Nat.west 9%pf Discussion Threads

[p@] 26/10/2018 08:45

Why are all the deals only shown at 19.00 ,is this a sign of illiquidity ?

[loglorry1] 24/10/2018 11:37

Can we make an emoji?

[cwa1] 27/4/2018 08:10

Nice to see they are all running scared of the toothless FCA with their Dear CEO release and getting their houses in order pronto.....

[holts] 27/4/2018 07:36

Quick scan through RBS results , no mention of any prefs other than adjustment in some figures for allocation that I could see . Presumably again question will be asked in analysts meeting .

[cwa1] 19/4/2018 17:37

Nice one loglorry1, thanks for that.

[loglorry1] 13/4/2018 13:43

Address your lobbying letter to:

The Rt. Hon. John Glen MP - Economic Secretary
HM Treasury
1 House Guards Road
London SW1A 2HQ

Email address: [e-mail]

Copy it to:

Mark Steward (who is the FCA Executive Director Enforcement & Market Oversight) via his PA whose email is – [e-mail]
Nicky Morgan MP (Chair Treasury Committee) – email: [e-mail]

Also copy the letter to your MP with a covering note asking him / her to raise the matter with HM Treasury on your behalf. This is very important.

[loglorry1] 13/4/2018 08:53

I know @deadly the whole market is in dissarray. This is why in my opinion it is very important we all write the the TSC, our MPs and the FCA asking them to act to clarify the position and hopefully amend the companies act.

[deadly] 12/4/2018 23:20

Thanks loglorry, but the market seems to believe these still can be cancelled easily.

[pollen8] 12/4/2018 17:00

Thanks loglorry1.

[greyingsurfer] 10/4/2018 14:31

Many thanks for the link, and the info, log.Peter

[loglorry1] 10/4/2018 12:09

I think the articles of NatWest protect the NWBD preference shares. You need to look at the articles which you can get from companies house from the issuing company number 929027 which you can get from the prospectus

Go through the filings to 13 May 2010 where you can download the articles here

Under point 10 "... reduction of share capital" it clearly states

"The capital of the paid up Preference Shares cannot be reduced unless the holders of the Preference Shares have approved this by passing a Extraordinary Resolution at a separate meeting held in accordance with Article 6"

[loglorry1] 30/3/2018 03:07

These can't be cancelled at par. If you look at the Nat West articles of association you'll see that to do so requires a class vote. So preference share holders only would need to vote for it. That's not going to happen.

I'm traveling right now but will post details when back in the UK.

[stemis] 12/3/2018 19:36

As it says on Aviva's site

hxxps://www.avivainvestors.com/en-gb/individual/about-us/responsible-investment.html

Today, we believe we’re among the leaders in our industry. We are responsible owners who encourage greater transparency and sustainability and better corporate behaviours that help to reduce the risk for our clients.

Unless it seems, they invest in Aviva Preference Shares...

[greyingsurfer] 12/3/2018 18:20

T


Peter, if it walks like a redemption and it quacks like a redemption, it is, IMHO, a redemption.

Calling it a "capital reduction" is simply sophistry and obfuscation.

You might think that, but I doubt the lawyers and courts would agree.

If we ever get that far we will find out.

I'm certainly not arguing against speaking out - I have done the opposite elsewhere. Aviva clearly they think they have a legal argument, and I think they may be right, whatever I may think of the action. However, they also have to consider their reputation, and their ability to get the vote passed - which as seeking alpha have suggested may not be as simple and might be thought in a joint vote. Their statements so far have talked of considering the interests of ord and pref share holders, so they appear already to be considering some sort of deal that gives prefs holders a price which may well be above par. The more pressure that can be brought to bear the better that deal is likely to end up for prefs holders.

Peter

[tournesol] 12/3/2018 18:00

Greyingsurfer

Peter, if it walks like a redemption and it quacks like a redemption, it is, IMHO, a redemption.

Calling it a "capital reduction" is simply sophistry and obfuscation.

I had a substantial amount of my portfolio in a spread of non-redeemable prefs until last month. I sold them all because the shares were at or close to their all time highs and it seemed to me to be more probable that share prices would retreat rather than track sideways or upwards. In hindsight I was very, very lucky. It certainly did not occur to me that shares described as non-redeemable could be cancelled using a technical device and that such a cancellation could be classed as a capital reduction but not a redemption. To my mind that is a perfect example of a "distinction without a difference". At best it's very sharp practice. If our regulatory system allows investors to be dis-possessed in this fashion then it will be a bad day for all of us PI's.

Every PI should support the campaign against this - not to commit lese majeste but to paraphrase Pastor Niemoller "First they came for the ECN's and I did not speak out because I did not hold any ECN's, then they came for the Prefs and I did not speak out because I held no prefs……then they came for me and there was no-one to speak on my behalf."

T

[caradog] 12/3/2018 14:40

Greying surfer

I take your point. There is, however, nothing that I can see in the terms and conditions that stipulates that the shares can be cancelled at par in the event of a capital reduction (unless it's there in incomprehensible legalese). Considering that these shares were issued over 26 years ago and that the state holds a majority of the ordinary shares, I think the chances of RBS pulling off what most would see as "a fast one" are extremely remote, especially as RBS needs to keep its nose clean for a few years to allow the government to sell its holding at a reasonable price.

[greyingsurfer] 12/3/2018 12:09

Caradog

Aviva is not proposing a "redemption" it's a capital reduction. Not the same and not covered by the same rules.

Ecclesiastical's announcement is interesting though, and positive of all prefs holders - even Aviva's I suspect.

Peter