Lockjaw Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 If you choose your own line to start from you can probably fool yourself into believing anything. The point is that RBS shares took a massive hit towards the end of 2011 and merely made up a bit of ground on the news that they had disposed of some pretty toxic assets. (Which is why Heston was up for a bonus) In truth RBS has woefully under performed compared to the FTSE100 and has lost half its value in the last 3 years and 95% of its value over the last 5. The general trend is downwards. Combine that with the fact that RBS isn't paying a shareholder dividend and you have a pretty dire investment, which is why advisors are marking it as one to avoid. A company will never perform well if the board have to operate with their hands tied behind their backs. But if you have shares I wish you luck. They probably haven't got much more left to fall so you haven't got much more to lose. Just think. In April 2007 RBS shares were trading at over 600p Hiya Liz. I think we're at cross purposes here. I'm not trying to suggest anything positive about RBS - I'm just taking issue with the ridiculousness of the statements in the OP. I don't own any RBS; my High Yield Portfolio has HSBC as its holding in the banking sector - more by luck than judgement, I must add. I do, however, follow RBS very closely because they're helping me win a four year long argument over on the Motley Fool forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 You are so funny. There isn't much point you following the RBS share price very closely as you clearly have little understanding whatsoever of what it means. Shush, T. The grown ups are talking now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T 42 Posted February 4, 2012 Author Share Posted February 4, 2012 Shush' date=' T. The grown ups are talking now.[/quote'] You should perhaps listen in then. You might learn what it will be like when you grow up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizmachin Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Hiya Liz. I think we're at cross purposes here. I'm not trying to suggest anything positive about RBS - I'm just taking issue with the ridiculousness of the statements in the OP. I don't own any RBS; my High Yield Portfolio has HSBC as its holding in the banking sector - more by luck than judgement, I must add. I do, however, follow RBS very closely because they're helping me win a four year long argument over on the Motley Fool forums. If you have been following the share price that closely I'm surprised you neglected to mention that barely a year ago they were trading at high of 54p before decending to an all time low of just 17.27 by the end of November. Having lost 2/3 of their value on a rising market it was hardly a shock that they recovered a few points as RBS sold some of its toxic assets. Indeed the recovery has been fairly steady apart from that sudden hickup last week. But good luck with Motley Fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 If you have been following the share price that closely I'm surprised you neglected to mention that barely a year ago they were trading at high of 54p before decending to an all time low of just 17.27 by the end of November. Having lost 2/3 of their value on a rising market it was hardly a shock that they recovered a few points as RBS sold some of its toxic assets. Indeed the recovery has been fairly steady apart from that sudden hickup last week. But good luck with Motley Fool. Liz, I genuinely don't understand why you are arguing with me. Have you read my posts on this thread? If so, you will see, clearly, that I am not making any case whatsoever regarding the long term past or future of RBS. Yes, I am fully aware of the SP movements over the past few years but that is not why I have posted on this thread. My issue is, simply, that the OP is nonsense. A huge share price move over two days did not "lose" taxpayers a single penny, just as the subsequent recovery over the next few days, whatever the reason, didn't "gain" taxpayers a single penny. You are clearly familiar with the ways of the stock market and share dealing and so on so I'm sure you understand this. I'm sorry you feel the need to take issue with me over RBS in general because, as stated above, apart from an intellectual discourse with a person I have never met on a forum where the posters do understand trading and investing, I have no interest in the company. My point in post 118, which I assume I did not make clearly enough since you seem to have completely misunderstood it, is that (and here's the bit I, perhaps, should have preceded it with) In spite of the steady fall over the last few years, in the few days since the OP stated that we'd "lost" 600M, or whatever, in two days, the share price has actually gone up. That being the case the OP is in a lose/lose situation. If the original postulation was correct the the subsequent rise in the SP could well be down to investors, having digested the facts, realising the Hester bonus affair was a positive thing after all. [not my opinion - just revealing the flaw in the nonsensical OP, remember]. Are we there yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizmachin Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Liz, I genuinely don't understand why you are arguing with me. Have you read my posts on this thread? If so, you will see, clearly, that I am not making any case whatsoever regarding the long term past or future of RBS. Yes, I am fully aware of the SP movements over the past few years but that is not why I have posted on this thread. My issue is, simply, that the OP is nonsense. A huge share price move over two days did not "lose" taxpayers a single penny, just as the subsequent recovery over the next few days, whatever the reason, didn't "gain" taxpayers a single penny. You are clearly familiar with the ways of the stock market and share dealing and so on so I'm sure you understand this. I'm sorry you feel the need to take issue with me over RBS in general because, as stated above, apart from an intellectual discourse with a person I have never met on a forum where the posters do understand trading and investing, I have no interest in the company. My point in post 118, which I assume I did not make clearly enough since you seem to have completely