Bradford & Bingley Share Discussion Threads

[keya5000] 30/7/2010 16:44

I feel like I have been well and truly shafted when you read the above.

[daytraders] 30/7/2010 16:39

they should have just left BB as they were, or initionaly help them like they did with all the other banks, even thou the directors said we were all ok and not in need of help, so were in a even better position, most other banks have gone up from there lows big time, like rbs 400% up, bark 500% etc

[gbh2] 30/7/2010 16:19

We need a Public Enquiry into the outcome of the two year assessment, why did it take so long and who was paid what for the outcome!

[optomistic] 30/7/2010 15:07

This bit really gets me:

Bradford & Bingley plc
30 July 2010
Interim Financial Report 2010

Extract from today's report:

Richard Banks commented:
"I am pleased to announce that we have returned to profit and made great progress against all our financial targets."

F'ing charming!

[neddo] 30/7/2010 11:33

we cetainly have been stuffed by the govt crooks

[daytraders] 30/7/2010 10:28

makes me sick

Bradford & Bingley plc

30 July 2010

Interim Financial Report 2010

Financial information

Group profit before tax for the first half of 2010 was £896.0m (H1 2009: loss of £160.0m; FY 2009: loss of £196.0m).
The above profit before tax figure includes two significant one-off items. Excluding these, Group adjusted profit before tax for the first half of 2010 was £79.4m* (H1 2009: loss of £160.0m; FY 2009: loss of £196.0m).
84% take-up of the subordinated debt tender, at a cost of £363.4m, yielded a one-off profit of £712.3m before tax.
Lending balances reduced by £1.3bn in the 6 months to 30 June 2010, being £1.0bn of redemptions and £0.3bn of other repayments.
3+ months in arrears and possession cases have reduced by 3,506 cases (18%) since 31 December 2009 to 15,653 (H1 2009: 21,102; FY 2009: 19,159).
Loan impairment charge to the Income Statement has reduced by £166.9m to £161.5m compared to the same period last year (H1 2009: £328.4m; FY 2009: £593.7m).
The Balance Sheet provision for residential loan impairment has reduced to £863.3m (H1 2009: £713.9m; FY 2009: £884.1m).
Ongoing cost: assets ratio reduced to 0.26% (H1 2009: 0.27%; FY 2009: 0.29%).
The tier 1 capital ratio ended the period at 12.1% (H1 2009: 8.7%; FY 2009: 8.7%), and no additional capital has been provided since nationalisation.

[sravi] 26/7/2010 12:21

wllmherk is only passing by...no need to explain to him.

[pwhite73] 23/7/2010 22:41

wllmherk - 23 Jul'10 - 11:36 - 18309 of 18312

"Capital that I have invested in shares I know I may lose and if I make a losing trade then I can blame on one but myself."

Correct. But if you wake up one morning to find the shares you invested in no longer existed with half of the company sold to the Spanish and the other half confiscated by Her Majesty's Government are you still blaming no one but yourself?.

Well that's exactly what happened to 935,000 people at 08:00 on 29 September 2008.

[zho] 23/7/2010 17:24

Shouldn't that be 'fait accompli'?

[sravi] 23/7/2010 14:44

BRADFORD & BINGLEY SHAREHOLDERS ACTION GROUP PROTESTS
AT REFUSAL TO EXTEND APPEAL DEADLINE
"Peter Clokey heaps further injustice upon dispossessed B&B
Shareholders"
Following a formal request to PriceWaterhouseCoopers for an extension of the August 27 appeal deadline, the BBSAG has today received notice from Peter Clokey of PWC refusing this, despite the holiday period making it a very tight deadline indeed. Commenting, Richard Jennings Chairman of the BBSAG states –
"The BBSAG continues, on behalf of approximately 935000 dispossessed shareholders, to
condemn the nil compensation decision made by Mr Clokey just over 2 weeks ago."
Following consultation with our legal advisers, we believe that, aside from specific disclosures we will be requesting from Mr Clokey, just 6 weeks to analyse the information he has provided, take professional opinion and weigh the implications thereof is a fresh injustice and only serves to illustrate the 'fait au complis' we believe Peter Clokey was given to deliver.
We observe that it took Mr Clokey approximately 16 months to make his investigations which essentially centre around the assumption that the bank only had one option – namely administration, which we dispute. To take so long to reach such a conclusion and yet limit quite strictly the period given to the bank's shareholders to study this and respond is surely heaping a
further injustice upon dispossessed B&B Shareholders.

