Bradford & Bingley Share Discussion Threads

[pwhite73] 14/3/2011 23:32

cygnet4 - 14 Mar'11 - 18:56 - 18436 of 18437

"On postive side as he seems to be saying he is sticking to his remit does this give scope for broader legal action?"

Yes. This is a process we have to go through. Of course he is not going to change his original position. For to do so would call into to question his competency and professionalism. However his decision is fundamentally flawed for three reasons and he knows it.

1. He asked the BOE/HMG to clarify what is meant by the term SLS. Of course they gave him answers fitting to their positions.

2. He has assumed BB was heading for administration had HMG not intervened which was in stark contrast to what the BOD announced only three days previously.

3. He said he could not take the sale of the branches into account as it happened after the transfer order. Talk about the bloody obvious. Of course it happened after the transfer order how else does he think HMG were able to flog the lot to Santander.

All of his points require the independent examination of a High Court Judge.

[sravi] 14/3/2011 19:38

He took extra 3 months to type the document. What a guy!

[greenrichard] 14/3/2011 18:24

Revised assessment notice published.



Zero pence confirmed.

Clokey last seen boarding a plane to Brazil with bulging suitcases (allegedly).

[loganair] 09/3/2011 14:09

If all the in arrears had to foreclose would cost B&B no more than £101.3m. They would get the majority of this back in foreclosure sales.

Even if B&B had to loose the full arrear amount would cost no more than 3 to 4 months profits.

I am really mad because as far as I can see B&B share holders were totally stitched-up with our assets being given away to Santander.

And as stated in B&B's last financial report the Governement has put in NO captial since nationalisation.

So we've been told that a company since nationalisation that's made £1bn in profit for HMG and Santander is worth nothing.

[loganair] 09/3/2011 10:45

titonboy - B&B did not need any wholesale funding as they stated just a couple of weeks before nationalisation that they where well funded for at least the next year going forward and therefore did not require to go back to the wholesale market for at least the next 12 months.

As you rightly say the problem was very-very short term liquidity. Preston announced their was a problem with B&B so the next morning there were huge ques of people outside B&B's branches trying to withdraw their deposits, a total of £200m was withdrawn in just two days. It's as simple as that, B&B did not have sufficient cash on hand to pay out what the depositors wished all because of the report by BBC's Preston.

B&B were therefore not at the mercy of the market, but at the mercy of depositors fears provided by Preston's report.

[loganair] 09/3/2011 09:43

Just look at the Labour Government.

1. They sold over 50% of our Gold reserves for around an average of $270 per once.
2. They then Stole huge amounts from our Private Pension Schemes.
3. They then Stole huge amounts from the poor share holders of both Bradford and Bingley and Northern Rock.

And what do we get in return, the Bankers paying themselves huge, massive bonuses, around £12m for the head of Barclays for one.

[loganair] 09/3/2011 09:30

B&B tier 1 capital ratio ended the period first half 2010 at 12.1% and no additional capital has been provided since nationalisation.

The above is from Bradford and Bingley's own accounts, HMG has provided no extra capital to B&B since nationalisation and this is supposed to have been a bankcrupt bank.

960,000 people have lost out on a well funded bank, just so the grubby little Spanish Bankers could get their hands on it. Some of these people were elderly retired folk owning £100k's in B&B shares providing them with a nice little income in the final years of their life and have now been left with nothing.

[loganair] 09/3/2011 08:48

Today I was listening on the radio when they were talking about the bad and good bank.

In the case of the bad bank which I understand about 15% of Bradford and Bingley's worse loans are included is in the worse case scenario the Government are going to get all their money back with a likelihood of the Government going to make a profit.

This shows that even for Northern Rock, if the Government had just fully backed these two banks, allowing them to borrow from the Government when wholesale borrowing on the open market dried up they would now both be profitable banks.

Look at the engineering companies, several made £100m's of loses over a three or four year period before returning to profit and they managed to survive OK and in most cases for example Invensys and Cookson are now making good profits with their share prices being up over 20x's from their lows.

