Bradford & Bingley shareholders strike back!

Nick_C

I also bought a few shares in B&B just before they went down, but only £500 worth. This was a gamble, not an investment. Anyone who bought in those final days of trading was hoping the firm would survive and they would make a vast profit. It didn't work out that way. Tough luck. Get over it. And in future don't gamble with money that you cannot afford to lose.

batty_2

The same !!!!--s have done me out of just one pound. I opened a account with them three weeks ago because i was getting jumpy having £130,000 in the A&L so was trying to move money around. They opened the account and asked me to send two I.D items which i did .They took the £1.00 out of my A+L account and then said they could not I.D me, so i told them to stick the account and give me my £1.00 back .I made three phone calls and four emails out of principle for my £1.00 back and have got no response from them ,I knew this would go wrong thats why i did not pay in the £35,000 out of the A+L in one go to open the account or the bast---ds would be holding £35k of mine now . Next week i will go into the York branch and not come out until i get my £1.00 back .Good luck to all of you that this cra-p firm took for a ride.

Kez100

I lost my 'free' shares but I am satisfied that it was nationalised to stop it causing undue effect on the rest of the market and also undue stress on the owners of deposits. I feel for everyone of the Icesave etc depositers and our Government did the right thing stepping in and ensuring the depositers had virtually constant access to their savings while seamlessly continuing the mortgage book.

HHskip

vbrindle wrote: »

The ironic thing is weeks later the government comes up with a 50billion pound deal to buy shares in other banks, why couldn't they have done this for B&B and NRK? There's no consistency in what they do, it all seems experimental to me.

Good point.
Could an expert perhaps explain the difference between B&B and the banks that are now being part nationalised?
If there's no difference then perhaps the government could be forced to look again at their treatment of B&B shareholders. Or is it simply that B&B had mostly small investors whilst the current batch of banks have shareholders who are big and institutional - we wouldn't want to upset them would we?!

bazster

Jon_McKnight wrote: »

Shareholders are supposed to be able to control the future of a company

Precisely. So what were you doing when your directors were bringing the company to it's knees with their recklessness and negligence? Just take the profits and ask no questions, was that it?

pizzagirl

HHskip wrote: »

Good point.
Could an expert perhaps explain the difference between B&B and the banks that are now being part nationalised?
If there's no difference then perhaps the government could be forced to look again at their treatment of B&B shareholders. Or is it simply that B&B had mostly small investors whilst the current batch of banks have shareholders who are big and institutional - we wouldn't want to upset them would we?!

B&B and N. Rock weren't worth anything whereas the other banks were, that's why

guppy

HHskip wrote: »

Good point.
Could an expert perhaps explain the difference between B&B and the banks that are now being part nationalised?
If there's no difference then perhaps the government could be forced to look again at their treatment of B&B shareholders. Or is it simply that B&B had mostly small investors whilst the current batch of banks have shareholders who are big and institutional - we wouldn't want to upset them would we?!

I'm not an expert, hopefully someone else might know better than me. But as I understand it, B&B were about to go bust, they couldn't meet their obligations.

The other banks, Barclays, HBOS etc. are suffering from all banks not lending to each other, they're not in imminent danger of goiung bust, but because they are not lending any money to companies or mortgage customers, it is damaging the country as a whole.

Rather than simply lend them the money with no strings, potentially allowing them to make a huge profit using taxpayer's money, the government are buying preference shares in these banks, meaning if things go wrong, the government get their money before ordinary shareholders, but if things go well, the taxpayer sees a share of the profits.

That's my understanding anyway.

paulboy83

Jon_McKnight wrote: »

Lost a fortune in Bradford & Bingley shares? Not quite convinced that the bank should have been nationalised so soon after the CEO said it was "well capitalised" and "fit for purpose"?
Jon

Didn't the Chief exec of Icesave say the same thing a few days before they went down??

bazster

I reckon you've hit the nail right on the head there Guppy.

catflappo

I had £3700 on Lewis Hamilton to win the Japanese GP on Sunday. He was on pole position and said he was confident. Can I have my money back please?