'We lost everything gambling on shares'

Luz

Call it what you like , but changes have been maid so next time anyone wants to use the platform will be warned about it first and ,they WILL NOT BOTHER TO OPEN ACCOUNTS TO ANYONE .

So something was done ,however upsetting it is .The FCA must have seen something ,different .

Drp8713

What exactly are you trying to get at?


They were stupid to invest when they clearly hadn't researched even the basic principles of investing.


They were stupid to react to "losses" like that. If you don't sell when the price drops you haven't actually lost anything, if they knew what they were doing and waited they would probably be up now.


They were stupid to borrow money to invest when they clearly didn't know what they were doing.


They were stupid. Trying to blame Barclays or the world in general won't help.


Just because a facility was available didn't mean they had to use it. I'm sure they agreed to the terms and conditions like the thousands of other customers.

Glen_Clark

Luz wrote: »

the article was to worn other peoples about getting caught in the same situation .

:TCouldn't have put it better myself

(Well I could, but I know what you mean )

Glen_Clark

I don't think this is hard to understand, just people following human instinct.

When their shares prices rise they feel the stock market is great and buy more.
When their share prices fall they feel the stock market is not for them and sell.
The classic recipe for buying high and selling low

talexuser

If you are saying that they bought shares and failed to pay for them on time which started off the losses then that is hardly anyone else's fault. He himself says in the article that the fees came to something like £17400 in 3 years. This hardly seems likely to be the reason to lose ten times as much.

I don't think you will find much sympathy from most here, there are very many more worthwhile causes in the world than people who have more money than most and are too greedy to keep hold of it.

Luz

Yes you right .
, Brokers can do and whatever they like ,and FCA should pack up and go home why bother having rules for some if others can do whatever they like ? why having rules for market abuse ? what is the point ,and when they open the accounts telling you IF YOU DON, T HAVE A DIRECT DEBIT YOU WILL HAVE TO DEPOSIT MONEY FIRST INTO THE ACCOUNT THEN YOU CAN BUY THE SHARES . another, go back and ask for the market master from 2008 , and check their terms and conditions and look if you find anything about the credit facility . So im forced to believe you don,t know anything about the market master or at least it looks like .

As for you,r defending barclays ,lets leave barclays at side nad just talk about the brokers ,as you heard before one of them is barclays customer for long time and never had any problem with bank .Never ever made a complain about the bank . and had already recommended the bank to other members of the family .

Luz

Tele ,

Ha HA the problem is peoples having money? yea OK Now we know . Just because they saw they had money they had to find a way to get it is that what you think?

listen they paid for what they bough otherwise the losses would had been on the broker not on them .But the broker saw they were stupid as they were losing big time , and kept chasing losses ,so the broker DOUBLE TREBLE AND QUADRUPLE THE MONEY FOR THEM TO GO FURTHER DOWN . AND DOWN , AND WHEN THERE WAS NOTHING IN THEIR PORTFOLIO , THEY REMOVED THE CREDIT JOB DONE

atush

Glen_Clark wrote: »

I don't think this is hard to understand, just people following human instinct.

When their shares prices rise they feel the stock market is great and buy more.
When their share prices fall they feel the stock market is not for them and sell.
The classic recipe for buying high and selling low

I think it is VERY hard to understand. In your example, losing money should have put them off, instead they bought more and borrowed more. Makes no sense.

Glen_Clark

Maybe this explains it better;

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_9MYixPWxtF0/SeaBfMXuudI/AAAAAAAAAhA/j7v3LnygOuU/s1600-h/investing_psychology.gif

EdGasket

Luz wrote: »

Tele ,

Ha HA the problem is peoples having money? yea OK Now we know . Just because they saw they had money they had to find a way to get it is that what you think?

listen they paid for what they bough otherwise the losses would had been on the broker not on them .But the broker saw they were stupid as they were losing big time , and kept chasing losses ,so the broker DOUBLE TREBLE AND QUADRUPLE THE MONEY FOR THEM TO GO FURTHER DOWN . AND DOWN , AND WHEN THERE WAS NOTHING IN THEIR PORTFOLIO , THEY REMOVED THE CREDIT JOB DONE

That is the most ignorant and stupid post I have seen in a long time. You need to learn about investment before spouting your mouth off.

It was not in Barclay's interest for their client to go broke. Barclays are not the other side of any share trade, they simply provide a service to buy/sell shares for a fee. Barclays would have made the same amount and probably more had the clients doubled their money instead of losing it. It has nothing to do with Barclays that the underlying investments chosen by their clients performed badly or that there was a credit crunch at the time the clients were investing in shares. Barclays would have removed credit as the underlying value of the client's portfolio fell; that is quite normal.