Bradford and Bingley shares...

jimbo5661

Oh no! just back from jollys and there's no compensation... i see the UKSA state the above and claim they might appeal, but having read CLOKEY's reaoning i can see that he makes somw very good points! In fact i think his assessment is spot on. It does beggar the question that were 935,000 share holders lied to in the rights issue literature and subsequent statements by the board and other parties with knowledge of how bad it really was. I for one would never have kept my shares if i'd been fully in the picture!

cardsharps

To be fair everyone did tell you you were going to get nothing for them. chin up

6022tivo

I was one of the guys who took the options, still annoyed with the handling of the purchase by the government. The firm did not go bust, it was trading at the time the government stepped in...

With the other banks, they just brought shares to keep the price going.

I understand they sold the B&B savings arm to Santander making money out of the old shareholder???


Anyways...

sabretoothtigger

it was trading at the time the government stepped in

They were due to lose their banking license as they lacked full funding to operate. The government only stepped in after the savings held in B&B were being withdrawn by such a massive amount they couldn't continue.
If the public had done the opposite and swamped them with savings and cash deposits they'd probably have been ok like you say. (Barclays gained alot on money in 2008 apparently from the public)

Generally I'd blame government but in this instance the public had already called time


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/savings/article4832029.ece

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1064599/The-frightened-Bradford-amp-Bingley-customer-took-life-savings-crossed-road-joined-rival-bank.html

wireframe_2

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

Barclays gained alot on money in 2008 apparently from the public

Didn't barclays find a private middle eastern backer? Infact, if I recall, Barclays were the ONLY bank to take private backing and shun the government funding.

dunstonh

The firm did not go bust, it was trading at the time the government stepped in...

So, how would B&B pay back the £14 billion to the FSCS? It was insolvent.

I understand they sold the B&B savings arm to Santander making money out of the old shareholder???

It wasnt sold as such. Santander took them on with a payment received from the FSCS to cover the liability.

ESKIMO

Shares 'currently' worth 'diddly-squat, zero, nada, zilch'. Emphasis on 'currently'.

The BODs have 'should have' indemnity insurance. Case is against them and the accompanying 'Prospectus'. (But this is not being pursued by UKSA) to my surprise.

Assessment Notice can still be re-determined by Mr. Peter J Clokey.

His 'report' does not take into consideration any suitable alternatives suggested to the 'Prospectus'. Shares are based on market demographics.

There is still light at the end of the tunnel. I doubt the FSCS will pay out, but the BOD Indemnity Insurance should.

ESKIMO

I think some comments are slightly confused. B&B was still trading up until the point at which it went into receivership.

Shares were taken off the market basically because HMT had an "asthma attack". They panicked for whatever reason. Taking responsibility out of shareholders hands.

The FSCS had to paid out £14bn as it had basically accepted 'responsibility' for B&B even before any evaluation had been done. I.e. when in 'state' ownership, everyone is bound to come running to mummy asking for a 'plaster' to put on their buised egos - more than anthing else.

Take, for example BBC complaints relating to the Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand - Andrew Sachs escapade. Sooner or later everyone follows suit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7694989.stm

SUNDAY 19 OCTOBER
Two complaints are received about the programme - one referring directly to the material about Mr Sachs.

MONDAY 27 OCTOBER
The story rises up the news agenda, and the BBC says it has received a further 1,585 complaints about the show.

TUESDAY 28 OCTOBER
0900 GMT: The total number of complaints rises to 4,772.
A spokeswoman for Brand says he has "issued a private apology to Mr Sachs", but Sachs tells the BBC he has yet to receive such an apology.

1745 GMT: Prime Minister Gordon Brown calls the incident "clearly inappropriate and unacceptable".

Brown speaks out over prank calls

The total amount of complaints passes 10,000.

WEDNESDAY 29 OCTOBER
By 1000 GMT, the number of complaints reaches 18,000.

1830 GMT: The total number of complaints passes 27,000.

THURSDAY 30 OCTOBER
1130 GMT: The number of complaints stands at 30,500.

1200 GMT: In an interview for BBC Radio Ulster's Across The Line, Noel Gallagher - Oasis guitarist and frequent guest on Russell Brand's show - defends the comedian.
"It's so typical of the English in general - 10,000 people get outraged, but only five days after it has happened," he said.
"You know what? There's now a massive divide. Them and us."

1821 GMT:
The number of complaints stands at 37,500.

FRIDAY 3 APRIL
Ofcom fines the BBC £150,000 over the calls made to Sachs.
The media regulator said the fine reflected "the extraordinary nature and seriousness of the BBC's failures" and the "resulting breaches" of its code.
The BBC said it accepted Ofcom's findings and added that the material "should never have been broadcast".

BBC fined £150,000 over Sachs row

Using the above example, I also recon the bad publicity at the time could possibly constitute a new legal approach through 'Lible'? Any suggestions?

You can clearly see how something beings to spiral and snowball downhill.

I'll do some digging.

The FSCS was pretty much obliged to pay out. It's effectively 'locae-parentis'. Yet it paid out at the wrong time and to the wrong people. I feel sorry for shareholders (incl myself).

It's not about the money. It's a matter of principle.

Ciao for now.