Why can't all banking shares be suspended?

lordgaino

The Peston situation is unacceptable in any free market economy, and especially an economy in a high stress situation. News regarding public companies must be released via the official RNS to all participants and not via some journalist leaking it on his blog.

Dustangle

cheerfulcat wrote: »

Hi, 1echidna,

To make myself clear - irritating as I find the BBC, it's Peston himself I'd like someone to muzzle. His pronouncements on the banks' visits to Downing Street this morning, for example - he implied ( LINK ) that certain banks, among them RBS, had asked for a bailout from the taxpayer. Now, had this been the case, the banks in question should have issued an RNS ( the official way of announcing news concerning a listed company ) and their shares should have been suspended. As it was, RBS was forced to issue an RNS to counter the rumour ( you can find it here, ( LINK ) under " market update ", today's date ). It is the impropriety of the way he goes about things that I object to - as does the market.

Aw diddums. A reporter reports the news. The people the news is about don't like that because they feel they're entitled to manipulate the news, so the reporter should be killed. Or locked up. Or something.

I think the banks did go trawling for a bailout from the taxpayer.

Dustangle

lordgaino wrote: »

The Peston situation is unacceptable in any free market economy, and especially an economy in a high stress situation. News regarding public companies must be released via the official RNS to all participants and not via some journalist leaking it on his blog.

The banks leaked the story to the reporter who reported the news.

Reporters report the news. Evil greedy bankers leak stories to them. Are they supposed not to report the news they uncover?

cheerfulcat

Dustangle wrote: »

Aw diddums. A reporter reports the news. The people the news is about don't like that because they feel they're entitled to manipulate the news, so the reporter should be killed. Or locked up. Or something.

I think the banks did go trawling for a bailout from the taxpayer.

No, the Regulatory News System is part of the wider regulatory system ( regulatory = set up by government ) which requires that news which might have an effect on share prices must be communicated to the market in a specified manner.

1echidna

cheerfulcat wrote: »

Hi, 1echidna,

To make myself clear - irritating as I find the BBC, it's Peston himself I'd like someone to muzzle. His pronouncements on the banks' visits to Downing Street this morning, for example - he implied ( LINK ) that certain banks, among them RBS, had asked for a bailout from the taxpayer. Now, had this been the case, the banks in question should have issued an RNS ( the official way of announcing news concerning a listed company ) and their shares should have been suspended. As it was, RBS was forced to issue an RNS to counter the rumour ( you can find it here, ( LINK ) under " market update ", today's date ). It is the impropriety of the way he goes about things that I object to - as does the market.

What if Peston had the correct scenario - RBS explained that their capital situation could be parlous implying that they did need help but did not actually specifically ask for it - the meaning and implication being quite clear. Is it better that this information however alarming is in the public domain or not? - it is often better not to hold a lighted candle under a bushel as it were where only the "in" crowd know and the consequences when it emerges at a later date can be even more alarming. In any event it is a bit the case of "might is right" if he has the confidence of the BBC and continues to obey journalistic guidelines he is untouchable when the public perceive him as bringing them the correct information, the view of the market people matters little. It is enevitable and right that wherever there is a problem area, be it oil refinery safety or a child death due to parental abuse that the public spotlight is brought to bear and the normal obscurity in which those involved can operate no longer applies.

Dustangle

1echidna wrote: »

What if Peston had the correct scenario - RBS explained that their capital situation could be parlous implying that they did need help but did not actually specifically ask for it

That is much more likely. If I had to choose whether to disbelieve a reporter or a banker, I would disbelieve the banker first.

cheerfulcat

1echidna wrote: »

What if Peston had the correct scenario - RBS explained that their capital situation could be parlous implying that they did need help but did not actually specifically ask for it - the meaning and implication being quite clear.

To whom did they explain this? And why would Peston know?

Is it better that this information however alarming is in the public domain or not?

The information should be communicated through the appropriate channels - the Regulatory News Service.

It is enevitable and right that wherever there is a problem area, be it oil refinery safety or a child death due to parental abuse that the public spotlight is brought to bear and the normal obscurity in which those involved can operate no longer applies.

Eh?

cheerfulcat

1echidna wrote: »

What if Peston had the correct scenario - RBS explained that their capital situation could be parlous implying that they did need help but did not actually specifically ask for it - the meaning and implication being quite clear. Is it better that this information however alarming is in the public domain or not? - it is often better not to hold a lighted candle under a bushel as it were where only the "in" crowd know and the consequences when it emerges at a later date can be even more alarming. In any event it is a bit the case of "might is right" if he has the confidence of the BBC and continues to obey journalistic guidelines he is untouchable when the public perceive him as bringing them the correct information, the view of the market people matters little. It is enevitable and right that wherever there is a problem area, be it oil refinery safety or a child death due to parental abuse that the public spotlight is brought to bear and the normal obscurity in which those involved can operate no longer applies.

Just for savings' sake...

Dustangle

cheerfulcat wrote: »

1echidna wrote: »

To whom did they explain this? And why would Peston know?

The bankers, devious little vipers that they are, will have leaked it to him. He's a reporter, you know.

1echidna

Hi cheerfulcat,

You seem to understand well the rules under which markets operate but not the rules under which journalists operate. The freedom of the press is an important bastion of our freedom. Journalists are not required to reveal their sources with the possible exception of when forced to do so by a court. There was a phrase used in America about the leading market acolytes thinking that they were "masters of the universe" - they are not - indeed the markets are at present a problem area in society and demand the full attention of society including the press to try and improve things for the future. You say that this information should be communicated through the appropriate channels - this is a market rule - not a rule that applies to the press. I can't quite see what is unclear about the last section you have quoted where you say "Eh?". We have had a situation with the credit crisis analogous to, for example, a very serious series of plane crashes, where all involved must be expected to be put under the spotlight, including by investigating journalists.