misunderstood it, is that (and here's the bit I, perhaps, should have preceded it with) In spite of the steady fall over the last few years, in the few days since the OP stated that we'd "lost" 600M, or whatever, in two days, the share price has actually gone up. That being the case the OP is in a lose/lose situation. If the original postulation was correct the the subsequent rise in the SP could well be down to investors, having digested the facts, realising the Hester bonus affair was a positive thing after all. [not my opinion - just revealing the flaw in the nonsensical OP, remember]. Are we there yet? The reason that I take issue with your premise is because quite clearly you are talking nonsense. Markets react to events. Government intervention at RBS is nothing new and the share price has suffered because of the loss of so many key staff. However what happened on Monday was more significant. Effectvely the politicians announced that they were prepared to alter the terms of the top man that they had appointed only a couple of years earlier. That news went round the world and knocked the market significantly. RBS share price has declined steadily but had hit rock bottom in November. It then rallied but was checked by the events before rising again. The market has not forgotten what happened. That is now fully factored in and other events are now effecting things. I suppose you could liken it to a big truck on a cross country run. It has decended a very large hill and is using its momentum to climb up the other side. If someone steps in front of the truck and it has to brake hard it loses momentum. It might well carry on up the hill but that speed is lost and it will climb the hill more slowly. Unfortunately RBS is climbing an icy slope and losing momentum might now mean it won't get up that hill. There are many more bonus payments in the pipeline at RBS. The markets will be anticipating problems. If large numbers of key staff move on it is likely that Heston will decide his position is untenable and go too. That could be a serious blow to an ailing bank because the next man will have to be on a reduced salary and will be forced to take on key staff on contacts worse than on offer at virtually every major financial institution in the world. That's why investors do not like politicians interfering in companies in which they have money. There are plenty of others without that baggage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 The reason that I take issue with your premise is because quite clearly you are talking nonsense. Markets react to events. Government intervention at RBS is nothing new and the share price has suffered because of the loss of so many key staff. However what happened on Monday was more significant. Effectvely the politicians announced that they were prepared to alter the terms of the top man that they had appointed only a couple of years earlier. That news went round the world and knocked the market significantly. RBS share price has declined steadily but had hit rock bottom in November. It then rallied but was checked by the events before rising again. The market has not forgotten what happened. That is now fully factored in and other events are now effecting things. I suppose you could liken it to a big truck on a cross country run. It has decended a very large hill and is using its momentum to climb up the other side. If someone steps in front of the truck and it has to brake hard it loses momentum. It might well carry on up the hill but that speed is lost and it will climb the hill more slowly. Unfortunately RBS is climbing an icy slope and losing momentum might now mean it won't get up that hill. There are many more bonus payments in the pipeline at RBS. The markets will be anticipating problems. If large numbers of key staff move on it is likely that Heston will decide his position is untenable and go too. That could be a serious blow to an ailing bank because the next man will have to be on a reduced salary and will be forced to take on key staff on contacts worse than on offer at virtually every major financial institution in the world. That's why investors do not like politicians interfering in companies in which they have money. There are plenty of others without that baggage. Liz, dont you think its just a little rich, that the markets dont like politicians interfering in companies which the tax payers own? Its for that exact reason they should never have been bailed. Lets see how the markets would have liked the politicians then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizmachin Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Liz, dont you think its just a little rich, that the markets dont like politicians interfering in companies which the tax payers own? Its for that exact reason they should never have been bailed. Lets see how the markets would have liked the politicians then. You can't dictate to investors which companies they choose to put their money into. The fact is they don't like political intervention because it often isn't what is best for the balance sheet. The government bail out of RBS is a totally different issue, but once they had decided to put in public funds they had to option to let the directors run the bank or to get involved themselves. It is clear they have chosen the latter. It is now entirely up to investors how they react to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 You can't dictate to investors which companies they choose to put their money into. The fact is they don't like political intervention because it often isn't what is best for the balance sheet. The government bail out of RBS is a totally different issue, but once they had decided to put in public funds they had to option to let the directors run the bank or to get involved themselves. It is clear they have chosen the latter. It is now entirely up to investors how they react to that. I’d agree with that, investing in a business that is backed by government money is reasonably safe investment but investing in it when the government want to be involved in how it is run would in my opinion be a bad investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 The markets were desperate for us to bail the banks, and now they dictate how they should be run. Laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.