'We lost everything gambling on shares'

masonic

Drp8713 wrote: »

Why sell for less than you bought? When as you say "they knew barclays shares were safe no chances of them going under ." In which case will almost certainly bounce back given time. Barclays actually acquired some good assets during the crash which will serve them well in the future.

If I'm understanding this correctly, they were forced to sell because the terms of the credit they used to make the purchase meant that they had to repay it (according to Luz) on the same day. So they took a share that had fallen over 60% from its 2007 peak and gambled that it would rise on the day they chose to invest in it. In fact it fell, just as it had done most of the time during the previous year.

masonic

Luz wrote: »

masonic.

No the shares were bought in 2009 and if anyone remenber ,barcalys shares this was the higher they had been since 2009 only last Year they reached 3,30 or so .since 2009 it has been a lower and lower .

In that case it's even worse, because they will have seen the share price had fallen to £0.51 at the start of 2009, so could not reasonably have thought such a drop wasn't possible again.

Luz

Incorrect

Because this shares had reached 1.30 in February 2009 , having gone down from 2008 when the price was around 280 ,and stayed around then it was massive drop in February , check it out ,then on results news it went above 3 pounds in 2009 ,

le_loup

Oooh for goodness sack stop replying to this know-nothing. It's as much a waste of space as the original newspaper report.

masonic

Luz wrote: »

Incorrect

Because this shares had reached 1.30 in February 2009 , having gone down from 2008 when the price was around 280 ,and stayed around then it was massive drop in February , check it out ,then on results news it went above 3 pounds in 2009 ,

I have the chart right here in front of me. Its lowest point that year was in January. There was a big drop the end of February, but the price didn't fall as low as it did in January. As I said before, after the drop in January, they could not reasonably have thought such a drop wasn't possible again.

masonic

le_loup wrote: »

Oooh for goodness sack stop replying to this know-nothing. It's as much a waste of space as the original newspaper report.

I'm just trying to establish whether or not to have a tiny bit of sympathy for these people, which I would do if what happened to them was partly because of extreme events in the markets. However, it has become clear that the extreme events were already in full flow and they dived in either without looking, without thinking or without caring.

Luz

It reached 1.30 in February 2009 and I don ,t need the charts , then on results they started moving up rose to 3 pounds plus ,as the results come in better than expected,so at 2,90 was below the price .

But this is where the FCA needs to act IF THEY DO NOT SELL THE SHARES WHEN THE CUSTOMER ASKS THEN THEY CANNOT UPFRONT MONEY SIMPLE .
LET THE CUSTOMER FUND THEIR ACCOUNT ,WITH THEIR OWN MONEY ,IF THE DECIDE TO SELL AT A LOSS DONT KEEP GIVING THEM MONEY TOP GAMBLE ,AS THEY CALL IT DILUTION ? LET THEM DILUTE WITH THEIR OWN CASH .

Luz

Know nothing is at you,r end ,.

Luz

Diplomacy is about put you,r views across ,and be able to listen what happens , if after listen you don ,t want to acknowledge , fine but if you are irritated by the facts then , you.r blinkers are longer than one can imagine .

talexuser

Luz wrote: »

Diplomacy is about put you,r views across ,and be able to listen what happens

The problem is we have listened to you and not seen any logical reason from the facts presented to come to any other conclusion that their misfortune was of their own making and no one elses. You seem unable to listen, acknowledge or understand this thread in a logical manner but just come back endlessly in a style that is starting to look very like a troll.