We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Bradford and Bingley shares...

245

Comments

  • gozomark
    gozomark Posts: 2,069 Forumite
    the NAV/share was almost certainly negative - fortunately you have limited liability
  • Is there anyone out there that thinks there maybe a monetry value to the shares? There seems to be so many differing views... will a potential change of government bring a change in attitude?
  • jimbo5661 wrote: »
    There seems to be so many differing views...
    Err...not really. There seems to be a rather unanimous view that the shares are worth sod all.

    jimbo5661 wrote: »
    Is there anyone out there that thinks there maybe a monetry value to the shares? ?
    No, use the share certificate as toilet paper and at least you'll get some use out of it.
    jimbo5661 wrote: »
    will a potential change of government bring a change in attitude?
    No, as the UK is practically bankrupt. There'll be rather more pressing concerns for a new government than to reimburse the owners of a dodgy buy-to-let bank that went breasts up.
  • opinions4u
    opinions4u Posts: 19,411 Forumite
    edited 5 February 2010 at 7:52AM
    Bradford & Bingley owes the FSCS £14bn plus interest.

    They owe HM Government £6bn plus interest for the amount paid to top up what was covered by the FSCS.

    Their mortgage book is riddled with sup-prime and buy-to-let loans secured on properties worth less than the accruing debt. I believe the balances are somewhere above £45bn.

    So where, exactly, does anybody see any value in this business? How is it able to generate surplus funds after repaying wholesale/government funding that supports the loan book? I can't see it, and even if it achieves this it still has to find £20bn to meet its liabilities for the first two points in this post.

    The shares were valued at 20p when the Government had to step in. That is clearly 20p more than they were worth.
  • jimbo5661 wrote: »
    Is there anyone out there that thinks there maybe a monetry value to the shares? There seems to be so many differing views... will a potential change of government bring a change in attitude?

    No. Zero. Wish I'd sold mine years back I always hated the company but just couldn't be bothered to get rid of them. They were only ever worth about £300 anyway.
  • begbeer
    begbeer Posts: 223 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Combo Breaker
    why Iwould like some money for my Bradford and Bingley shares is because I think I was conned, (and yes stupid) had the original 250 given to me then they offered some more at a reduced ratae just before they went, me, being stupid bought them . (mind you every share I have bought goes the same way, minmet and Egg) so if anyone wants to ruin a business let me know and will buy shares in it he he he
  • I concur with the view from Begbeer! i'd like some compensation... I have a very expensive Mauritius holiday to fund! I guess i'll know by June... (looks like a trip to Corfu then!)
  • sabretoothtigger
    sabretoothtigger Posts: 10,036 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Combo Breaker
    edited 7 February 2010 at 3:23PM
    gozomark wrote: »
    the NAV/share was almost certainly negative - fortunately you have limited liability
    cardsharps wrote: »
    You'll be lucky to get nothing for them.


    Once upon a time company directors held unlimited liability shares I have read, Mr goodwin would have done quite differently :eek::p



    Putting on the best rose tinted Elton John special glasses the business of B&B could equal a profit eventually.
    However in the meantime it is funded and backed by government having become insolvent and uncreditworthy. So any profit due should go as interest for that working capital provided

    In the end governments have the power to borrow money for 25 years that mortgages require and they can do so cheaper then a commercial bank. Even if they make a profit, its theirs not the former owners
  • :)I've read the website link from the UKSA, and they seem to believe that the shares will have some value and they seem to have a case. But no one on this forum seems to agree!!

    If it's so clear cut why is Peter Clokey taking until June 2010 to decide?

    Fingers crossed i'll (and millions of others) will get at least something!:)
  • jimbo5661 wrote: »

    If it's so clear cut why is Peter Clokey taking until June 2010 to decide?
    To give the pretence of having doing a thorough analysis of the worthless, failed buy-to-let company.

    They did the same with Northern Rock and came up with the same result - zilch, nothing, zero, a big duck egg.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.4K Life & Family
  • 258.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.