Are RBS shares worth a punt?

royeee

Buddy195 wrote: »

No not yet.
I jumped onto the Barclays shares once I got wind of profits being announced, was very confident of big increase, as said now 100% up in value. Not so sure of RBS.

The difference is that Barclays announced they will make significant profit whilst RBS announced that they expect massive loss, biggest in history, so how is the market going to react when RBS announce the results which may not be much because the markets are prepared for this. The other parameter is how much more toxic debts are still left to discover and hat applies to most banks.

Buddy195

thrupence wrote: »

They're certainly worth a short-term punt with money you can afford to lose. I wouldn't be expecting 50p anytime too soon. 31p might be more realistic.

There are a lot of people out there trying to average down holdings they bought at around £5.00 a share.

So count yourself lucky you have the choice. :j

Do count myself lucky not to have invested when shares at the top end, but never considered going into shares that appear a sure fire investment, as if it goes belly up at £5 a share going to lose an awful lot of money.

Going in when things aren't certain sure are a gamble, but there are plenty of rich people out there who've done this on a very large scale and made vast fortunes out of it. Have only considered taking a few gambles with shares as savings are not gaining much at present and won't improve for at least a year...:think:. If I could still get 6% or over would have left moeny where it was.

Buddy195

royeee wrote: »

The difference is that Barclays announced they will make significant profit whilst RBS announced that they expect massive loss, biggest in history, so how is the market going to react when RBS announce the results which may not be much because the markets are prepared for this. The other parameter is how much more toxic debts are still left to discover and hat applies to most banks.

RBS have given the market clear indicators of what losses are expected, but share value has risen from the 10p value (wish I'd got in then).
Would expect if I take a punt to hold the shares for the next 8/9 months and see where they are at then. Everything "should" be a lot clearer and hopefully values should be on the rise.
Part of me would love to hold onto the shares I have now as long term investment, but not staying in UK beyond this year so will have to sell at some point.

Buddy195

scotsman4th wrote: »

I'd buy. Why not. What could possibly go wrong.
I thought they'd bottomed out at about 40p a while back but I was wrong. Luckily I'd took a little bit profit previously but was 40% down at one point.
Right now i'm sitting about 18% down overall (it's getting less daily and i've only been doing this for 4 months).
Heavily into RBS, just bought into Taylor Wimpey (bought at 18p).
Banks and housebuilders, cant beat it.

Would hope the Taylor Wimpey was a long term investment?

Rolandtheroadie

Buddy195 wrote: »

Would hope the Taylor Wimpey was a long term investment?

I see RBS as long term too.

Buddy195

scotsman4th wrote: »

I see RBS as long term too.

Would like to myself, but is going to have to be medium/short term. Not going in very deep so not going to have big losses no matter what the share prce ends up at 30 to 40p is a good return compared to what I'd get with money sat in bank account.
Banks should recover long before house builders do.

Masomnia

I'd question RBS long term, no dividends, 70% govt. owned which they'll have to get rid of, which will keep the price low for some time. And all the while the threat of nationalization hanging over you. Tighter regulation of the banks in future will mean that profits may not be as high as before.

Looking at old share prices and wondering if they'll go that high again is pointless simply because there are so many more shares in issue now. For example if they were £5 a share back before all this trouble, this means that if their market cap gets back to old levels and there is for argument's sake twice as many shares in issue, then the peak may be £2.50 per share, not £5, after a full recovery.

If it were me I'd have a punt, it is just that, and cut and run if I could make a quick profit.

Buddy195

Masomnia wrote: »

I'd question RBS long term, no dividends, 70% govt. owned which they'll have to get rid of, which will keep the price low for some time. And all the while the threat of nationalization hanging over you. Tighter regulation of the banks in future will mean that profits may not be as high as before.

Looking at old share prices and wondering if they'll go that high again is pointless simply because there are so many more shares in issue now. For example if they were £5 a share back before all this trouble, this means that if their market cap gets back to old levels and there is for argument's sake twice as many shares in issue, then the peak may be £2.50 per share, not £5, after a full recovery.

If it were me I'd have a punt, it is just that, and cut and run if I could make a quick profit.

Not sure anyone would be looking at £2.50 a share, would agree that would be very long term. Personally would be very happy if shares got to 50p then I'd most likely cut and run. Giving very serious consideration to dumping Barclays shares as less than 3 weeks and I've doubled what I put in, other half is annoyed I didn't include her, but would never have heard the end of it if shares had fallen lol. She said she'd have given £5k, but wouldn;t have gone in that deep, as she can't afford to lose that.

Masomnia

Buddy195 wrote: »

Not sure anyone would be looking at £2.50 a share, would agree that would be very long term. Personally would be very happy if shares got to 50p then I'd most likely cut and run. Giving very serious consideration to dumping Barclays shares as less than 3 weeks and I've doubled what I put in, other half is annoyed I didn't include her, but would never have heard the end of it if shares had fallen lol. She said she'd have given £5k, but wouldn;t have gone in that deep, as she can't afford to lose that.

Sounds wise, as long as you don't put in more than you can afford to lose you'll be ok. And for the other half, well, hindsight is always 20/20

I'm not against people investing in banks, it's just that we see a lot of people coming on here (and I don't necessarilly mean you) saying they've invested in banks, and wondering what happens to their shares if they're nationalized. Just because the share is low doeasn't necessarilly mean it's a bargain and investing in anything without fully knowing the risks is a recipe for disaster.

Good luck.

Buddy195

Masomnia wrote: »

Sounds wise, as long as you don't put in more than you can afford to lose you'll be ok. And for the other half, well, hindsight is always 20/20

I'm not against people investing in banks, it's just that we see a lot of people coming on here (and I don't necessarilly mean you) saying they've invested in banks, and wondering what happens to their shares if they're nationalized. Just because the share is low doeasn't necessarilly mean it's a bargain and investing in anything without fully knowing the risks is a recipe for disaster.

Good luck.

Thanks for you contribution :beer: