Dtz Share Discussion Threads

[bubble pricker] 19/12/2011 21:28

Planet9, you are wasting your time. You made a bad investment. You refuse to accept responsibility for your own actions. Nobody will compensate you for your own stupidity.

[cecky] 14/12/2011 15:31

OT

From REO board


gdasinv2 - 10 Jan'11 - 16:07 - 819 of 999


............" I belive by mid year it should be arround 30p."

........................................................................

[typo56] 11/12/2011 22:48

And now more...

[duncandisorderly] 09/12/2011 12:16

Well found Typo.The whole scenario stinks of corruption but there's sod all that can be done about it.

[typo56] 08/12/2011 20:06

From the Hong Kong Standard:




I think the Hong Kong Standard should consider their own involvement in possible wrongdoing. Specifically, what was the source of the following article? I believe it helped to create false hope and sucked some people into buying worthless shares.

[knackers] 08/12/2011 09:10

Was watching the Aegon Tennis Masters the other day and spotted a few DTZ advertising boards around the Albert Hall court. Such TV advertising/corporate sponsorship must run into many tens of thousands of GBP per annum. Given that Mr Idzik considers himself a "demi-pro" (amongst other things), I can't imagine who might have been responsible for such a shameful display...

[planet9] 07/12/2011 23:22

Ok, i have deleted that link.I have not gone through the link in great detail myself.

Anyways will try other routes as mentioned.

Also i request others to share their experiences in due course ( with regards to complaints, compensation etc)

[typo56] 07/12/2011 22:35

Planet9, "The FSCS is the UK's statutory fund of last resort for customers of financial services firms".

Have you lost money with a financial services firm?

The FSCS is for people like me who've lost money with MF Global, not for anybody to get money back from a bad investment.

[typo56] 07/12/2011 21:50

I think the FSA are more likely to go for people who scalp a few quid by making mischievous posts on bulletin boards. They're an easier target.

[planet9] 07/12/2011 18:59

The bottom line- Ordinary shareholders were treated miserably.
Many have lost their hard earned money- not just when it was delisted over weekend, but also when the statement was first made on Nov 7th 2011, that the shares hold minimal value if any (shares lost nearly 80% value on that single day.
Those who have lost money-- If you think the authorities of DTZ deserve a hard hit, please, put a formal complaint asap to FSA/ Financial Ombusdman.

You may not get your money back, but at least it can make a huge impact in future on such directors who treat shareholders as dust and look after their own interests

[spectoacc] 07/12/2011 15:46

Many of the directors have not only stepped down & lost their jobs on the pre-pack, but any shares they held are worthless. If there was any scam (I'm no fan of pre-packs in general) then Saint George Participations would have been on to it - 55% of the co, all now worthless, a £15m loan likely never to be repaid, with £80m invested/lost from the 2009 (then) rescue rights.

[duncandisorderly] 06/12/2011 22:44

Typo,don't be so ignorant my friend.The directors of Regal said their shares were worthless only for the company to get bought out at fives times the price.Bent directors acting it out for their new employers,utter disgrace.

[hvs] 06/12/2011 20:50

lol !!!!!!!

BONUSES all round for the IDIOTS in charge.

[typo56] 06/12/2011 20:45

Planet9, what sort of chance do you think you should have been given to sell your shares off, and who do you think would have wanted to buy them?

The company gave holders almost four weeks in which to sell off their shares from informing them that "there is minimal value, if any, that may be attributed to the ordinary shares". I hardly see it's their fault that you and others chose to disbelieve them.

[hvs] 06/12/2011 20:29

Nice for the IDIOTS in charge.

BONUSES all round no doubt for taking the shareholders for a ride.

Seems to be the "CITY" mantra.

[p o n a] 06/12/2011 20:02

"even when the company goes into administration, the shares trade for a while."


Care to give some examples ?

It would be illegal for the shares to continue trading on the stock exchange whilst there was no clarification of it's financial position. And whilst it's in administration it's financial position would be far from clear.

[simon cawkwell] 06/12/2011 09:04

Gentlemen,

I hear that IG will today declare DTZ a zero for settlement purposes. Does anybody know any better?

Simon Cawkwell

[bubble pricker] 06/12/2011 09:01

Planet9, what planet do you live on? The company ANNOUNCED ONE MONTH AGO that UGL was the preferred bidder and that its offer will leave little or no value to shareholders. Shareholders had ONE MONTH to sell their shares, one month during which the shares incredibly traded between 3 and 9p, even though the company had already said they were worthless. But stupid punters like you BOUGHT shares instead. Idiots like you wasting the financial authorities' time is the reason they cannot go after real issues.

[bubble pricker] 06/12/2011 08:56

Duncan, it's "would have" not "would of". Arrrrrgghhhh

[richie1218] 05/12/2011 21:27

Well someone got a good deal buying this company for 70 odd mil "bargain"

I seem to remember not so long ago when I was looking at DTZ, they were spending money buying up part of a business they didn't already own, I thought it was a bit odd at the time that they were spending on it - what a difference a few months make,

But looking back making that purchase at the time would have made it even more attractive for the eventual (we can no longer go on) we will have to give it all away for peanuts scenario, stinks if you ask me, and I didn't even hold any of these.

good luck all