Gold vs US Dollar

Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.

Get Started

Bradford & Bingley Investors - BB.

Share Name	Share Symbol	Market	Stock Type
Bradford & Bing	BB.	London	Ordinary Share

	Price Change	Price Change %	Share Price	Last Trade
	0.00	0.00%	20.00	01:00:00

Open Price	Low Price	High Price	Close Price	Previous Close
				20.00

more quote information »

Top Investor Posts

Top Posts
Posted at 15/5/2017 10:08 by loganair If RBS share holders have been offered some settlement over their Rights Issue, how about us B&B share holders??? B&B share holders were also mislead when it came to B&B´s Rights Issue saying that after gone through that B&B will have the second highest Tier 1 Capital Ratio and sufficent funding to cover the next 18 months. With in a month B&B had been either been sold off to Santander or other parts Nationalized. It seems overal that the government are going to make a good profit out of B&B and seems to me that this profit is going to cover some of the losses that it has made by being in RBS. Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) has held last-ditch legal talks with former investors ahead of a trial expected to see Fred Goodwin giving his first account of the lender's collapse into a decade of state ownership. Lawyers for RBS last week met representatives of the final remaining shareholder action group suing it over the bank's £12bn rights issue in 2008. Sources familiar with the meeting, which took place last Tuesday, say that it concluded with little prospect of a settlement. There are now just eight days to go until the trial is due to begin. RBS is not thought to have used the meeting to raise its settlement offer above the 43.5p-per-share deal it agreed to pay some members of the action group last month. Thousands of small investors, as well as some institutions, are pressing ahead with their claim despite having instigated last week's meeting, according to people close to the talks. "They are miles apart in terms of agreeing a deal, and time is running out," one insider said this weekend. Some members of the RBoS Shareholder Action Group are willing to settle but are said to have been holding out for a deal worth at least 92p-per-share, just under half of what investors paid in the ill-fated rights issue. Others, however, are determined to see Mr Goodwin and his former senior colleagues give a public account of their actions. Mr Goodwin, who forfeited his knighthood following the implosion of RBS, has never spoken publicly about the events leading up to its £45.5bn taxpayer bailout, but is due to take the stands next month. RBS has already reached settlements with four other claimant groups in recent months, and had set aside up to £800m to bring an end to all of the shareholder legal claims. The investors allege that RBS, under Mr Goodwin's leadership, misled them about the state of the bank's finances when it raised billions of pounds from them just months before it had to be rescued. Mr Goodwin, along with Sir Tom McKillop, the former RBS chairman, are named alongside the state-backed bank as defendants in the case. The Government continues to own more than 70% of the bank, and there is little prospect of it ever recouping the money it paid to avert its outright collapse. Most of the 27,000 members who were originally part of the RBoS Shareholder Action Group were ordinary retail investors who lost money after subscribing to the new RBS shares. To date, more than £100m has been spent by the bank defending the claims, a bill which includes the legal costs of Mr Goodwin and other former directors. Those legal fees have drawn criticism from investors and politicians, but were defended by Sir Howard Davies, RBS's chairman, at its annual meeting last week. Sir Vince Cable, who was Business Secretary in the 2010-15 Coalition Government, said last week that the legal bill was "obscene". "The Treasury, as majority shareholder, should have intervened," he wrote in an opinion piece for City AM. "Chancellor Philip Hammond and [RBS chief executive Ross] McEwan must both now wonder whether that money would have been better invested in a settlement. "The claimants are seeking £700m, including interest, and have understandably turned their noses up at offers amounting to barely 20 per cent of this claim." Read Full Thread Reply
Posted at 03/12/2016 16:30 by pvb 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." Read Full Thread Reply
Posted at 03/12/2016 10:39 by optomistic 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? Read Full Thread Reply
