then the next year both parts of B&B are back well into profit.|
|pvb - I'm not saying that B&B was a rosy picture. What I'm saying is that they were not insolvent, instead had a short term liquidity crises bought about by media speculation ("media speculation about the health and future independence of the bank increased and there was a significant increase in the rate of withdrawals of customer deposits,") and therefore a run on the bank as it were and if the Bank of England had provided it with liquidity as they did with other banks then in my good opinion B&B would still be around trading as a profitable company.
Any time Goldman Sachs is mentioned, well then a company is definitely finished or in the case of Greece the country was definitely finished as they have also pretty well trashed Tesco into the ground all for their own profit.|
|But looking back at reports from the time, they don't seem to match your rosy view of the RI:
|pvb - Then after the Rights Issue B&B said they now have the second highest tier 1 ratio of any bank and have sufficient funding for the next 18 months. From B&B themselves - "Tier 1 ratio is coming out at 10.1%; and a core Tier 1 ratio of 9.2%."
"The tier one capital ratio ended the H2 2009 period at 12.1% with no additional funding provided since nationalisation." And just 0.27% of mortgage balances in arrears representing just £101mln of a mortgage book of £37bln and made a profit of £79mln plus Santander made over £100mln from the part they bought from B&B.
as Sharw posted - "Completion of £400m Rights Issue; Bradford & Bingley is one of the best capitalised banks in the UK".
And answering my....'The year before B&B reported a good profit and the year after nationalization both the Government owned Mortgage book and the now owned Santander deposit book made huge profits and have continue to make good and increasing profits ever since.'
In my opinion what caused the collapse of B&B was the following, again from B&B themselves - "media speculation about the health and future independence of the bank increased and there was a significant increase in the rate of withdrawals of customer deposits."
In my good opinion if the Bank of England had provided B&B liquidity for say another 6 months then now B&B would be a profitable bank paying dividends as the two parts of B&B now owned by Santander and HMG are making good profits and providing hansom dividend for these two.|
|loganair 11 Jan'16 - 14:25 - 18613 of 18613
I posted a year before B&B was nationalized that in my good opinion that with in a year Northern Rock, Alliance and Leicester and B&B will no longer exist as it was obvious that the big boys wanted them out of the picture because these 3 ex-building societies were taking to higher percentage share of the mortgage market.
Sadly, that's exactly what happened.
Most of us noticed at the time that something else had happened.
The Rights Issue was fully under written and many share holders took up their rights.
So it all worked out OK then?
B&B was said to have the second highest tier 1 ratio of any bank and were saying they had sufficient funding for the next 18 months so how come just 6 weeks later they had to be nationalized.
So how come they launched a rights issue?
Both HBOS and RBS were far more insolvent then B&B ever was and they got backing from the Government.
B&B wasn't HBOS and RBS. It was a relatively small mortgage bank.
In my good opinion B&B was never insolvent, just had a short term liquidly problem and did not have to be nationalized.
But they couldn't raise the money they wanted.
Get over it.|