Barclays Shares

Glen_Clark

lvader wrote: »

Which gets adjusted for in the share price chart so it still looks cheap.

so whats your point in your previous comment People missread bank share prices because they don't take dillution into account, lloyds and RBS aren't the bargains the share price alone suggests.

Barclays capital ratio is about 2.2%. They need more than double the rights issue to raise it to 3%, and even that is hardly rock solid. What that means is that if their assets fall 3% in value (or 2.2% currently) Barclays would be bust and needing a taxpayer bailout, which may not be forthcoming.

lvader

When people look at the share price they look at it from a historical standpoint, they are not fooled by share consolidations because the historical prices are changed to reflect it. Dilution on the other hand is easily missed.

Barclays will be fine, they are in transition right now but ultimately their desitny is in their own hands unlike the state owned banks.

Ark_Welder

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Financial news radio reporter said it was good for shareholders and he would take the option to buy more. I expect you are talking about the same thing . Any further info on this?

I'm just working from the announcement document and the way that rights issues work. The dates for this have not been finalised, just the suggestion made that it is likely to be in September with the new shares priced at 185.

But as an example, if the shares were to go ex-rights on Monday, then based upon today's close of 285.45 then the existing shares would have a theoretical ex-rights price of 265.36. However, whether or not the price of the shares would fall to that exact amount would still depend upon demand for the shares: the price could go higher or lower than that once trading starts. But none of these figures are certain (apart from the 185) because the date that the existing shares trade ex-rights hasn't been announced, and it is the prices at that time that will determine the final numbers.

Glen_Clark

lvader wrote: »

(Barclays) desitny is in their own hands unlike the state owned banks.

But is that good or bad?
Politicians are keen to show a 'profit' on RBS/Lloyds and can continue to support them with hidden taxpayer subsidies.

Doshwaster

BARC is a bit of a rollercoaster stock but it's still fundamentally one of the most solid banks and there are good money making opportunities to be made if you time things right.

I bought at 80p in the middle of the financial crisis then sold for 280p about 18 months later - one of my best investments ever. I then bought back in a 200p. I thought about selling recently at 320p but I think I'll hang in there a little longer.

sabretoothtigger

Government doesnt make a profit so yea its a good thing if you are a shareholder wanting a positive return long term

Last week, Barclays’ chief executive Antony Jenkins promised to increase the dividend ratio at the bank to 40-50 per cent next year – higher than a 30 per cent target he set out five months ago – as he launched a £5.8bn equity raising to meet new capital requirements.

Barc is perceived as more stable then it has been, which is lucky for them as face value is half the challenge to any deal.

When B&B was a sinking ship it was because their own savers were putting holes in it by withdrawing cash. And where did they put that cash in Autumn 2008, good old Barc which had of course tons of sub prime debt itself.
They never got rid of that, its been floated on a life raft attached on a long rope so as to put distance from good Barc but basically they have future losses from bad deals its just a case of when they admit to it

John1993_2

helptoyou wrote: »

What are you on about $1,500,000 of pay in a single share and you did not think this might cause a problem what period are you talking about ??

I still hold them, but as you probably know, the drop came over about a year.

As to "what are you on about", I don't follow. What bit of my post don't you understand?

sabretoothtigger

citi was 1 dollar in the nineties also. Problem now is they are just one of many in a new normal
53 now is about 5.3 old price I think so could be worse but that is pretty bad still

Thrugelmir wrote: »

RBS's bad bank assets maybe it's crown jewels. Written down to pence in the pound. More interesting than it's ongoing mundane retail activities. Ulster Bank is a major concern though.

Does depend what the asset is. A house in detroit, sitting in a row of houses burnt out for insurance fraud with nobody living there is literally pennies on the dollar for years to come. [Ireland is very empty countryside in parts - doesnt Lloyds have this problem too?]

Some parts of RBS were emerging market assets, seemingly bleak but with growth of 10% or more its not hard for them to regain ground quite quickly if the demand for that service remains.

The problem with USA sub prime is it was not actually good value in usefulness terms or especially required then, now or any time in future.
A bit like when Japans central palace had worth equal to all of California, thats never coming back