Bradford and Bingley Collapse

WoodySenior

jimjames wrote: »

Just to correct your post. They did not convert savings accounts to shares. Savers who qualified were given shares. Their savings were unaffected. If you decided to buy extra shares with their savings that was your choice not B&B so you can't blame anyone else for that choice.

If a company collapses then shareholders can lose out. That's the whole point of having your capital at risk.

It was the underhand way that the collapse was handled by Bigot Brown and his Banking cronies that stings. I ran my own limited company for 22 years before retiring, so I am fully aware of the risk with shares. That shareholding should have been something that was relatively risk free. What happened to the dodgy directors? I hope they were banned from ever holding another position of responsibility. Bet they weren't though.

Zanderman

WoodySenior wrote: »

I ran my own limited company for 22 years before retiring, so I am fully aware of the risk with shares. That shareholding should have been something that was relatively risk free..

If you're 'fully aware of the risk with shares' how can you think any shares are 'relatively risk free'??? All shares are risky. That's fundamental to the concept.

AnotherJoe

WoodySenior wrote: »

It was the underhand way that the collapse was handled by Bigot Brown and his Banking cronies that stings. I ran my own limited company for 22 years before retiring, so I am fully aware of the risk with shares. That shareholding should have been something that was relatively risk free. What happened to the dodgy directors? I hope they were banned from ever holding another position of responsibility. Bet they weren't though.

Not enough to prevent you foolishly putting all your kids money into a single share and then look for scapegoats.

Aretnap

All depends on what you mean by 'relatively' I suppose. While investing all your money in the shares of a single company might be relatively risk free in the context of, say, base jumping or swimming with sharks, in the context of investing it's about as high risk as it comes, whatever specific company you're invested in.

libra10

I had an account with Bradley & Bingley, and given shares when they demutualised. These were lost when they collapsed.

Also lost shares when Halifax collapsed; although they were exchanged for Lloyds shares, they were nowhere near the same number or value.

We don't bother much with shares these days

dunstonh

We don't bother much with shares these days

Most people shouldnt. Funds are better suited for most individuals.

[Deleted User]

dunstonh wrote: »

Most people shouldnt. Funds are better suited for most individuals.

Do you mean single company shares? What about shares in investment trusts or ETF's?

steampowered

WoodySenior wrote: »

It was the underhand way that the collapse was handled by Bigot Brown and his Banking cronies that stings.

I do not understand why you want to blame the government for a private company collapsing.

It is absolutely not the role of government to be handing out money for the benefit of shareholders.

You made a bad investment decision by letting too much of your investment sit invested with a single company, you have to live with it!

londoninvestor

To be fair, this is an original argument. You don't often hear it claimed that bank shareholders in 2008 were cheated by the taxpayer!

redux

londoninvestor wrote: »

To be fair, this is an original argument. You don't often hear it claimed that bank shareholders in 2008 were cheated by the taxpayer!

Lucky for these people that the concept of limited liability was invented over 100 years earlier, during the Victorian railway mania boom and bust, or they'd have been using their own pockets to bail the firm out, instead of the taxpayer doing so.