Bradford and Bingley only made a loss in 1 single year (£196m), the year before and the year after they made substantial profits. For the 3 years combined they made substantial profits of £100m's. Profit for first half 2010 being £896m.

B&B tier 1 capital ratio ended the period first half 2010 at 12.1% and no additional capital has been provided since nationalisation.

The total value of the B&B arrears debt is £101.3m representing 0.27% of mortgage balances.

As I wrote when the financial crisis began that the major banks wanted Bradford and Bingley, Alliance and Leicester and Northern Rock out of the way and that's exactly what happened.

If one looks at todays results for Northern Rock, only 0.17% or mortgages are over 3 months in arrears or just £1.9m. Most of this years losses was due to seperating Northern Rock from NRAM. It now only owes the Government £1.4bn. They even managed to pay £13.1m in performance bonuses.

So what has happened, Santander was allowed to buy Alliance and Leicester and the deposit book and branch network of Bradford and Bingley spring boarding them from a little under 10% of the UK retail market to over 20%.

So now we're left in the UK with only 5 banks and 2 Building Societies with over 95% of the UK retail market, with Lloyds and Santander holding in the region of 50% market share and they call that competition.

Even now, if Lloyds was to sell off the assets it has to as a job lot it would make a bank with 4.6% of UK Retail assets, approximately the same size as the old Alliance and Leicester. Will this happen, I doubt very much it will be allowed to even if it wanted to.

[pwhite73] 09/3/2011 01:08

fastray - 6 Mar'11 - 16:21 - 18424 of 18426

"Mail said that instatutional investors haven't appealed , why?"


There is no real point in them appealing at this stage when PIs are appealing. If the result comes back unchanged they might then consider their legal options.
BB was capitalised at only £120m when nationalised so there really isn't that much for them to fight over. It is PIs that got stung the hardest.

[daytraders] 08/3/2011 20:50

Just so he can justify his £4mill pay packet from the goverment.

[fastray] 08/3/2011 20:29

Why is it taking so long to say we are getting zero.......why oh why

[fastray] 06/3/2011 16:21

Mail said that instatutional investors haven't appealed , why? they lost alot more than any of us , abit strange , makes you wonder whats going on here as even if they didn't have a case you would think they would try and appeal...

[montyhedge] 06/3/2011 16:08

Bond holders been mugged.

[pwhite73] 06/3/2011 15:19

fastray

What Clokey done in his original assessment was to assume that the sale of assets to Santander, the injection of £20 billion and the nationalisation of BB all took place at the same time. So BB owed HMG 20 billion at the time of nationalisation. That approach would ensure there can never be a single penny's compensation.

However a court may view events differently.

[fastray] 06/3/2011 14:57

I can not undersatnd how BB owes 20 billion when it got taken over it hadn't borrowed any money so if it did need money after then thats a differant matter, it had money and assets at the time of takeover, if he comes back with zero we should take it to europe as they always turn over uk policy......

[daytraders] 05/3/2011 21:39

£20billion big difference.

[keya5000] 05/3/2011 21:18

PMSL B&B owe the Govt £20b......

Daily Mail makes me sick...

[sharw] 05/3/2011 20:42

The article is here:

[pwhite73] 05/3/2011 16:18

What Clokey said in his initial ruling was that when BandB was sold to Santander it was already the property of HMG. Therefore I cannot see any change in his decision unless he has moved from this position.

In essence when a bank has been nationalised there can be no compensation to ordinary shareholders because it must be taken that if HMG has to take a bank into public ownership it is because there is no shareholder value left in it.

The next port of call will be the courts if Clokey upholds his initial ruling. For what is the point of having a banking compensation scheme or an independent valuer if the law is drafted and always interpreted in favour of HMG.

The Daily Mail is only speculating at this stage on the grounds that many institutions with lower ranking debt did not appeal. But this means nothing.

[daytraders] 05/3/2011 13:14

i still cant believe what has happend really, santan making a fortune out of what they got from us for free, a scandall, and all the other banks doing really well and they were alot worse of than we ever were at the time.

[seccol] 05/3/2011 12:32

Article in the Mail today,
in a nutshell there will be no payment............