Posted at 11/1/2016 14:00 by pvb Do I still hear the sound of dead horses being flogged on this board? How could B&B rights issue have taken place just before they were deemed insolvent. Surely the insolvency followed the failure of the RI? And they needed the RI to succeed because otherwise... The rights issue must have been based on lies, and the money raised went straight from the investors to the government. What money? They were insolvent. The government sold on the depositors bank in order to protect the depositors. You seem to want the "government", i.e. taxpayers, to cover the shareholder's losses in a failed PLC! It isn't going to happen. If you really don't understand this you should never have been a shareholder. If you need the government to act as guarantor, buy Gilts. Then they paid some so-called expert to tell us the shares were worth nothing. Well if the company was insolvent then do you need "experts" to tell you the shares were "worth nothing"? Read Full Thread Reply
Posted at 11/1/2016 13:44 by tyranosaurus If Royal Mail had been sold at it`s proper value there would have been enough extra money raised to compensate all B&B shareholders in full. UK was screwed by the Americans and now they want to be screwed again, this time by Goldman Sachs. How could B&B rights issue have taken place just before they were deemed insolvent. The rights issue must have been based on lies, and the money raised went straight from the investors to the government. Then they paid some so-called expert to tell us the shares were worth nothing. Is there NOT even one UK institution that could arrange a privatisation ??? Read Full Thread Reply
Posted at 31/12/2015 09:25 by birchin Bradford & Bingley investors call for probe: Watchdog accused of sweeping bank's collapse and fire sale to Santander under the carpet By James Salmon for the Daily Mail Published: 21:55, 21 December 2015 \| Updated: 10:15, 22 December 2015 City regulators were last night accused of sweeping the scandal of the Bradford & Bingley collapse under the carpet because of their refusal to launch an investigation into the lender’s downfall. Shareholders described the failure to instigate a probe as a ‘travesty’. Tim Lowden, the deputy chairman of the Bradford & Bingley Shareholder Action Group, accused the Government and regulators of burying details of the affair. He also said the Treasury had ‘stonewalled’ shareholders and not responded to the group’s letters over the years. Questions: City regulators have been accused of sweeping the scandal of Bradford & Bingley's 2008 collapse under the carpet +2 Questions: City regulators have been accused of sweeping the scandal of Bradford & Bingley's 2008 collapse under the carpet The lobby group has been spurred into action following the publication of a damning report by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority into the collapse of Halifax Bank of Scotland. The report, which cost £7million and took more than three years to complete, highlighted the extraordinary failings of the now defunct Financial Services Authority, HBOS’s board and its auditors KPMG to recognise the extent of the bank’s problems. But it also contained startling details about how the Treasury and the Government discussed a scheme with HBOS to ‘rescue’ B&B. Those plans persisted until just before HBOS itself collapsed. The delusional idea was abandoned just before B&B was nationalised and HBOS was rescued by Lloyds in September 2008. B&B’s branches and savings book were sold on the cheap to Spanish-owned bank Santander. The nationalisation of B&B and the fire sale of its assets was a devastating blow for almost 1m private shareholders and bondholders, who were wiped out. Many of them were savers when B&B was a building society and received windfall shares after it converted to a bank. But while hugely expensive inquiries were launched into the demise of HBOS and Royal Bank of Scotland, B&B shareholders are little closer to finding out what happened than they were seven years ago. Lord Turner, the former chairman of the now defunct Financial Services Authority, promised a full report into the downfall of HBOS in the summer of 2011. But he also said that it was pointless to investigate the collapse of smaller institutions such as B&B because no lessons could be learned. The publication of the HBOS report has only served to heighten B&B shareholders’ sense of injustice. Lowden said: ‘The failure to find out what went wrong and who was to blame is a complete travesty. This scandal has been swept under the carpet. Demands: Despite frequent calls by shareholder groups for proper compensation and an inquiry into Bradford and Bingley's collapse this never happened +2 Demands: Despite frequent calls by shareholder groups for proper compensation and an inquiry into Bradford and Bingley's collapse this never happened ‘The Treasury and regulators seemed to push the misleading impression to the public that Bradford & Bingley was just a small building society up north and so it did not matter too much if it went bust. ‘But a huge number of savers have lost money and deserve to finally learn the truth about what happened.’ The Government appointed accountancy firm PwC in 2010 to determine whether shareholders – who lost between £800 and £1,000 each on average – were due any compensation, but investors were told they would get nothing. PwC determined that the bank would have fallen into administration without being bailed out, rendering its shares worthless. But B&B shareholders insist this is not the case and that the lender could have survived without being nationalised, so long as it was given emergency support from the Bank of England. They have pointed to the lender’s final interim financial results that were published on August 29, 2008 – signed off by auditors KPMG – which described it as ‘one of the best capitalised banks in the UK’. This echoes the reassurances given by HBOS – also audited by KPMG – shortly before it collapsed. B&B shareholders had been persuaded just weeks earlier to come to its aid and buy £400million of new shares in an emergency rights issue. Read Full Thread Reply
Posted at 19/6/2015 14:13 by loganair Goldman Sachs To Advise UK On Bank Sales: Goldman Sachs is to advise the Government on the sale of its remaining stakes in Britain's bailed-out lenders at the same time as one of its divisions tries to acquire billions of pounds of bank assets from the taxpayer. Sky News has learnt that Goldman was hired as the privatisation adviser to UK Financial Investments (UKFI) just days after George Osborne announced that he would begin selling the state's shares in Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) within months. Goldman's appointment may prove to be controversial given criticism of its role advising the Treasury on the nationalisation of Northern Rock in 2008, and its securities division's interest in buying Granite, a £13bn mortgage portfolio put up for sale by the Chancellor earlier this year. Underlining the web of relationships managed by investment banks, the Wall Street giant worked with Bradford & Bingley on its attempts to stave off collapse in 2008, and attempted to broker a rescue deal led by TPG - one of the firms that Goldman is now partnering with in an effort to buy the Granite assets. To add a further layer of complexity, Goldman will be advising UKFI on the sale of its shareholding in RBS, while also competing against RBS as a rival bidder in the Granite auction. Goldman will replace JP Morgan as UKFI's privatisation adviser, and will assist the Treasury agency with its plans for placing billions of pounds of shares in Lloyds Banking Group and RBS. Sources said Goldman - like JP Morgan before it - would be paid for its work with UKFI, although that may involve a discount to its usual commercial fee, in line with much of the work done for the Government on asset privatisations in recent months. The Conservatives committed during the General Election campaign to launching a retail offering of Lloyds shares within 12 months, with bonus shares offered to investors who retain their stakes for a minimum period. Outlining his plans for RBS in a speech at the City’s Mansion House last week, Mr Osborne described the lender as "the hardest nut to crack", adding: "I was not responsible for the bailout of RBS or the price paid then for shares bought by the taxpayer: but I am responsible for getting the best deal now for the taxpayer and doing whatever I can to support the British economy. "There is no doubt that starting to sell the Government’s stake in RBS is the right thing to do on both counts." The Chancellor pointed to advice from the investment bank Rothschild and Mark Carney, the Bank of England Governor, that further delaying the sale made little sense, even though a disposal of taxpayers' 78% stake in RBS at the current share price would result in a £7bn loss. Rothschild's report suggested that when fees paid to the Treasury by rescued banks were taken into account, taxpayers could make an aggregate £14bn profit if the remaining stakes in Lloyds and RBS were sold at their current levels. The appointment of Goldman comes as RBS overhauls its own City relationships, with Bank of America Merrill Lynch expected to replace UBS as one of the taxpayer-backed lender’s corporate brokers. Jim O'Neil, a respected investment banker who previously ran UKFI, will be among the key figures overseeing the relationship if the move is confirmed. Spokesmen for both UKFI and Goldman declined to comment on Thursday. Read Full Thread Reply
