Branson/Virgin to rescue Northern Rock [Merged]

MarkyMarkD

He's not buying NR shares from existing shareholders at all. What are you talking about, blf?

Virgin are selling Virgin Money to NR in exchange for newly issued shares, and also buying newly issued shares. Both of these sets of newly issued shares will be at a discount, but existing shareholders will retain theirs unless they choose to sell in the market.

So existing shareholders will get their shareholding diluted, but they won't end up with "90p" because they won't be made to sell up.

bristolleedsfan

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

He's not buying NR shares from existing shareholders at all. What are you talking about, blf?

Virgin are selling Virgin Money to NR in exchange for newly issued shares, and also buying newly issued shares. Both of these sets of newly issued shares will be at a discount, but existing shareholders will retain theirs unless they choose to sell in the market.

So existing shareholders will get their shareholding diluted, but they won't end up with "90p" because they won't be made to sell up.

DID I SAY VIRGIN WERE BUYING NR SHARES FROM EXISTING SHAREHOLDERS ? :mad:
U SEEM TO JUMP ON ALL MY POSTS LOOKING TO CRITICIZE. :mad: OR IS THAT HOW U BUILD UP YOUR MEGA POST COUNT BY COMMENTING ON EVERY POST POSTED.

THE POINT I MADE WAS IN RESPONSE TO AN EARLIER POST BY AMNESIA AND I INDICATED ( FROM A PRESS ARTICLE ELSEWHERE) THAT A VIRGIN TAKEOVER COULD RESULT IN SHAREHOLDRERS VALUE BEING ANYTHING FROM VIRTUALLY NOTHING ( in relative terms) TO 90p A SHARE

I DIDNT SAY THAT SHAREHOLDERS WOULD GET 90p A SHARE, DO U HAVE A PROBLEM EITHER READING OR UNDERSTANDING WHAT U ARE READING ?

ARE U ATTACKING MY POSTS MERELY SO I REACT BACK

UVE SAID YOURSELF THAT SHAREHOLDERS VALUE "WILL BE DILUTED" THE 90P A SHARE SPECULATIVE FIGURE WAS ARRIVED AT, AT THE TIME THE ARTICLE AND POSTING WAS MADE ON BASIS THAT THE EFFECT OF BRANSONS ACTION WOULD BE TO ROUGHLY HALF THE VALUE OF EXISTING SHAREHOLDINGS SHAREHOLDINGS.

DO U GET SOME KIND OF PERVERTED PLEASURE FROM ATTACKING MY POSTS COS UVE DONE IT FROM DAY 1 THAT I CAME ON THE SITE


Quote:

"i agree, branson wants to buy NR shares for as little as possible in return for injecting cash into NR, he will offer very little shareholder value, shareholders could get anything up to 90p a share ive read unless their is a mega bidding war.

if shareholders keep their shares and virgin make a success of NR then shareholders value may well increase."

does anybody else read the above to say that northern rock shareholders WOULD get 90p a share and that they WOULD be forced to sell their shares. ? :think: :think: :think: :think: :think: :think: :think:

Sapphire

baby_boomer wrote: »

Why does no journalist take on "teflon Richard" ?

It was ludicrous of him to suggest that he is doing it because it is a "great British institution".

Virgin Money's name is forever associated with bad value financial produces. They kept 1% charges on tracker funds way after others had cut them to 0.5% and below.

It's just another of his publicity stunts - he obviously likes 'celebrity' status. For me, that's just a big turn off. An unattractive, yes, 'teflon' man. :cool:

MarkyMarkD

No need for silly shouting, blf. I don't pick on anyone - indeed, before I read your comments on this thread I've just praised one of your posts on another thread!

I don't know how you can imagine that shareholders will end up with the equivalent of 90p per share in value, but the shares are trading at around £2.

Are you saying that the entire stockmarket is completely wrong about the value of NR?

The article you are referring to must have been written by a muppet.

Even if existing shareholders' interests are very much diluted by the issuing of new shares to Virgin Money's funders, the intrinsic value of the new business will increase - per share - because it will have a credible future which it currently does not.

If (say) Branson & Co get half of the new total shares, but the intrinsic value doubles, then existing shareholders are no worse off - and they have an upside benefit if Branson & Co make a success of it.

That's just my logic.

Always nice to discuss things with you (without shouting).

Jake'sGran

Amnesia180 wrote: »

Thanks for your help.

I really do want to start investing... but can't afford large amounts of money. And with something as dodgy as NR, I don't think it would be the right step for me. By what was being said, it sounded certain I could double my money. But like you've said, I could lose it all.

Can you recomend any websites to read up on, to get started in investing etc?

I was looking for just this the other night as I fancy investing in Woolworths.
I think that for a beginner there is not a lot to lose if you invest a small amount, maybe £200. Although I am a regular investor in funds I don't have a lot of experience in share buying which was probably caused by a huge mistake I made with a new plc. Anyway, all the pundits seem to rate Woolworths as a strong buy so I will have a punt on that. Today I was reading that the banks are underpriced at the moment because they have all suffered due to the Northern Rock business but that people should avoid A & L and B & B. I hold both due to flotations...and NR, but I am not selling yet.

Have a look at a few web sites such as iii, Digital look, Morningstar etc etc

bristolleedsfan

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

I don't know how you can imagine that shareholders will end up with the equivalent of 90p per share in value, but the shares are trading at around £2.

Are you saying that the entire stockmarket is completely wrong about the value of NR?

The article you are referring to must have been written by a muppet.

That's just my logic.

well virgin were quoted in todays mail on sunday as saying NR share price is way too high still and need to come down significantly. :eek:

btw i said in earlier post that shareholding values will increase in value if NR new owners are a success.

MarkyMarkD

Well, Virgin would say that wouldn't they! They want their bid to be the most attractive to shareholders, whilst paying the lowest possible price. So they don't want Flowers et al to think they are going to pay anything like a reasonable price.

bristolleedsfan

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Well, Virgin would say that wouldn't they! They want their bid to be the most attractive to shareholders, whilst paying the lowest possible price. So they don't want Flowers et al to think they are going to pay anything like a reasonable price.

virgin know that flowers will give little or no value to shareholders, virgin hve been very consistent that while a stock market listing will be retained, shareholding values is of no interest to virgin.

anyway no point continuing the speculation my initial post was just to join the chorus against the advice someone had received to buy NR shares. :cool:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/northern-rock-plunges-25-bid/story.aspx?guid=%7BDCD49683-F9C9-4FD2-B732-06E60C760EF8%7D&dist=dist_smartbrief&dist=dist_smartbrief

"Virgin Group didn't reveal a potential bid price, but all three interested groups have indicated to the U.K. government that they would offer almost nothing for the shareholders' equity, the Telegraph reported."

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/columnists/article.html?in_article_id=425470&in_page_id=19

"even though, to many of us, £1 looks generous"

MarkyMarkD

Flowers are rumoured to be considering "some sort of profit sharing for existing shareholders" whatever that means.

Without that, Virgin could offer almost any share price equivalence for the additional cash/assets they are injecting and still be seen as more attractive by existing shareholders. And Flowers don't benefit in letting Virgin get NR for next to nothing when they obviously see some sort of value to be extracted.