Reply to: The Rock WAS victimised

[BrilloPad]

I very much look forward to the judicial review, where the grin will be wiped off your obnoxious little face.

So you admit that without a special intervention by the Government Northern Rock was bankrupt, unable to meet its obligations and would have collapsed without trace. By any reasonable measure it was worthless apart from its saleable assets.
The assets of a bank are its investments and let's face it it's no secret that much of NR's asset base was in high risk investments that have plunged in value when they were betting on them increasing.

I can't see how you or the other speculators (shareholders) in Northern Rock should be owed a penny, in the event that any other business fails the shareholders don't get a payout if the companies liabilities exceed the realisable value of its assets.

When you buy shares you are risking your money, you risked yours on NR shares and you LOST, suck it up STFU about it and stop whining. You bet, you lost tough excrement.

I feel that we should wish cyberman all the best with getting compensation as cuk should be a supporting forum. As we all wish atw the best with SKA. Though I hope cyberman is not the barrister as the arguments put forward so far are weak : I still wish him the very best of luck.

[TykeMerc]

Agreed if HMG/BofE had not given a loan, but they did, so it was a going concern and still is. If the loan had not been given and The Rock went into administration then that is obviously a different scenario, but that did not happen. Understand now ?

So you admit that without a special intervention by the Government Northern Rock was bankrupt, unable to meet its obligations and would have collapsed without trace. By any reasonable measure it was worthless apart from its saleable assets.
The assets of a bank are its investments and let's face it it's no secret that much of NR's asset base was in high risk investments that have plunged in value when they were betting on them increasing.

I can't see how you or the other speculators (shareholders) in Northern Rock should be owed a penny, in the event that any other business fails the shareholders don't get a payout if the companies liabilities exceed the realisable value of its assets.

When you buy shares you are risking your money, you risked yours on NR shares and you LOST, suck it up STFU about it and stop whining. You bet, you lost tough excrement.

[BrilloPad]

At the risk of repeating myself........... ALL banks borrow on the money markets because money is the raw material of lending. If banks could not borrow we would not have had a boom time over the past decade. Borrowing does not make a bank go bankrupt. Twerp !!

banks do a combination between client deposits and money markets : any who rely almost exclusively on money markets were doomed. not good risk practice to put all eggs in 1 basket.

[Cyberman]

But it wasn't a going concern.

It was stone broke and if HMG hadn't stepped in, it would have gone to the wall by the end of the week

tim

Agreed if HMG/BofE had not given a loan, but they did, so it was a going concern and still is. If the loan had not been given and The Rock went into administration then that is obviously a different scenario, but that did not happen. Understand now ?

[tim123]

Easy, because it is called a valuation that is based on assets of a company that is a going concern, rather than lies and distortion propogated by HMG.

But it wasn't a going concern.

It was stone broke and if HMG hadn't stepped in, it would have gone to the wall by the end of the week

tim

[DiscoStu]

At the risk of repeating myself........... ALL banks borrow on the money markets because money is the raw material of lending. If banks could not borrow we would not have had a boom time over the past decade. Borrowing does not make a bank go bankrupt. Twerp !!

I very much look forward to the judicial review, where the grin will be wiped off your obnoxious little face.

[Cyberman]

Clearly you are not else you would not be banging on about it.

Its my view that NR got far too much funding from money markets and not enough from savers. It was going to go bankrupt. Their business model was just not feasable.

At the risk of repeating myself........... ALL banks borrow on the money markets because money is the raw material of lending. If banks could not borrow we would not have had a boom time over the past decade. Borrowing does not make a bank go bankrupt. Twerp !!

[thelace]

Will the taxpayers refund me all the money I lost in Marconi a few years back please?

Hey, stocks and shares, has always been about gambling. Some you win, some you lose.

The house never loses!

[BrilloPad]

No government has the right to nationalise a company without compensation. The courts will not look favourably on a government that pays zero in compensation but then reprivatises at many pounds a share, because that is obviously theft. Let the European Court of Human Rights decide. I am happy to wait.

Clearly you are not else you would not be banging on about it.

Its my view that NR got far too much funding from money markets and not enough from savers. It was going to go bankrupt. Their business model was just not feasable.

[Cyberman]

No government has the right to nationalise a company without compensation. The courts will not look favourably on a government that pays zero in compensation but then reprivatises at many pounds a share, because that is obviously theft. Let the European Court of Human Rights decide. I am happy to wait.

[Solidec]

If the ZaNu Liebors hadn't nationalized The Pebble, you still would have lost all your share value as the bank would have gone under!

As soon as the wholesale markets started to freeze many banks became insolvent, the technical precursor to bankruptcy/administration.

I actually think Brown knew that if Armageddon could be avoided, then nationalizing as many banks as possible for as cheap as possible would likely lend to a tidy Tax Payer profit somewhere down the line when they were re-privatized.

Nothing wrong with that, it is in the taxpayers interest to get something out of it all, esp as all this wanton swashbuckling with taxpayers £50 notes is seriously risky business!

Don't get me wrong, Brown is still a ****!

[BrilloPad]

No, because the majority of the loan is still secured, so your earlier assertion that Rock loans are unsecured is completely wrong. The number of 125% mortgages is also a very tiny proportion of all Rock mortgages.

Its more than 125% now values are plummeting. Except round your way where they are rising.

[Cyberman]

Because they made the figure up

how else could they come up with a figure so far in excess of the one that EVERYBODY else thinks is sensible

tim

Easy, because it is called a valuation that is based on assets of a company that is a going concern, rather than lies and distortion propogated by HMG.

[Cyberman]

When it's for 125% of the value of the house it is

tim

No, because the majority of the loan is still secured, so your earlier assertion that Rock loans are unsecured is completely wrong. The number of 125% mortgages is also a very tiny proportion of all Rock mortgages.

[tim123]

http://www.uksa.org.uk/NorthernRock.htm

So please advise how the UKSA come up with a true value at time of nationalisation of 5 pounds a share when the Rock according to you had no assets.....

Because they made the figure up

how else could they come up with a figure so far in excess of the one that EVERYBODY else thinks is sensible

tim