What's likely to have happened with our Northern Rock shares?

dengrainger

Re:
Two of the parties bringing the cases against the UK banking system were hedge funds incorporated in the Cayman Islands.

I would imagine that their case, like ours, is with the UK Government not the Banking system.
Whatever their view and / or intentions, the case for the Small Shareholders remains valid.

Perhaps, Redux, you feel that the Labour Government back then were bent on ensuring that the funds wanting to run the bank would not be allowed to prosper, and so that a solution would be to grab the bank and push the hapless pensioner Small Shareholders to one side (as bit players of no significance)?

If that were true, the pensioners would have no significance as Labour voters, and seemingly no entitlement to justice and fairness either.

redux

dengrainger wrote: »

We are entitled first to ask the Labour leader, as it was on their watch, and he was in the Cabinet (with Ed Balls and Gordon Brown) which made the expropriation decision including the fixing if the terms of the reference of the Valuer, which ensured a NIL payment to owners.

No, you are entitled to address first the UK government, as any hypothetical liability would attach to the state not a political party.

Other disputes have been resolved without regard to which political party was in actually power at the time, for example Railtrack, and much of the advice and work in all government processes is carried out by civil servants anyway.

redux

dengrainger wrote: »

Perhaps, Redux, you feel that the Labour Government back then were bent on ensuring that the funds wanting to run the bank would not be allowed to prosper, and so that a solution would be to grab the bank and push the hapless pensioner Small Shareholders to one side (as bit players of no significance)?

If that were true, the pensioners would have no significance as Labour voters, and seemingly no entitlement to justice and fairness either.

No, please don't make any assumptions or try to put words in my mouth

I'm being politically totally agnostic on all of this.

I do recall though that at a certain stage the government declared guarantees that would protect savers. They aren't supposed to be encountering risk of course, whereas unfortunately for you the shareholders were.

Thrugelmir

dengrainger wrote: »

Perhaps, Redux, you feel that the Labour Government back then were bent on ensuring that the funds wanting to run the bank would not be allowed to prosper, and so that a solution would be to grab the bank and push the hapless pensioner Small Shareholders to one side (as bit players of no significance)?

All shareholders lost out not just individuals.

The NAO report gives an independent unbiased report into events.

http://www.nao.org.uk/report/hm-treasury-the-nationalisation-of-northern-rock/

bowlhead99

redux wrote: »

No, you are entitled to address first the UK government, as any hypothetical liability would attach to the state not a political party.

The problem is that he has already addressed, 'the government' via the previous court cases and got nowhere. He could do a petition to bring it to their attention and easily get his 100,000 signatures to make MPs look at it, and they would probably say yes been there done that got the t-shirt.

So now it's time to raise the interests of this hyper-specialist special interest group to the public consciousness (at least to those who have not already heard the story) with public letters to those currently seeking votes. In the hope that they would be persuaded to open an enquiry into whether £0 a share was fair value for a company that could not survive without unequivocal unlimited support of the government and their billions which the shareholders didn't have in their own pockets. Those shareholders somehow believe a price of £2-4 would have been fairer despite the price for the shares on the public market being only 90p (paid by those gambling on a recovery, but not taken by Den and co).

While it would potentially open a can of worms, it is unlikely to go in Den's favour so I would rather he didn't try to spend millions of pounds of government money looking into it. But as I mentioned, I and other members of the electorate are biased as we don't want to see our cash down the pan in pursuit of an unsuccessful claim. It would be throwing our good money after his bad.

I have to agree with another poster on a blog almost three years ago: "You and other have fought a good fight on this one but I think it is probably now time for you to relax from it and ultimately move on".

Glen_Clark

redux wrote: »

I'm finding it hard to understand why they now seem to be renewing attacks on the Labour Party.

I guess they are offering their vote to any politician that will put taxpayers money their way.
I doubt if it will work because I think the party would lose more votes than it would gain. But they must think it worth a try - what have they got to lose?

dengrainger

If the shareholding of every single bank that had state assistance was expropriated without payment, would there be any shareholders left?

Why was the Rock treated so differently?

Thereby, was the decision to arrange Nil payment to our shareholders fair?

If 'our' state support (some of it caused from within Government) had a time limit because of UK concern for following European Rules, why did not the other much bigger support for other banks not attract similar attention, and similar action?

Not long afterwards HMG pumped £trillions into the banking sector.

Mistermeaner

What do you think each share was worth, with reasons.

dengrainger

Re:

Q:- "What do you think each share was worth, with reasons"

I presume you mean at the time they were expropriated....


A:- I don't know , leave that to the Accountants....but....
.....more than zero would be my answer.

InvestInPoker

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ2X2HSxcgU