Alliance & Leicester Share Discussion Threads

[gbb483] 23/7/2008 16:02

So sell your AL. shares

[tricky1992000] 23/7/2008 15:42

this stinks

AL. shares 348.25 + 18p dividend X 3 = £10.98

bnc shares = £9.47

[jennyj] 23/7/2008 15:21

I would if I could.

Why is A+L giving away £100 with current accounts and offering competitive mortgages at high multiples if it is in so much trouble.

Stinks of something dodgy going on here.

Any private equity firms want to help me out? Lets keep the market remotely fair and at least get book value. No more brown envolopes.

[k38] 23/7/2008 14:39

I SEE NO deal going through HERE.AL worth a lot more...im not a holder.

[trundler] 23/7/2008 11:53

Jenny

If you are so incensed why don't you make a higher offer?

[future financier] 23/7/2008 09:58

Acamas - it is illegal for the predator to fund purchases above the offer price - and if they have not funded their "agents" why should the agents buy knowing they will make a loss? And before you make the obvious point - this is one area where the FSA and police do tend to be fairly effective.

[trundler] 23/7/2008 09:56

It also refelcts the fact that as the deal is a paper one, as Santander's shares rise the value of the AL shares are worth more and so are worth buying, although possibly at a slight discount due to the time until the deal.

[acamas] 22/7/2008 08:33

Normally it is agents of the predator strengthening the predator's position in the deal. They are removing stock that potential opponents could obtain to scupper the take over. That is my belief

[andrewlewis] 22/7/2008 08:24

Who is buying all these AL. shares in the last few days and why are they buying if the takeover is setup? Any thoughts

[indieman] 22/7/2008 07:22

k38,

Highly unlikely. The Chief Exec would never be taken seriously again and his statement that the deal offers shareholders certainty in uncertain times would look just a tad hollow.

[k38] 22/7/2008 01:44

Let's say...

When a deal is not a real deal
perhaps the FSA bring along santander's bit to comfort the market.When things have improved AL pays 12m to them and 'we are all happy again'.


perhaps, maybe, soon we will all know.Good luck

[diku] 21/7/2008 17:16

The 2003 sell off was an event driven sell off and nothing to do with accounts...(Iraq War)...at the time the market was anticipating a possible long drawn out war...the life companies were heavy sellers of the market at the time to maintain their ratios...as soon as the air strikes were over the market took off with a V bounce...now it's reallity sell off...

[indomie] 21/7/2008 16:51

Hi All,

Just wanted to check, if banking sentiment improves (and santander's share price rises) that will increase the value of the deal right?

Also, the markets will look alot different in Oct when the deal completes (either better or worse) but if things are looking a bit brighter, couldn't the directors just withdraw their recommendation and pay the £12m break fee instead?

At least for the moment they have put a floor on the share price which was heading further south on sentiment....

[jennyj] 21/7/2008 15:03

NEGATIVE SPIN



This report has used a picture of the bank on a winters foggy day. This helps them sell the lie that banks are in trouble.

[keith95] 21/7/2008 10:17

Hi Indieman,

Fair point.... but markets are not efficient and without a nominal clue about what is value .... one would never know when to buy or sell, other than day trade. When fear and greed kick in, markets overshoot and undershoot. We all know that.


When the market could not trust accounts, it led to the final leg of the 2003 bear market. Given the amount of "trust" required on accounts and the quantities of money at stake there is a good argument for truely independent accounting ... rather than a quick once-over of the books.

As I've said, Santander have played a good time and pounced at the low and AL. seem to have bent over for reasons that are beyond me at the moment. I'm not happy with the FSA leaning on AL. if true... but the argument might be something along the lines of "No RI like we told you to do in March == no support from Government == sh*t even given your current high Tier 1 ratio."

Sentiment hammers all stocks with some correlation .. so the game is to pick the stronger ones that are equally hammered to the poorer ones as I see it.

AL. has a good quality loan book, its current A/Cs are still attracting new business and as far as we know its still making money.

Thats why people have wanted to buy it and have.

One takes it on the chin and moves on. But that does not mean one has to like it!

[indieman] 21/7/2008 09:12

Keith,

I don't look at accounts, primarily because I don't understand them, but also because I am aware that they are rarely sufficiently meaningful to hang a decent argument on.

Jim Slater was an accountant. Slater Walker was one of the great accounting scams of the 1960/70s. Nearly all of the companies he bought made losses after S-W's purchase of them. Nothing of the sort could be seen in the accounts.

I'm not suggesting there is an irregularity in A&L's accounts, just that the share price, which reflects the opinion of everything that is believed about A&L, accurate or otherwise, is a better basis for valuation. Remember that those whose views are accurate are likely to take advantage of the others. This will correct the share price.

[keith95] 20/7/2008 22:09

Just wrote to the FSA quoting Guardian article and asked for compensation.

We will find out all in results in 3 weeks.

[diku] 20/7/2008 22:08

I think there is a cover up here...FSA big hand at play with the Spanish bank...why didn't HSBC get involved ? would they have come under competition rules...it looks it was all laid out on the plate to the Spanish...a rushed deal...that can be done and dusted without any ifs and buts...and would not fall foul of the competition...

[keith95] 20/7/2008 21:51

Absolutely zastas.... that march meeting!

Next year we might see the FSA advising citigroup to buy BARC for 20p, LLOY for 10p and the UK for 1p.

What a bunch of idiots IMO DYOR etc.

[sbs] 20/7/2008 20:41

Make no mistake: no one will regret the capital raising which has been going on at the banks in a year or two.

[zastas] 20/7/2008 20:11

As others have suggested , AL. could always raise capital, preferably using BARC's method. Alternatively, drastically cut lending. Customer deposits are 56%. It may leed to a temporary profit reduction but it does not have to. Increasing the lending margins is crucial. Anything is better than to sell out so cheaply.

[zastas] 20/7/2008 20:04

Keith95

I agree that the Board is failing the shareholders. Indeed, AL.'s trading statement in May was very positive. I agree, either they lied-which I do not believe- or after the value destruction they are now armtwisted in selling out so cheaply.

The FSA should be sued. Most of the shareprice collapse has happened because of the botched RIs. The FSA must be responsible for this. Remember, in Feb all banks reported relatively good results; they increased even the dividends. The message was : we are adequately capitalised. One month later the CEOs of the banks were called to a meeting at the BOE. I bet the FSA and Treasury were there too. Three weeks later RBS kicked off with the RI and the rest is history.

There must be a connection. It is too co-incidental to explain this bankers U-turn. Unless you believe that they were collectively lying.

Will we ever here the truth? I suspect the FSA, stung by the correct criticism that it was asleep at the wheel, decided now to over-react in the opposite direction and to force/bully/blackmail the banks into capital raising. Probably nothing was minuted down.

[wenlynn] 20/7/2008 19:00

Corporate deposits are £6 bln.