RBS posts record £40bn Pre-tax loss

Dithering_Dad

bubblesmoney wrote: »

peoples investing needs and risk taking appetite will differ. whats good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander. everyone might not have the appetite for tracking the share daily or even weekly. they might be busy in other things in life and might prefer lower yield but safer instruments.

having said that even we put (i think) 14k+ into RBS (my wife handles that bit of the investment so i dont nose around for exact figures) but pulled out 9k later with small profit and left the rest, did take a hit, depends on what day you buy and we are still buying RBS. but thats just a punt because we can afford to lose the money totally, that doesnt make it a wise investment. we are just taking a bet, if it turns out good fine, if it doesnt then still no worries on our part as we have got better things to spend time over than worry over a few K's. havent even bothered to see how that bit of our investments is doing. but i feel looking at their finances wont be surprised if its nationalised. so might not be the best investment for people who dont want to lose their money gambling on RBS stock, because when the CEO says they are looking for 95% govt stake, thats not very far off from nationalisation is it. for others who dont mind risking losing 100% of their money RBS is still fair game. it is playing russian roulette gambling and not fundamentally sound investment would be my opinion about RBS investment at the moment.

By saying "take advantage of the current turmoil", I didn't necessarily mean to just buy RBS shares. All shares are currently at low prices, even very sound companies (Tesco, ASDA) and monopolies such as United Utilities. If people have savings sat around gaining next to zero interest that they don't need to touch for a few years, they could do a lot worse than to buy into safe companies and watch their capital grow as we get out of the recession.

Some people will look at that statement and go "oh, but we're looking at the destruction of Western society, you should be hoarding money and food and lining your bunker with lead" and others will be thinking "Hmnn, the economy is in a bit of a jam, but we've been here in the past and we'll be here in the future. The market will recover (as it always does) and my money will grow". My comments are aimed at the second set of people who should be looking to grow their money. There's nothing you can do with the first set of people except help them cart a crate of beans into their bunkers.

piggeh

I agree - a recession offers a great opportunity for those in the right positino to acquire assets (all assets, including shares) at a much cheaper price.

RBS shares have got to land on the more 'risky' side of the fence though.

bubblesmoney

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

By saying "take advantage of the current turmoil", I didn't necessarily mean to just buy RBS shares. All shares are currently at low prices, even very sound companies (Tesco, ASDA) and monopolies such as United Utilities. If people have savings sat around gaining next to zero interest that they don't need to touch for a few years, they could do a lot worse than to buy into safe companies and watch their capital grow as we get out of the recession.

Some people will look at that statement and go "oh, but we're looking at the destruction of Western society, you should be hoarding money and food and lining your bunker with lead" and others will be thinking "Hmnn, the economy is in a bit of a jam, but we've been here in the past and we'll be here in the future. The market will recover (as it always does) and my money will grow". My comments are aimed at the second set of people who should be looking to grow their money. There's nothing you can do with the first set of people except help them cart a crate of beans into their bunkers.

perhaps the people hoarding beans etc are into commodity investments :rotfl: and taking the route of commodities rising when shares fall . could be anything other than beans too like other agricultural products, precious metals, oil etc, things that have intrinsic value. to each his own. i am sure loads of people who never invested a penny in shares did real well in life too. atleast such people wont be the ones who caused or needed bailouts for anything! although hoarding beans etc might be adding to the Carbon emissions :rotfl: but they wont have worries of needing to offset their carbon footprint. not unless gordon starting monitoring peoples backsides for carbon emissions for extra taxation purposes. :beer:

Dithering_Dad

bubblesmoney wrote: »

i am sure loads of people who never invested a penny in shares did real well in life too. atleast such people wont be the ones who caused or needed bailouts for anything! although hoarding beans etc might be adding to the Carbon emissions

From reading these boards the people who don't trust shares invested in property instead, and we can all see where that particular investment is going. :eek: These people are receiving bailouts in the form of 1% BoE base rates and mortage payment assistance if they lose their jobs.

The remainder keep their money in cash in the banks. Worth a lot less since the devaluation of Sterling and when inflation kicks in again, their savings will be eroded even more. Some of these people have received bailouts if their money was held in Icelandic banks, Northern Rock and and of the other Banks that have received handouts.

In fact, the only people who haven't had handouts are shareholders, so not sure about the accuracy of your statement there.

bubblesmoney

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

From reading these boards the people who don't trust shares invested in property instead, and we can all see where that particular investment is going. :eek: These people are receiving bailouts in the form of 1% BoE base rates and mortage payment assistance if they lose their jobs.

The remainder keep their money in cash in the banks. Worth a lot less since the devaluation of Sterling and when inflation kicks in again, their savings will be eroded even more. Some of these people have received bailouts if their money was held in Icelandic banks, Northern Rock and and of the other Banks that have received handouts.

In fact, the only people who haven't had handouts are shareholders, so not sure about the accuracy of your statement there.

it is always nice to see a different perspective on things.

bank bailouts are a bailout for the shareholders who otherwise would be wiped out.

govt shouldnt be bailing out private investments in any sector be it private property or shares.

if there indeed are bailouts (property or companies) then there should be a mandatory charge placed against such assets and all assets of the company / person seeking the bailout for the govt to take appropriate proportional percentage of the appreciation of such assets if any over time. the price appreciation should be calculated against average prices in the area for that type of property or the actual property, which ever is higher to tackle private sales under reporting prices to get cash backs to avoid paying the charge on the property or any asset. that charge on all assets should apply to all people residing at that property (enjoying the asset) to prevent spouses and partners being used as a proxy for savings to avoid paying the charge.

there should be no bailouts without a compulsory charge against all their assets for anyone even if bailouts are needed. if there are no assets then a compulsory debit order should be made to deduct such charges via employers or business bank accounts etc from all income from future financial endeavors if the people needing bailouts dont have any assets at the time of needing bailouts.

no such things as non recourse debt should be allowed. take on debt then bloody well pay it back even if it takes a lifetime. stupidity or ignorance of managing finances shouldnt be an excuse for making merry when not being to afford it. if they indeed did so then they should pay for it even if it takes a lifetime to do so.

nothing over very basic accomodation should be bailed out. why should a person who is renting and having no car or a v cheap 2nd hand car etc bailout with their taxes another person who bought a 4b house and flash car, new kitchen, multiple holidays yearly, cc debt etc when it was beyond their means.

Dithering_Dad

Try telling the Northern Rock shareholders that Bank Bailouts have prevented them from being wiped out. You can't even trade in NR because it doesn't exist as a private company anymore. NR was obviously not put into public ownership to 'help' the shareholders but in order to protect 100% of people's savings.

The only reason that banks were bailed out was to prevent the UK economy from collapsing. The only reason the insurance scheme was increased (and underwritten) by the government was to cover most people's savings.

itsallagame_2

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

Try telling the Northern Rock shareholders that Bank Bailouts have prevented them from being wiped out. You can't even trade in NR because it doesn't exist as a private company anymore. NR was obviously not put into public ownership to 'help' the shareholders but in order to protect 100% of people's savings.

The only reason that banks were bailed out was to prevent the UK economy from collapsing. The only reason the insurance scheme was increased (and underwritten) by the government was to cover most people's savings.

There are many ways to cook an egg and it’s the ill conceived; back of fag packet way it has been done that is most annoying.

Pathetic, ‘Lessons to learnt’ speeches are going to be increasing.