Posted at 20/4/2015 20:06 by chesty1 Bradford & Bingley (B&B) Nationalisation - Update. The attached press release together with the letter to Mr Miliband has been sent to selected journalists. The question posed is: Why did the UK Government support RBS and HBOS with over £60 billion of covert funding whilst destroying B&B as a viable business during the 2008 banking crisis...... A Letter to Ed Miliband asking why the UK Government favoured the Scottish Banks in the 2008 banking crisis. London: Leeds. 20-04-15. The B&B Action Group (BBAG), a voluntary not for profit company limited by guarantee which represents nearly one million share/bond holders, has sent the attached letter to Mr Miliband. It believes the nationalisation of B&B in September 2008 and the sale of its savings book and retail network, which destroyed it as an ongoing business, was a flawed decision made in haste and inconsistent with the support given to Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS) which had far weaker balance sheets than B&B. Since then despite hundreds of freedom of information requests the B&B shareholders still do not know how and why it was destroyed by the UK Government. For nearly seven years Whitehall and Westminster have resorted to obfuscation, subterfuge and the 'public interest' refuge to avoid telling the truth which makes a mockery of open and democratic government. The spirit of Sir Humphrey Appleby is alive and well in the corridors of power. In previous correspondence BBAG asked Mr Miliband if he would hold an inquiry or make reparations to B&B shareholders should he achieve power after the election in May. His response spoke of a 'world wide crisis', an excuse used by successive governments to justify the expropriation of B&B - an unacceptable smoke screen. The main causes of the UK banking crisis were the introduction of flawed accounting standards in 2005 by the UK Government and the European Union, which enabled greedy bankers to declare false profits, and the total failure of the Treasury and the Financial Services Authority in their duty of care to private savers and investors. The banking crisis 'post mortem' by the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum indicates that B&B had a far stronger balance sheet than Royal Bank of Scotland and Halifax Bank of Scotland. Furthermore public statements by Messrs Kent and Pym, chairman and CEO of B&B, both pre and post the nationalisation conflicted with the UK Government's justification of its action. Despite this the two Scottish banks secured over £60 billion of government support just days after B&B was expropriated and its savings book and retail network sold at a fire sale price, which destroyed it as an ongoing business. B&B shareholders, the former owners of the company, are entitled to know why the UK Government of which Mr Miliband was a senior minister ensured the survival of RBS and HBOS but destroyed B&B as a viable business. And now the letter sent to Mr Miliband. Dear Mr Miliband The Nationalisation of Bradford & Bingley (B&B) Why did the Labour Party favour the Scottish Banks? As chairman of the B&B Action Group (BBAG) I refer to my previous correspondence in which I asked whether you intended to hold an inquiry or consider reparations for B&B shareholders should you achieve power after the election in May. Your reply was the standard Treasury response, which is unacceptable to nearly one million B&B employees, share/bondholders and the wider Bingley community, as it spoke of a worldwide banking crisis and that due process had been followed at every stage of the valuation of B&B by Mr Peter Clokey, the independent valuer appointed by the UK Government. However the Compensation Order's terms of reference were far too narrow and the 'in administration' approach ensured a nil valuation and prejudiced legal claims and submissions to the independent valuer and the Upper Tribunal review body. Mr Clokey has stated that if his terms of reference had differed he may have come to a different conclusion. 'The worldwide crisis' quoted by successive UK Governments as justification of the expropriation of B&B is no more than a smoke screen. South America, Canada, the Middle/Far East, Asia and many UK, USA and EU registered banks were largely untouched, the main problems arose with some financial institutions in the USA, the UK and Europe. The reasons for the UK banking crisis was a bank and government generated credit bubble the catalyst for which was the introduction of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in 2005 by the UK Government and the European Union, which enabled greedy bankers to indulge in false accounting resulting in significant amounts of corporation tax paid on those false profits. This was combined with the failures of the regulatory authorities and the UK Government's light touch regulatory approach at a time when those same bankers were out of control. The Banking Crisis 'post mortem' published by the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum clearly shows that B&B had a far stronger balance sheet than Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS), yet the latter received over £60 billion of covert support only days after B&B was expropriated and its savings book and retail network sold, thus destroying it as an ongoing business. The nationalisation of B&B was a flawed decision, made in haste and inconsistent with the treatment of RBS and HBOS, who are major employers in central Scotland which is the power base of the Scottish Labour Party. BBAG's previous question to you regarding a B&B inquiry and/or reparations on behalf of nearly one million B&B employees, share/bond holders and the Bingley community, ordinary private savers and investors entitled to a duty of care from the Government and tripartite regulatory authorities, remains unanswered. A further question is why did the UK Government of which you were a Minister ensure the survival of RBS and HBOS whilst B&B, which had a far stronger balance sheet than those two banks, was destroyed as a viable business? Your reply within ten working days would be appreciated. David Blundell Chairman BBAG 0113 2813941 david.ward-blundell@sky.com Read Full Thread Reply
Posted at 03/1/2015 09:02 by birchin Bradford & Bingley's 'Full Nationalization' Should Never Have Happened - Group Claims For those who like a good yarn the saga of Bradford & Bingley (B&B), the UK bank that was hastily nationalized by the British Government in a transatlantic phone call, one would be hard pressed to beat years of obfuscation by the authorities – from within Whitehall to the UK’s financial regulator. Some might think the spirit of Sir Humphrey Appleby, a character in the 1980’s BBC comedy Yes Minister, was very much alive and well. Sir Humphrey you see was a master at the art of manipulation and obfuscation, often making long-winded statements. He was an unflappable symbol of a machine that had no gears – just brakes deflecting the noise. It’s a bit like the situation that has confronted many B&B shareholders who have had hundreds of Freedom of Information requests over the past six years declined time after time by the authorities. The stalling over information sought as to the precise details around why the bank was nationalized is regarded in certain quarters as shocking. Rather than being bailed out and partially nationalized – as was the case with Royal Bank of Scotland – B&B’s fate seemed a done deal and executed in haste for political reasons according to David Blundell, chairman of the Bradford & Bingley Action Group (BBAG) based in Leeds. It might also reflect the ‘Too Big To Fail’ syndrome, a term popularized by U.S. congressman Stewart McKinney, where certain institutions (especially financial) are so large and interconnected that their failure would prove a disaster to the wider economy. Quite possibly B&B was too small to succeed and thrive, but the jury is out on that given its balance sheet strength prior to nationalization. But that’s a matter for another day. However, despite what could be described as an appalling level of subterfuge that BBAG and almost one million B&B shareholders have suffered there appears to be some good news. That said, it might not result in fair compensation for them just yet. Still, an increased offer early this December to B&B Perpetual Subordinated Bond holders (around five times more than a previous offer in 2010) might offer a glimmer of hope. Specifically, UK Asset Resolution (UKAR), the body established in October 2010 to integrate the activities of NRAM (previously known as Northern Rock (Asset Management) plc) and Bradford & Bingley plc, has offered to buy out holders of two perpetual subordinated bonds issued by B&B through a tender offer for the securities. These securities were originally sold as Permanent Interest Bearing Shares – PIBS for short. According to Mr Blundell, who has campaigned vigorously since late 2008 for the truth as to why the bank was nationalized, the latest and revised offer to bond holders adds weight to what the action group has always believed, namely that B&B “should never have been fully nationalized and its savings and retail [not] sold to Santander at a fire-sale price.” Blundell also claims there is likely to be substantial surplus when B&B is finally wound down, which would go to the Treasury – not shareholders. The view is reinforced by the recent offer to holders of 13% and 11.625% Perpetual Subordinated Bonds issued by B&B – at purchase prices per £10,000 in principal amounts outstanding of £19,900 and £18,650, respectively. It should be pointed out this new offer compares favourably with the first one made around four years ago of just £3,800 and £3,600. Back then BBAG stated that it was both “derisory and opportunistic” since it was taking advantage of savers – many of whom were pensioners in severe financial difficulties due to non payment of interest on their bonds. Mr Blundell contends that the main causes of the UK banking crisis was a “Government and bank engineered credit bubble”, combined with the introduction of the International Financial Reporting Standards that enabled banks to “indulge in false accounting”, the UK Government’s light touch regulatory approach and failures of the Treasury and the Financial Services Authority (the forerunner of the Financial Conduct Authority). He may well have a point when he says: “They above all failed in their duty of care to ordinary savers and investors.” UK Financial Investments Ltd (UKFI), the body established in 2008 as part of the UK Government’s response to the banking crisis and responsible for managing the Government’s 100% shareholding in UKAR and its subsidiaries including B&B plc on behalf of HM Treasury, reported in its 2012 accounts that: “All creditors including the Government are expected to be repaid in full by B&B plc and the company is forecast to yield an annual rate of return of 5% to 6% to the Treasury, which reflects a total investment of £27 billion and a total return to the Government of circa £49 billion.” More recently in the UKFI’s 2013/14 annual report and accounts for the period ending 31 March 2014 published this June, it was revealed that: “As of 31 March 2014, total assets of Bradford & Bingley were £35.2bn, of which £30.2bn were loans and advances to customers.” BBAG plans to convene a public meeting next year in London as part of their ongoing campaign for justice. It may be a bitter battle getting the level of compensation sought (suggested at between 55p and 100p a share), but the whole matter certainly highlights the woeful neglect afforded to shareholders in B&B. Read Full Thread Reply
Posted at 02/1/2015 21:01 by chesty1 I take it this still does not help shareholders though.... The leaders of the main political parties were invited to speak at BBAG's meeting on the 24 January 2015 at St Columba's Church, Knightsbridge to answer the question: "What action would be taken on behalf of B&B employees, share/bondholders and residents of Bingley, a once vibrant and prosperous community but now a virtual ghost town, if you form the Government after the General Election in May 2015. The Information Commissioner Christopher Graham was also invited to attend and explain why despite appeals to his office BBAG still do not know how and why B&B was expropriated in the way that it was. To date BBAG has not received a meaningful response from any of the above parties which has left it with no alternative but to postpone the meeting. This is a further example of the obfuscation to which BBAG has been subjected for over six years by successive governments and explains why Whitehall and Westminster are held in such contempt by so many. However despite the appalling level of subterfuge that BBAG has suffered there is good news: UK Financial Investments Ltd, created in 2008 as part of the UK Government's response to the banking crisis, reported in 2012 that "All creditors including the Government are expected to be repaid in full by B&B plc and the company is forecast to yield an annual rate of return of 5% to 6% to the Treasury which reflects a total investment of £27 billion and a total return to the Government of circa £49 billion. This adds weight to what BBAG has always believed, namely that B&B should not have been fully nationalised and its savings book and retail network sold to Santander for a fire sale price. BBAG's view is reinforced by the recent offer to holders of 13% and 11.625% Perpetual Subordinated Bonds at purchase prices per £10,000 in principal amount outstanding of £19,900 and £18650 respectively which compares favourably with the first offer in 2010 of £3800 and £3600. At the time BBAG stated the first offer was both opportunistic and derisory as it was taking advantage of savers, many of whom were pensioners in severe financial difficulties due to non payment of interest on their bonds. The main cause of the UK banking crisis was a Government and Bank engineered credit bubble, the introduction of the International Financial Reporting Standards by the UK Government in 2005, which enabled the banks to indulge in false accounting, and its 'light touch regulatory approach' allowing the Treasury and the Financial Services Authority to fail in their duty of care to ordinary savers and investors. BBAG will be holding a meeting at St Columba's Church as part of our ongoing campaign on a date to be advised soon after the General Election in May 2015. David Blundell Read Full Thread Reply

Bradford & Bingley

Delayed Upgrade Clock

Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions