Bradford & Bingley Share Discussion Threads

[abc125] 14/12/2013 22:33

pvb, good to see you posting on a stock thread lol, but you could have picked a stock with some prospects.

[zastas] 14/12/2013 14:35

Well, pvb, I am sure you must know already but B&B is paying now ( from memory) base pus 5% to HMG on its multi-billion WCF loan. Remember, this replaced the £20 billion savings book which was sold to Santander by HMG. On those savings deposits it would be paying of course far less than 5.5% now. Most likely 0.5-3% blended.

So yes, B&B is profitable, even with having to pay now 5.5% for about 20% of its funding. It could pay the same on the FSCS loan ( another 20% or so) too, and still be.

RBS was and would be insolvent without the enormous equity injection. B&B needed nothing other than liquidity replacement. It had and has now billions in equity.

[pvb] 14/12/2013 14:19

It is true that B&B has and is receiving FSCS and BOE support in the form of low interest loans/base rates, but then so have all banks, and all borrowing individuals and businesses. B&B would be profitable easily with normal interest rates now.

Oh c'mon! If I had a billion pounds I'd be a billionaire. It's because I don't have a billion pounds that I am not a billionaire!

Think - why does the world not have "normal interest_ rates"?

[zastas] 14/12/2013 14:07

It's not going to change pvb's opinion. We've had this debate before. I think he just enjoys a dig for the fun of it, so let him.

There's a difference between lack of liquidity and solvability. B&B has not needed one penny in equity from HMG, in contrast with RBS and LLoyds/HBOS, both allowed to continue. A building society insolvent such as Dunfirmline will produce genuine taxpayer losses now. B&B will most likely give billions in profit for no equity investment.

It is true that B&B has and is receiving FSCS and BOE support in the form of low interest loans/base rates, but then so have all banks, and all borrowing individuals and businesses. B&B would be profitable easily with normal interest rates now.

If insolvent , then I agree that banks should go into admin and run-off. Or now into some bail-in. But no bank can remain standing if it suffers an outflow suddenly because of general panic, or and here with B&B severely worsened by Robert Peston, having received insider information from Labour friends then working in the Treasury.

No bank can satisfy all deposit return request within a few days. In those circumstances they deserve liquidity support, not nationalisation. The FSA and auditors and Mr Pym all said the bank was solvent weeks before the nationalisation. You just can not go so quickly into insolvency, and the subsequent annual reports completely confirm this.

[daytraders] 14/12/2013 13:52

Yeh, Robert Peston has alot to answer for.

[pvb] 14/12/2013 13:48

The shareholders are due to compensation as the bank is continuing to trade and the rights issue was made when the shareholders did not as it now is confirmed have all the relevant information to make an informed judgement whether to take up the rights or not.

"The Bank" is not "continuing to trade". The Bank - ie the listed company, went bust. In order to protect personal savers, the savings arm was sold to Santander* (Anyone remember Alliance & Leicester?). Santander do not own the mortgage part, which was nationalised and closed to business. But you don't talk about that unprofitable 'bit' of the listed company do you? But your shares were in the whole company, not just the bits you now like.



I can't help wondering how many on here were also cheerleaders in the Demutualisation campaigns that were so very popular in the 1990s. This has all been a sad and sorry affair.


* Actually sold to Abbey, who were owned by Santander.

[pvb] 14/12/2013 13:41

Remarkably enough, the above link does indeed show that apparently even some MP's (Yes, even Conservative MPs!) do believe that it is the job of 'the Government' to compensate private investors for their losses on the stock market.

To whom should I send my Statement of Losses sheet, so I can claim my 'compensation'? Anyone know?

[optomistic] 14/12/2013 13:39

pvb
There is a big difference between RBS and BB,
RBS was and still is being supported by the government i.e. the taxpayer and the shareholders still have shares to hold.
Whereas BB was not supported by anyone, but was nationalised by Gordon Brown, seemingly over a very short time but I am of the opinion that to make such arrangements with Santander would have taken more than just a weekend if not well before the rights issue and the subsequent nationalisation.
The shareholders are due to compensation as the bank is continuing to trade and the rights issue was made when the shareholders did not as it now is confirmed have all the relevant information to make an informed judgement whether to take up the rights or not.
Now of course the shareholders have no shares to hold...nothing!

RBS shareholders still have shares although even as noted they are now of much less value.

[sharw] 14/12/2013 13:13

There was a detailed debate on all this in Parliament on Nov. 27th. You can read it here:



Column 81WH reminds me of the role of Robert Peston in bringing all this about but since I do not have 'Parliamentary priviledge' I will comment no further on that.

[daytraders] 14/12/2013 12:43

? BB was not compensated by us the taxpayers, was stolen/taken from us.

[pvb] 14/12/2013 12:32

You mean you think taxpayers should compensate your losses in share trading?

Why would they want to?

As you're there, would you like to make a contribution to compensate me for my RBS losses? No?

[daytraders] 14/12/2013 12:25

Should not have been N in the first place, all the other banks that got help were in a far worst state.

[pvb] 14/12/2013 12:16

'It' went bust. When you own shares in a company you own shares in the company - not just in those parts of the company that will make a profit the "following year", but not in those parts of the company that are bankrupt right now. If you don't understand this you should not own shares. Keep your money safe in the bank.

If you want to go around with a chip on your shoulder for ever. OK - Your choice.

P.S. I was a shareholder in RBS and subscribed to their rights issue. :-(

[daytraders] 14/12/2013 12:06

Not when it was stolen from us, and then sold for peanut's, then following year making millions.

[pvb] 14/12/2013 10:21

When listed public companies go bust the ordinary shareholders are left holding valueless pieces of paper. It's that simple.

If you don't accept or understand this, don't buy shares.

Move on.

[gbh2] 14/12/2013 08:23

optomistic, I don't think it'll make one iota of difference because they already paid a government man to pronounce on the rights of former share holders.
He managed to string it out for two years plus and yet didn't find anything in our favour so imo they're not likely to revisit his "tough luck shareholder" findings!

[knicol46] 13/12/2013 23:56

I had decided to buy over 800000 shares in the 2008 Bradford & Bingley rights issue with the understanding on the facts available at the time. If I had known what was hidden behind the scenes I would have avoided (like many others) investing in this. The nil paid rights were worth nothing when they lapsed. The ordinary share price also plummeted and eventually was nationalised.

[optomistic] 12/12/2013 19:01

gbh2, as we the investors may not have been fully informed of the facts before the rights issue, does that not leave us in a slightly stronger position re compensation?

[gbh2] 12/12/2013 16:58

A lot of bloody good that'll do for those of us that supported the rights issue !!!

[optomistic] 12/12/2013 13:36

Bradford & Bingley's HQ

THE Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has fined Christopher Willford, the former finance director of Bradford & Bingley, £30,000 for failing to provide the board with up-to-date information about the bank's financial position ahead of its 2008 rights issue.

It said that in May 2008, Mr Willford received information that suggested that Bradford & Bingley's financial outlook might be weaker than expected.

As Bradford & Bingley was preparing to raise capital through a rights issue, this should have immediately been raised with B&B's board and investigated to ensure that the information provided to shareholders about the rights issue on May 19 was correct.

Tracey McDermott, the FCA's director of financial crime and enforcement, said: "Willford failed to identify and investigate potentially material risks, or alert the board, at a crucial time for the firm.

"His conduct fell short of the FCA's standards - senior managers should expect the FCA to take action if they fail to show due skill, care and diligence."

The regulator said information Mr Willford received was out of kilter with previous forecasts, and showed that bad mortgage debts (impairments), arrears and repossessions had all risen, whilst the difference between the interest rates Bradford & Bingley charged to, and received from, its customers (net interest margin) had fallen.

This is particularly significant as it suggested Bradford & Bingley could have fallen short of forecast profit for the year.

The FCA did not find that Willford's conduct caused the failure of the rights issue, or Bradford & Bingley's subsequent nationalisation.

It said the size of the fine reflects the length and timing of the misconduct, which took place over three days during the height of the financial crisis.

[rjd1233] 12/10/2013 21:45

Ok sorted, cookie problem on iPad!

[rjd1233] 12/10/2013 18:18

Anybody having problems logging into the BB in Safari on iPad with IOS7??

[matters] 24/8/2013 12:49

hxxp://www.bbaction.com/BBAG_Update_019.pdf

Update 19

WHY WAS BRADFORD & BINGLEY (B&B)
EXPROPRIATED BY GORDON BROWN?
Gordon Brown nationalised B&B in a transatlantic telephone conversation with Alistair
Darling on the 26th September 2008, since then B&B share and bond holders have sent
thousands of requests to various government departments and members of parliament
asking how and why their company was destroyed in this way, to no avail thus far. At the
time the Cabinet Office (CO) denied possession of any records, a statement which it
admitted was incorrect in 2011. This was a flawed decision made in haste for political
reasons and was neither equitable nor consistent with the support given to other banks.
On the 10 June 2013 the Information Rights Tribunal failed to uphold the Bradford &
Bingley Action Group (BBAG) appeal against the refusal of the Cabinet Office (CO) to
provide the information requested under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) on
the grounds of "public interest". In BBAG's view the public interest in how and why this
decision to confiscate B&B by Gordon Brown far outweighs the need for secrecy in
respect of the collective responsibility of Cabinet and Government decision making,
particularly as the CO has refused to confirm or deny whether the Cabinet was involved
in the decision.
Currently we have asked the Financial Conduct Authority to conduct an internal review
into its failure to provide information under the FOIA, information for which it states no
records can be found. BBAG has conclusive proof that the FCA had the information
requested so either it has resorted to subterfuge or the records have been destroyed. The
Treasury, Business Innovation & Skills and the Foreign & Commonwealth Office are
also being pursued under the FOIA, the overall responses from them to date may be fairly
described as slow moving obfuscation, a continuation of the treatment to which BBAG
has been subjected for five years. An FOIA request was made to the BBC in respect of
Robert Peston's reports in the press and media, it stated that information for the purposes
of journalism did not fall within the Act. A request to the Treasury asked for details of all
communications between Mr Peston and his former colleague at the Financial Times Mr
John Kingman who was Second Permanent Secretary at the Treasury. The Treasury
stated that it had no records of any communication between Messrs Peston and Kingman
and that when the latter left the Treasury at the end of 2008 information on his laptop,
smart phone or other networked resources was cleared. It also stated that its policy and
practice is that only the press office talks to the media other than in exceptional
circumstances and there was no record of "on the record" briefings by policy officials
with journalists in relation to B&B. This carefully worded statement raises further
questions, first there is substantial circumstantial evidence pointing to many "off the
record" briefings emanating from the Treasury of which it seems Mr Peston took full
advantage, second why were Mr Kingman's records cleared so soon after the B&B
nationalisation? BBAG believes the behaviour of the Treasury in this matter has made a
mockery of the FOIA 2000.
Despite Whitehall and Westminster's determination to suppress the truth during the past
five years progress is being made. Philip Davies Conservative MP for Shipley, whose
constituency includes Bingley, is to be commended for securing a promise during
business questions in the Commons on the 4 July 2013 from Andrew Lansley, leader of
the House of Commons, to raise this matter with the Chancellor George Osborne.
However Mr Lansley pointed out that Mr Osborne would not have access directly to the
papers of the previous administration.
When a government confiscates the property of its citizens without reason, explanation
or compensation, particularly when it may be seen as at fault in its duty of care to savers
and investors by not adequately regulating the companies involved in the banking crisis,
then all concepts of democracy and equity are laid aside and the role of fair and honest
government is devalued. BBAG is determined to secure the truth in this matter and the
campaign will continue until it achieves success
DW Blundell
Chairman BBAG
0113 2813941
[e-mail]

[2hoggy] 28/7/2013 13:27

Shame we could not voice our feelings to the main culprits.

I wish....

[pvb] 28/7/2013 11:45

Well if that helps, good!