Small share holder in Northern Rock

earlgrey_3

dunstonh wrote: »

I guess that makes me whacky then. If you own shares you have to take the negatives as well as the positives. You cant just have it all your own way.

Owning single company shares is high risk. Always has been. Why should the taxpayer subsidise shareholders beyond more than is appropriate, if any?

If you consider those with a handful of shares in one or two companies as "wicked capitalists" then it almost certainly does.

Yes many were certainly naive and probably thought that when various governments encouraged share ownership that shares were a certain path to better returns than cash. They aren't and there is of course a risk that is theirs alone if they invest in shares or in unit trusts.

The myth is encouraged by the huge industry of so called Independent Financial Advisors who will do whatever it takes to keep the commission rolling in. IFAs are basically salesmen and it's important that the public understands that.

earlgrey_3

I notice this was your previous advice on NR so I do have some sympathy for those who aren't expected to have your assumed knowledge.

dunstonh wrote: »

Possibly a good call. They are certainly ripe for a takeover and a rally on price is quite possible for a gain. Monday will be an interesting time for the share.

They certainly look value now when you look at the value of the shares against the underlying assets and liabilities of the company.

I assume you thought all that was true.

dunstonh

earlgrey wrote: »

I notice this was your previous advice on NR so I do have some sympathy for those who aren't expected to have your assumed knowledge.



I assume you thought all that was true.

Yes. I wouldnt change what I said then. Quite a lot thought it was worth a punt as well given the numbers that were buying shares prior to the nationalisation. Its a punt that didnt work on this occassion but thats the risk of share ownership.

Yes many were certainly naive and probably thought that when various governments encouraged share ownership that shares were a certain path to better returns than cash. They aren't and there is of course a risk that is theirs alone if they invest in shares or in unit trusts.

The myth is encouraged by the huge industry of so called Independent Financial Advisors who will do whatever it takes to keep the commission rolling in. IFAs are basically salesmen and it's important that the public understands that.

Get your facts right. IFAs are not stockbrokers and shares do not pay commission. IFAs are not salesmen. Tied reps are.

jd87

ChrisRad wrote: »

Yep, I'm in excatly the same boat - bought the shares online and whilst I might be able to dig out some proof of purchase I don't think there's going to be anything/much.

I know there are discussions going on regarding valuation of the shares but realistically am I ever goign to receive any cash or is it all gone?

Thanks

Just incase anyone is interested. I bought my shares through an online broker (NatWest). I contacted Capita and they have no records of my holding, so I contacted NatWest Stockbrokers and they confirmed that my shares we in a nominee account of theirs, and that they still have a record of my holding. They said that if any compensation is paid out, it will be paid to NatWest, and that they will distribute this onto people who bought shares through them.

lardconcepts

Archibald535 wrote: »

Hi all, newbie here. I am, like countless others, a small shareholder in NorthernRock (500 Shares). Since the nationalisation, I have heard nothing. Do I take it I have lost everything?

Cheers, Archy.

Basically, yes (edit: apparently, having only been here 6 months, I'm a "new user" who can't post links, so you'll have to replace * with www

*.northernrockvaluer.org.uk/media/uploads/page_contents/downloadables/Consultation%20Document%20letter%207%20December%2009.pdf

Your shares have effectively been stolen.

PLEASE join the campaign below, perhaps donate, even just a tenner, or even just write a letter in response to the valuer (see top link)
*.uksa.org.uk/NorthernRock.htm

scott_lithgows

I reckon that everyone who lost shares should close every Northern Rock or Bradford + Bingley account that they have as soon as it is possible to do so.

Aegis

lardconcepts wrote: »

Basically, yes (edit: apparently, having only been here 6 months, I'm a "new user" who can't post links, so you'll have to replace * with www

*.northernrockvaluer.org.uk/media/uploads/page_contents/downloadables/Consultation%20Document%20letter%207%20December%2009.pdf

Your shares have effectively been stolen.

PLEASE join the campaign below, perhaps donate, even just a tenner, or even just write a letter in response to the valuer (see top link)
*.uksa.org.uk/NorthernRock.htm

They haven't been stolen. The company was essentially broke when the company was nationalised, and the independent valuers were called in to determine a fair price for those shares based on the solvency of the company. They have stated that the shares were worthless on the date in question, so the compensation amount is nothing. Had the government not stepped in to prop up the bank, it would have had to be sold at so much of a discount that you'd have received nothing for your shares anyway.

Sorry you owned a dud share, but that's the way the investment world works.

opinions4u

lardconcepts wrote: »

Your shares have effectively been stolen.

Why have you revived a thread from 18 months ago for no apparent reason?

(While the shares have effectively been stolen, they had no value - Northern Rock would have ceased trading without the support of the taxpayer. As such, the taxpayer is rightly entitled to any value that the shares may now have).

lardconcepts

Aegis wrote: »

They haven't been stolen. The company was essentially broke when the company was nationalised.

opinions4u wrote: »

Why have you revived a thread from 18 months ago for no apparent reason?

(While the shares have effectively been stolen, they had no value - Northern Rock would have ceased trading without the support of the taxpayer. As such, the taxpayer is rightly entitled to any value that the shares may now have).

Not really true - or rather, if it IS true, why was NR and it's shareholders (many of whom are elderly) treated so very, very differently from all the other banks the government chose to prop up with £billions in support and bonuses?

You should read that UKSA site - the "valuation" is nothing but a sham.
Right down the the fact that the valuer invites written representations, but then goes on to note that they can't be taken into account!

Either a company goes bust, or it doesn't. This is neither - it's not how shareholding works. It should have been either bought from the shareholders or left to collapse.

BTW, as far as "reviving" a thread, would you rather I started a totally new one and we have the whole discussion again? A thread is a thread, that is how a forum works.

Aegis

lardconcepts wrote: »

Not really true - or rather, if it IS true, why was NR and it's shareholders (many of whom are elderly) treated so very, very differently from all the other banks the government chose to prop up with £billions in support and bonuses?

Well, the banks provider a service to a very large proportion of the population and hold cash deposits which are supposed to be pretty much risk-free. As such, bailing them out is beneficial to the taxpayer and assists with maintaining as stable a financial system as possible.

On the other hand, private investors generally offer no services to the rest of the country and don't, therefore, offer any return for the money invested.

Of course, the money invested into the banks has been either turned into ownership or loans, so the taxpayer will ideally at least break even on those investments when the ownership is eventually passed on, while money handed to private investors would do no such thing.

You should read that UKSA site - the "valuation" is nothing but a sham.
Right down the the fact that the valuer invites written representations, but then goes on to note that they can't be taken into account!

Well, they have to be realistic. If every shareholder wrote in, they couldn't read all their correspondence. They would run up so many costs that your shareholdings, even if the value was increased slightly, would be depleted further by the manpower needed to deal with all the data.

Add to that the fact that the shareholders are always going to want more money, and the actual value of reading all the correspondence drops down to nearly zero.

Either a company goes bust, or it doesn't. This is neither - it's not how shareholding works. It should have been either bought from the shareholders or left to collapse.

A bank isn't a normal company. If it had been allowed to collapse, widespread panic would have spread throughout the financial system of the country, even worse than what we saw. The knock on effect would have been enormous. The government was right to take immediate ownership rather than allowing so many other people to suffer just to make sure that shareholders were allowed to hold on to their worthless shares for a few more days.