Brewdog Shares

[Deleted User]

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81918906#Comment_81918906

Well the “ring fencing” was for those who held the proper shares. Really we should have been given the same shares, which had actual value.

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81918910#Comment_81918910

Preference shares are a well-established and widely-used concept though, rather than being something specific to Brewdog?

[Deleted User]

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81918919#Comment_81918919

I don’t dispute it. I am suggesting perhaps the rules around it need to be looked at. Because whatever the ins and outs of it, 200,000 retail investors, losing 100 million pounds, while the founders of the company walk away with more than that, and other investors also walk away with more than that, is alarming.

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81918941#Comment_81918941

Just to be clear, are you putting forward some sort of considered concrete counter-proposal to reform the extensive and regulated regime of preference capital, or just complaining about having been disadvantaged by it?

P.S. It's not "100,000 million pounds" but "100 million pounds", unless someone really was cooking the books!

[Deleted User]

I believe I have explained my opinion. I suggested it would be for the regulator to look at it. If you are stating it’s highly regulated, clearly it is not regulated enough.

I must say I am surprised MSE cannot move beyond the prism of the fault being with the retail investor. It is certainly a complex of somekind.

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81919051#Comment_81919051

But your point seems to be unrelated to their regulation as such - unless I'm misunderstanding, you appear to object to the fundamental concept of preference shares (which, by definition, give preference to holders), i.e. your opinion would appear to be that you feel they should be banned entirely rather than regulated/explained/controlled better?

[Deleted User]

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81919064#Comment_81919064

I have never stated they should be banned, you are the second poster to claim that. I simply said they should be limited. How or what method would be used, I would leave to the experts. Which certainly isn’t us.

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81919066#Comment_81919066

No, your previous comments about limiting rather than banning weren't about preference shares but the EFP ones offered to retail investors.

How would limiting preference shares have helped here?

[Deleted User]

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81919072#Comment_81919072

You have misunderstood what I am saying. I have always been speaking about the shares the retail investors received.

I would suggest the amount of hollow shares be limited to 25% or something along those lines. There would have to be some kind of link with the actual money, and some would have to be put aside to cover the investment should the company go under. The retail investors. You want me to dig a hole, except I have already admitted I am no expert and was naive when I invested.

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81919079#Comment_81919079

Any misunderstanding is yours then, as I posted about preference shares at 17:03:

But your point seems to be unrelated to their regulation as such - unless I'm misunderstanding, you appear to object to the fundamental concept of preference shares (which, by definition, give preference to holders), i.e. your opinion would appear to be that you feel they should be banned entirely rather than regulated/explained/controlled better?

and you immediately responded two minutes later with:

I have never stated they should be banned, you are the second poster to claim that. I simply said they should be limited. How or what method would be used, I would leave to the experts. Which certainly isn’t us.

Are you now saying that this post wasn't about preference shares?!

I would suggest the amount of hollow shares be limited to 25% or something along those lines. There would have to be some king of link with the actual money, and some would have to be put aside to cover the investment should the company go under. The retail investors.

Unfortunately this does endorse your underlying point about some retail investors not having any idea about how corporate financing works - funds are raised to invest in and grow a business, whereas you appear to expect them to be treated almost like a deposit account!