Royal Bank Of Scotland Share Discussion Threads

[prophet_alexandre] 29/10/2017 13:34

It might prove more useful to write your concerns and questions to the Solicitor dealing with these matters at Signature .
It is likely that the points you raise will also be raised by other claimants and given that the lawyers are best placed to deal with the concerns, you may choose to write to them.

I will be .

[barmiddleton] 29/10/2017 13:33

Thanks, CI, that's interesting. Anyway I'll get my letter off this coming week and I'll be asking them for an early reply. And I'll keep chasing them until they do. Maybe I should copy Signature Lit at the same time to keep them in the loop.

[chinese investor] 29/10/2017 12:40

This is what I wrote in July this year (I didn't get a reply) :-

"Thank you for your latest letter which was, in the main, concerning the settlement.

I trust I'm not the only member who gasped at the projected cost for solicitors, barrister, administrators and "after the event" insurance.

We are talking of a figure around £100 million for a settlement of £200 million.

I don't think I'll be the only member who will want details of the costs - I expect they'll be a good chance we'll be challenging them !

Did you ever think of approaching your 27,000 members to pay for the cost of the "after the event" insurance with the possibility (no let's face it the near certainty) of multiplying their outlay by four or five fold ?

And have I read this correctly ?

The 27,000 members became 9,000 members around the time of the 43.15p offer.
Were the 18,000 settlers all non "Retail Members" who weren't bound by the "collective authority to settle" ?

When Mr Justice Hildyard told you that we claimants had not been informed of potential liabilities, you still didn't inform us in simple English - all you did was copy and paste what the judge had written which was in "legalese".

A large proportion of the the huge amount of the preparation that RBS had done should have been eradicated when the "Insiders" settled for 41p last December and we should not have had take out insurance to cover it.

Their settlement was £800 million - I wonder what their costs were !

Us PIs have been stitched up again !

I expect the media will do a piece on all this soon and the truth with come out then."

[barmiddleton] 29/10/2017 12:06

In view of the recent revelations about the Action Group I am going to write to them to demand they supply me, and all the other members, a complete and comprehensive account of how our payments to them were spent. In other words, how much have they collected to date, a detailed list of who was paid what including any monies paid to officials and staff of the Group and how much cash, if any, they have in the Bank at present. I will also ask them how they propose we get the payments we made to them back.

I don't know if it will do any good but if all members of the Group like me wrote to them in similar terms they might just sit up and take notice. After all, what I'm seeking is not unreasonable from a member of an organisation and at least my letter will be on record!

What do you other guys think?

[chinese investor] 29/10/2017 08:19

The name Gerard Walsh has recently been mentioned.
Gerard is part of the management of the "Action Group".

Just Google "Gerard Walsh" RBS !

The Sun

OUR 12 May 2013 article “Murky past exposed of man behind fight for RBS
investors” gave the impression that the RBoS Shareholders Action Group may
have been used by its co-founder Gerard Walsh as a vehicle for fraud.

We now accept this is untrue and members’ funds have never been at risk.

We apologise to the Group to whom we have paid damages.

[smurfy2001] 28/10/2017 23:57

So a lower fine here being hinted.

Barclays’s renewed discussions are “positive also for RBS, who might now be able to make a far larger settlement before results are published in next year,” KBW’s Firth said.

“Certainly dialogue has picked up with the DOJ over the last quarter or so,” RBS Chief Financial Officer Ewen Stevenson said Friday, with the bank’s CEO adding they’re “optimistic221; of settling this fiscal year. Some analysts have estimated RBS may have to pay more than $8 billion to put the case behind them.

[dbesim1] 28/10/2017 14:45

Nicola Sturgeon seeks clarity over Brexit transition:

[raffles the gentleman thug] 28/10/2017 10:52

Degree to which RBS moves on is all a bit dependent upon how much book value is destroyed by incremental DoJ provisions is it not - there's only a12p now between the share price and book value which is £1.4bn - so any incremental provision greater than this and the shares are already on a premium to book.

