MSE News: Blow for Bradford & Bingley shareholders

ESKIMO

'Sabretoothtigger',

Firstly, thanks for your reply it was much appreciated.

Secondly, i understand the 'best intentions' of the FSCS 'lending a hand' - if you like or however, i prefer the Superman analogy of 'coming to the rescue!' "Have NO FEAR. The State is here!"

If i may revert back to my 'bricks and mortar' post for a second (i hope you follow this, it's a bit difficult to explain fully - best use of a diagram).

Imagine 4 walls (of a physical Bank). Pure bricks and mortar. (With a roof obviously) - This represents Bradford & Bingley.

Ok, each 'brick' represents (say 1 share - forget the value for a second).

Now, inside the Bank (or more appropriately vault) is the 'capital' - comprised up of high-street retail deposits (savings, current accounts, ISA, index lead investments etc).

Assuming that the 'capital' was guaranteed under the FSCS (the £50K rule of thumb) - it didn't have to be 'removed' as such. It was effectively 'safe as houses'.

I understand about the mortgage side of things and lending etc quite well and yes, ok 'maybe' some of it was what could be deemed (now especially) as 'ricky business', but many others were also in the same boat and they did not follow suit.

My understanding is that the loanbook of sub-prime mortgages, buy-to-lets and so on was underwritten. - I'll check who by.

B&B had a large market share of the mortgage market - so yes, an understandable concern, but not to the point of putting it in state control - that only precipitated (in my opinon) the possiblity of savers alike withdrawing their savings as they feared it follow suit like Northern Rock (which, only then it inevitably did).

It was slighlty pre-empted really. It was definately coming (but only due to the fact the gvmt got its clutches on it.)

In honesty i think the government got a bit twitchy and under the circumstances at the time there was a lot of uncertainty and volatility as news was emerging about Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I can understand that the gvmt may have acted with everyones 'best intentions' but i fail to see how there was any mandatory or legal obligation to do so, in such a way that did not allow shareholders the opportunity to sell.

What i also don't get is the reasoning behind the BODs decision to allow the bank to be taken into receivership. Homer Simpson at the helm or what!

All 'she' (B&B Tanker inc.) needed to do was reassess her situation in location to the 'iceberg' you mentioned - and steer well 'chuffin clear' they (BODs) saw it coming. Captain always goes down with his ship. Lawsuit against BODs = justified (but they'll just say 'it was out of our hands.')

It's not really to do with the 'money lost' - as such, my real issue is with the way the business practice went about. All very underhand, behind closed doors, someone somewhere saw and knew about this.

Again, if you do enough shopping around, you would be amazed to fing that you can still get a 'no-frills' morgage (obviously i know this is now somewhat of a grey area as the likes of the FSA are finally pulling their finger out and doing something about it, bout time to if you ask me). But nevertheless, the situation in comparision to activities in the past (which one could argue possibly caused this mess in the first place.)

'Clairedavid'

As i'm sure you can fully comprehend this forum topic is specifically related to Bradford & Bingley.

I'm sure i speak for the vast majority of people on MSE when i say that; although possibly meant with 'the best intentions', we are most more than capable of conducting our own market research and making the appropriate informed decisions on them for ourselves. Thank you.

With no offence, please do go and SPAM elsewhere.

cardsharps

give it up eskimo. it's over. you have zero chance of getting any money for the shares now. it's time to move on.

ESKIMO

'Ever the optimist' - that i am.

Think about it logically. I do have a point and i am not alone in it. I think all the others 'supporters' must be occupied in drowning their sorrows or something. Look it up and draw it out. You'll see where i'm coming from eventually.

I'll convert you into a Jedi soon 'cardsharps'.

It's all a matter of patience though. I'm a fisherman remember! No one can sell ice to ESKIMO!

ESKIMO

Never been the type to be defeatest and i don't intend to start anytime soon.

It's not about the money.

It's more a matter of principal and business practice - lack of it.

Saynoto23

I too have lost out.
I too am (was) a supporter of local building societies as being the bedrock of our banking system
I too cannot afford to lose money

AND YOU ARE RIGHT - IT IS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE whether you are a 'big boy' or a 'small investor' ........

le_loup

joseph2310 wrote: »

I too am (was) a supporter of local building societies as being the bedrock of our banking system

So why did you own shares in a PLC?

chris_m

Spam report sent for charissewilliams

ESKIMO

Nice to hear a few new voices in our choir.

Welcome 'joseph2310'.

PS. Thanks for the Monty Python Spam-Alert 'chris_m'. Much appreciated.

Kind regards to all.

The_MoneySavingKid

joseph2310 wrote: »

I too have lost out.
I too am (was) a supporter of local building societies as being the bedrock of our banking system
I too cannot afford to lose money

AND YOU ARE RIGHT - IT IS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE whether you are a 'big boy' or a 'small investor' ........

If you cannot afford to, then why invest? that confuses me.

Thrugelmir

The_MoneySavingKid wrote: »

If you cannot afford to, then why invest? that confuses me.

To be fair. B&B was not operating as people thought. Just like NR.
The friendly building societies that the small shareholders knew was no more.