Northern Rock Shareholders

FraudBuster

With The Bank of Crooks and Cocaine as a precedent it could take over a decade to establish if any value is left for shareholders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Credit_and_Commerce_International

ollyshaw

dunstonh wrote: »

Although there are people that thought house prices could always go up ...

This included the Government,the major banks and 95% of people I spoke about the issue with before Sept 07.

The more house prices went up the more the banks thought there was little risk in them falling. The more the banks lent the more "profit" was shown on the balance sheet. The more "profit" the banks made the less the the Gov was interested in questioning what the banks were doing. The idea of houses ever falling became unthinkable, it was "different this time".

Ultimatly the public did not mind as the average house was making more than the average wage. Not many people questioned where the money was coming from. Fewer still questioned the idea of basing an economy on lending money to buy and sell houses to each other.

Olly

FraudBuster

Can anybody explain in very simple terms please the NR/Granite/Jersey connection?

ollyshaw

FraudBuster wrote: »

Can anybody explain in very simple terms please the NR/Granite/Jersey connection?

I think that granite held the premo NR assets, granite got siphoned off before the sell off to protect the pensions of the big boys at NR. Something like that anyway...

iwantbargains

I bought 2000 NR shares whilst they were cheap in the hope the company would recover. It didn't recover and I lost but I knew the risks involved and am happy with the outcome. People who own shares know the risks and if they are not happy with it then should have invested in a saving account to get an income.

Paying out compensation would be like everyone who have lost thousands on the property crash claiming compensation from the government for the losses!

withnell

Surely the shareholders should be paid a cut based on the value the government sells NR off for in a few years time? They're earning nice interest on the loan, so why should the shareholders not get a share in the business?

opinions4u

withnell wrote: »

Surely the shareholders should be paid a cut based on the value the government sells NR off for in a few years time? They're earning nice interest on the loan, so why should the shareholders not get a share in the business?

But then the shareholders haven't taken on the risks of the business since it was nationalised.

So why should they gain from it?