[cfc1] 28/10/2017 10:27

smurfs...well i suspect the DoJ will 'try it on' and the press will relish a good story! Remember Deutsche Bank started at double the size before settling at half!
Whatever, once this is done RBS moves onwards. All major hurdles will be settled and I genuinely expect the share price to return to £5 over time. Wonder where the share price will be by christmas 2018!

[smurfy2001] 27/10/2017 15:59

cfc1, I've been trading this on the side, the RMBS fine makes me slightly edgy but i'll be bullish from there on

[tradejunkie2] 27/10/2017 15:57

Congrats Chinese you're 500p from breakeven!

[cfc1] 27/10/2017 15:49

smurfs..it was good of him to take the time to reply!
I did urge him to get the job done in case Corbyn gets in!!
But I really liked his fighting comments.
I feel very bullish about this stock after years of zero earnings and a SIPP which is embarrassing to say the least!

So 2018 -2019. I really do think this could double with those 4 (really three) things done.

[chinese investor] 27/10/2017 15:19

One of my friends had an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA) a few years back and I was a Creditor.
The Administrator gave us regular updates which included a breakdown of their costs (time spent and hourly costs).

Everything went smoothly apart from the Administrators....
....going down the toilet (Tenon).

[smurfy2001] 27/10/2017 15:12

cfc1, thanks for posting

[chinese investor] 27/10/2017 15:12

How are we Claimants going to get our fees back from the "Action Group" ?
I expect we'll be asking Signature to do it !

[prophet_alexandre] 27/10/2017 15:08

Chinese
Absolutely agree with you about the communication from Signature !

[chinese investor] 27/10/2017 14:41

I have now read the communications from Signature which were very clear in their message.
Unfortunately because there is client confidentiality I can't comment on them.
We claimants should have been getting direct communication from Signature in the last few years !

I predict a swift resolution to the dispute between Signature and the "Action Group".

[gcom2] 27/10/2017 14:17

cheers for posting that

[cfc1] 27/10/2017 13:52

i had an email back from Ross McQ...dated 6th Oct its exactly what i expected. Note "we will fight our corner" re DoJ fine / negotiations

Roy,

Thank you for your note.

In terms of the DoJ, we continue to be hopeful that we can resolve this, and recognise the costs in our 2017 accounts. I’m afraid I have no update to give on discussions with the DoJ, but please be assured that the Board and I will do all we can to try and resolve this as soon as possible, and that we will fight our corner on the amount.

You’re also right that we need to resolve DoJ before we can pay a dividend – it is the big remaining factor.

To clarify, the 4 big things we need to do, in order to pay dividends, are
- resolve Williams & Glyn – you’ll have seen that the EC approved the new plan for W&G in September
- resolve DoJ, as above
- make a profit, which given we expect to take incremental charges, is dependent on DoJ
- pass a stress test, and again the key factor here is the DoJ

Once we believe we have done all 4 of the above, we then need regulator approval before we can pay dividends.

[chinese investor] 27/10/2017 13:42

My feeling is if someone got a divorce and employed a solicitor they then would not spend time :-

a) buying second opinions
or
b) spending money closely monitoring the solicitor

I will monitor up and coming events with added interest !

[prophet_alexandre] 27/10/2017 13:41

Only reasonable costs to be paid , in all instances.
The AG had no fee agreement with any of the claimants.
Makes you wonder why they operated the AG in the first place ?
Is this another PPI ?

[barmiddleton] 27/10/2017 13:37

CI, that would get my vote too, especially the last one, no 5. £1m seems a generous enough amount to me and far better than the £20m the AG want!

[gcom2] 27/10/2017 13:31

so they will haggle. i guess a stronger pound may help too.

[chinese investor] 27/10/2017 13:10

From last week :-

This is what I would like :-

1) Manx and Signature to organise the Settlement exclusively (TICK)
2) "The Action Group" to do no more work and be paid for their time, travel and office expenditure (£1 million at most)
3) The early Funders to be given their money back and receive no extra money - if they're not happy with that then they can sue the "Action Group"
4) The Corporate Claimants to give us the money they owe us
5) Total Costs to be Signature (£20 million), Bird & Bird (£6 million) and the "Action Group" (£1 million)