Rock bottom shares

geordie_joe

ejones999 wrote: »

If the hedgefunds were not holding stock it would be a penny share by now.
Sorry geordie joe but it is really that bad.

But the price of the shares bears no relation to the worth of the company. The price of the shares is so low because more people are selling than buying, not because the company is now worth less.

ejones999 wrote: »

Sorry but they want to buy it for a quick buck - they will have no allegience to other shareholders and certainly not their staff.

And they might just be buying it because it's a good long term investment.

And how are they going to make a quick buck out of it, remembering they have promised to repay the 24 billion debt it has?

geordie_joe

ejones999 wrote: »

You won't require any branches to do that - one single admin centre would be able to proces all the work.

Believe it or not, most people still like to see someone face to face when taking out a morgage. It is possible to do it all by post or online, but most still do it in person.

ejones999 wrote: »

As it stands nobody other then the BoE is lending money to NR - without capital they cannot lend.

That's how this all started, because nobody was lending money to anyone (banks that is). The NR went to the Boe for a loan, not because it was in trouble, but because it wanted the money to lend out as new mortgages.

It was the median who caused the problem by impying that the NR was in trouble because it was borrowing money. This caused the run, but remember that everyone who wanted their money back got it, and is still getting it. The NR is the only bank/BS in the country that was capable of giving back savers money on such a large scale.

If there had been a run on any other bank/BS they would have shut their doors and said "Sorry, we can't give you your money back because we've lent it out as loans and mortgages". The NR just gave the money back without question. OK, online account holders had trouble but that was because of server overload not lack of cash.

ejones999 wrote: »

IMO a dead duck waiting to be carved up on the cheap.
Nobody will be paying a premium for the bank - there will almost be nothing left to shareholders.

It may get carved up and sold for a quick buck, but the point is when they sell it they will get a lot more than they paid for it. This is because the share price indicates what people are willing to buy/sell the shares for NOT what they are worth.

Then again, it could end up as Virgin Money, or Virgin Bank.

jonesMUFCforever

I think we have to agreee to disagree.

Old fashioned banks like say LloydsTSB or Royal Bank of Scotland have many billions of deposits to lend so are less reliant on borrowing from the money markets.
NR took (what has now been seen as a disastrous move) a decision to expand its business quickly by borrowing most of its funds on the money markets. The run has meant that its deposit base has ben reduced by over 35% in the last 3 months despite the government guarantee.

Purely IMO there are much better banks to invest in than NR.

Billionpounddreamer

Alias_Omega, that is exactly what I did.
Invested £500..unfortunately, I did it at £3 per share and thought they had gone as low as they could.
However, I was wrong. But at the end of the day, it was a limited risk. I was happy with investing that money and would be ok if I lost it all (obviously not as happy as I would be if I had made money but what can you do)

I think personally I am going to hang on to them. After all, you should buy low, sell high, not the other way round. That's when most people lose their heads.

I have accepted I will not see that money again, so will keep them regardless. Maybe Virgin money will have the same success as the NR we knew in February! Haha

That was my first dabble in the stock market, just went belly up.
Just wished I had gone with my instinct and invested in those bloody Rio Tinto shares when they were £39 each...