The BBSAG intends to request specific information pertaining to the week leading up to nationalisation and has stated that they will take the matter to court if necessary in its pursuit of justice.

Separately, Margaret Cole of the FSA has been asked to investigate the statements made by Richard Pym, then CEO, in the days leading up to the bank's nationalisation.

For further information contact Richard Jennings, spokesman for B&B Shareholders Action Group, [e-mail]
The spokesman for UKSA is Eric Chalker, 020 7620 0907, [e-mail]

[frequentbuyer] 23/7/2010 11:41

Just going up to get the last of my cash ISAs out of the old B&B branch, sod them I'll not support Santander ever!!!!!

[wllmherk] 23/7/2010 11:36

sravi,

Equitable Life was not the same as BB. Part of my salary is invested in a pension fund and I would not expect to get no return for my investment. Capital that I have invested in shares I know I may lose and if I make a losing trade then I can blame on one but myself. You should too.

[daytraders] 22/7/2010 17:37

we did not deny compensation.

[sravi] 22/7/2010 16:31

Savers who lost money in the Equitable Life pension company should start receiving compensation payments in the middle of 2011, the government has announced.




Why BB share holders not been given any compensation?

[wllmherk] 21/7/2010 12:14

DayT

HBOS was insolvent, hence it was saved by LLOYDS, nearly causing a well run conservative bank to collapse, RBS was 73% nationalised. Interestingly, Fred Goodwin sat in a meeting with the then Chancellor Alistair Darling, Mervyn King and the PM the day before the GOV took its stake in RBS. Goodwin said something similar that RBS merely had some short term funding problems, infact their business model was flawed and they only had enough funds to get them to mid day the next day. Thats why the Gov took the action it did. Incidently, HBOS had a rights issue and Andy Hornby bought shares in the bank months before it collapsed.
My view, put it down to experience, buyers of BB stock made a big error as did I with HBOS. NEITHER OF US DESERVE COMPENSATION. You pays your money, you take your chances.

[daytraders] 21/7/2010 10:11

If BB was insolvent, so was HBOS, LLOY, RBS, BB was in a better position than the latter banks infact, according to the BB directors we were well funded, and thats why most bought shares in BB, especially the RI.

[pwhite73] 21/7/2010 00:46

Well this is what this whole argument is about. Was BB genuinely insolvent or did it merely have a short-term liquidity problem?.

According to the Chairman and the directors BB was not insolvent all it had was a short-term liquidity problem made far worse by ministers in the Treasury leaking stories to the BBC of a pending nationalisation.

To date the government has not revealed to anybody other than Peter Clokey why they thought BB was insolvent. Nobody else knows the reason why. This is what the shareholder action group is trying to find out.

My personal view is that the government panicked and did not what another Northern Rock fiasco on its hands so they moved swiftly in nationalising BB. No sooner had they nationalised BB when it soon became clear that the global financial crisis was far worse than anything they had imagined and every UK bank would have sunk without taxpayer support. The government then came to its senses and stepped in with funds to stabilise HBOS, LLOY, RBS and a host of other banks. However by then it was too late for BB shareholders.

[wllmherk] 21/7/2010 00:24

PW,
the company was insolvent thats why they were nationalised. Otherwise they would simply have gone into Administration. You don't have a case, the taxpayer can't be expected to bail out every company in trouble, if we did, then the country would go the same way.

[pwhite73] 21/7/2010 00:16

....and it deserves a reasonable answer. The reason why the taxpayer should pay BB shareholders compensation is that the taxpayer took from BB shareholders their shares for free.

[wllmherk] 20/7/2010 23:41

kpwuk,

if you are indicative of the typical BB investor it's not surprising you lost money.
Why should the taxpayer pay compensation to BB shareholders ? It s a reasonable question.

[sravi] 19/7/2010 10:12

I fully understood that buying shares carries a risk? I am pretty sure everyone who invested in shares all know the risk involved. B&B nationalisation is a theft by the government from ordinary share holders. I think it will be a big fight to get compensation. I am not sure whether we'll get any money from the treasury though.