Royal Bank Of Scotland Share Discussion Threads

[polar fox] 13/9/2018 10:22

Scampi,

345p is what the chart says, as I posted months ago - it's the time frame that counts, of course. There is the little matter of a gov't desperate for cash, wanting to dispose of 62.4% as soon as it reasonably can. Will the next placing be put off until Q1, alongside a direct UKGI sale, or will they do a placing before the Budget, which is probably going to be on Nov. 21? Answers on a postcard.

[gcom2] 13/9/2018 10:19

this will rise this autumn. going to review my 232p order.

[scamper] 13/9/2018 09:55

Goldman Sachs today upgrades its investment rating on Royal Bank of Scotland Group (The) PLC (LON:RBS) to buy (from neutral) and raised its price target to 345p (from 330p).

Story provided by StockMarketWire.com12/09/18

[gcom2] 13/9/2018 08:31

4bn=18.25p dividend

[leedskier] 13/9/2018 08:11

Draghi was right all along and the Germans were wrong. Prolonged low interest rates have not caused inflation in the €zone.

[leedskier] 13/9/2018 08:10

The European Central Bank (ECB) is expected to stick to its policy stance at their upcoming meeting on Thursday as inflation does not seem to accelerate and growth remains solid.

"It is clear that the most recent inflation figures do not suggest in any way that the ECB will need to deviate from its 'prudence, patience and persistence' mantra," Dirk Schumacher, ECB watcher at Natixis in Frankfurt explained in a note to clients. "The one development, however, which continues to point to a renewed pick-up in core inflation is wage growth, which has accelerated clearly since the beginning of the year," he added.

[bonda67] 12/9/2018 17:06

And the dow is heading towards 4x ftse !!

[leedskier] 12/9/2018 16:54

Watching Bloomberg TV. Comment that it is the longest US bull run ever.

[tfergi] 12/9/2018 08:09

I think the recent fall is well overdone. Long term I think it's a great bargain.

[polar fox] 11/9/2018 14:19

As of yesterday, Lloyds had lost 19.5%, compared with its 2018 high of 72.68p last January. Says it all....

[smurfy2001] 11/9/2018 12:26

Is Vodafone a bargain or am l missing something with that high yield?

[leedskier] 11/9/2018 12:07

photo online upload

[leedskier] 11/9/2018 09:46

UK pay growth picks up to fastest rate in three years – business live
Official figures show average earnings excluding bonuses rose 3.1% in July

[leedskier] 11/9/2018 09:43

The £ is recovering against the € & $. Negative for the Index.

[smurfy2001] 10/9/2018 13:45

I see the forecast dividend is reduced to 6.58p from 7.47p

[polar fox] 05/9/2018 12:40

Another 54 branches are to be closed by January. 258 jobs going. BBC has the detail.

[barmiddleton] 04/9/2018 16:27

I'm grateful also, g. Thanks

[chinese investor] 04/9/2018 16:24

Thank you g.

[m1k3y1] 04/9/2018 15:24

thank you g1945

[g1945] 04/9/2018 15:01

Quote from Signature's Website -

On the front page of the edition of the Business and Money section of the Sunday Times on 19 August 2018 an article sought to comment on the legal proceedings brought by Manx on behalf of the SG Claimants against those former Claimant members of the SG Group who left without paying their contribution to the legal costs that had been incurred on their behalf at that time.

The article carries a suggestion that the claim is being brought against the former Claimants (now the “Defendants220;) personally by Mr Trevor Hemmings. In fact, it is being brought by Manx Capital, which is a Claimant exercising its rights and responsibilities as the delegated manager of the litigation, through a board that does not include Mr Hemmings. He is simply the owner of it, as one of many companies in a corporate group.

The Sunday Times article also contained a quote which was attributed to a source “close” to one of the Defendants alleging that the claim by Manx was for the former Claimants “not paying the bills that [Manx itself] is disputing“. This is factually incorrect. The true position is that Manx is claiming from the former Claimants their proportion of legal costs which have been incurred, paid, and which are not disputed.

If the liability of the former Claimants is established in respect of these legal costs, as we believe it will be, then at that time the Court can assess the full amount of their liability. That may (or may not) include additional contingent elements that have not currently been paid because they are being disputed. In the meantime it was therefore quite wrong of the Sunday Times to publish comments from the Defendants that our claim is simply for (or is “critically221; dependent on) bills that are being disputed.

Regrettably the Sunday Times did not inform us that they intended to run this inaccurate quote, which we consider to have been sourced from the Defendants’ team without giving us the opportunity to correct it or even comment on it at any time before it was published.

We hope this clarifies matters for all Claimants, including those who have understandably been enquiring about this Sunday Times article. We have asked the Sunday Times to act responsibly and correct it.