Lockjaw 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. Look, Liz. Tax payers did not lose £600M or whatever on Monday because the govt didn't ... sell ... the ... shares. That's all I was trying to say! Having tried to say that, I then added that if the taxpayer had "lost" said money then, they had gained more in the subsequent days. It's that simple. If your own portfolio falls in value by a couple of thousand on a given day you don't consider that you've "lost" that much do you? If you do, then I'm afraid I must have overestimated you. I agree with all the stuff you've said about RBS. I have already told you this. You are arguing against points I haven't made. Oh, I give up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizmachin Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Look' date=' Liz. Tax payers did not lose £600M or whatever on Monday because the govt [b']didn't ... sell ... the ... shares.[/b] That's all I was trying to say! Having tried to say that, I then added that if the taxpayer had "lost" said money then, they had gained more in the subsequent days. It's that simple. If your own portfolio falls in value by a couple of thousand on a given day you don't consider that you've "lost" that much do you? If you do, then I'm afraid I must have overestimated you. I agree with all the stuff you've said about RBS. I have already told you this. You are arguing against points I haven't made. Oh, I give up! You probably should give up because frankly you haven't got a clue. You sound like a gambler who has lost on the horses every week for a year and after 50 losing bets finally gets a winner at 5/1 and them boasts how much he's made on the month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 You probably should give up because frankly you haven't got a clue. You sound like a gambler who has lost on the horses every week for a year and after 50 losing bets finally gets a winner at 5/1 and them boasts how much he's made on the month. Do us a favour, Liz. Read the thread, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizmachin Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Do us a favour, Liz. Read the thread, eh? Yeh. I did that. Your conclusions are just as bone headed as the first time that I read them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Yeh. I did that. Your conclusions are just as bone headed as the first time that I read them. Ok. Last try then. Would you care to tell me what those conclusions are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizmachin Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Ok. Last try then. Would you care to tell me what those conclusions are? That's pretty easy and I suspect that you know yourself. You decide that you don't want the row over bonuses to have effected the share price at RBS and therefore ignore everything bar about 5% of the information in order to try to prop up your preposterous claim. The facts are that share price has been up and down but had been on a steady downward slope having dropped from 54p to 17p in barely a year, bottoming out in November. This followed the mass departures of key staff due to political interference. So in November the share price started to pick up slightly only to be halted as the row over Heston broke out. All financial institutions remarked on this. Yes the share price has regained the price it was, but that isn't the same as being where it would have been without the further interventions. The rise in share price has halted and is still no higher than it was a week ago. The share price has dropped 95% since its peak in 2007. The P/E ratio is now MINUS 33 with earnings per share at MINUS 0.87. The market is already prepared for future bonus rows and further losses of key staff. But like I said you ignored all that because you had painted yourself into a corner. Indeed we can probably trigger that bonus row right now. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2012/02/05/state-owned-royal-bank-of-scotland-set-to-reveal-profits-of-500m-86908-23736183/ ROYAL Bank of Scotland are to announce profits of more £500million – the same amount they are giving in bonuses to staff. State-owned RBS – who have been attacked for shelling out huge bonuses as millions suffer in the recession triggered by the bank – are due to unveil £530million pre-tax profits for 2011. But RBS are also set to hand £500million to 19,000 staff at their investment banking arm. They received £950million last year, down from £1.3billion the year before. RBS are 83per cent owned by the public after being rescued using taxpayers’ cash following a UK corporate record loss of £24billion in 2008. But they continue to reward staff with massive bonuses. Last week, chief executive Stephen Hester only rejected a £1million bonus after mounting public pressure. RBS are set to unveil their results on February 23. City experts expect pre-tax profits of around £530million, compared with losses of £399million in 2010 and £2.6billion in 2009. In bold is the key but that will be the bit that is ignored as politicians are pressured into reaction to the headlines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 That's pretty easy and I suspect that you know yourself. You decide that you don't want the row over bonuses to have effected the share price at RBS and therefore ignore everything bar about 5% of the information in order to try to prop up your preposterous claim. The facts are that share price has been up and down but had been on a steady downward slope having dropped from 54p to 17p in barely a year, bottoming out in November. This followed the mass departures of key staff due to political interference. So in November the share price started to pick up slightly only to be halted as the row over Heston broke out. All financial institutions remarked on this. Yes the share price has regained the price it was, but that isn't the same as being where it would have been without the further interventions. The rise in share price has halted and is still no higher than it was a week ago. The share price has dropped 95% since its peak in 2007. The P/E ratio is now MINUS 33 with earnings per share at MINUS 0.87. The market is already prepared for future bonus rows and further losses of key staff. But like I said you ignored all that because you had painted yourself into a corner. Indeed we can probably trigger that bonus row right now. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2012/02/05/state-owned-royal-bank-of-scotland-set-to-reveal-profits-of-500m-86908-23736183/ ROYAL Bank of Scotland are to announce profits of more £500million – the same amount they are giving in bonuses to staff. State-owned RBS – who have been attacked for shelling out huge bonuses as millions suffer in the recession triggered by the bank – are due to unveil £530million pre-tax profits for 2011. But RBS are also set to hand £500million to 19,000 staff at their investment banking arm. They received £950million last year, down from £1.3billion the year before. RBS are 83per cent owned by the public after being rescued using taxpayers’ cash following a UK corporate record loss of £24billion in 2008. But they continue to reward staff with massive bonuses. Last week, chief executive Stephen Hester only rejected a £1million bonus after mounting public pressure. RBS are set to unveil their results on February 23. City experts expect pre-tax profits of around £530million, compared with losses of £399million in 2010 and £2.6billion in 2009. In bold is the key but that will be the bit that is ignored as politicians are pressured into reaction to the headlines. Hiya Liz. I appreciate your long reply, genuinely. In it, though, you have included a lot of information of which I am already aware and some opinion with which I fully agree - as I have pretty much all the opinions you have expressed on this thread which is why I am utterly bewildered at your responses. You have also included one suggested opinion of mine: "You decide that you don't want the row over bonuses to have effected the share price at RBS and therefore ignore everything bar about 5% of the information in order to try to prop up your preposterous claim." ... which, I assure you, is utterly incorrect. Course the bonus row caused the share price fall. I have not denied that at any stage. As I have tried, at great length to make clear to you (read back, have a look) that is not my point. My point is simply one of realised and unrealised losses (read back, have a look). In almost every response to you I have agreed with pretty much everything you have said and tried very hard to clarify my point and you have responded with comments such as the sad gambler one and the bonehead one and I am, genuinely, bewildered. I can, therefore, only assume one or more of the following is true: I have exhibited uncharacteristically poor communication during this thread and, if that is the case, I apologise. You made an incorrect assumption about my point when you read my first post on the matter and, as is the nature of we humans, that has clouded your interpretation of subsequent posts. You are "reading between the lines" of my posts and concluding an opinion that isn't there. Much less likely: I have underestimated you and you do not actually understand the idea of realised/unrealised losses and gains. Way out there but a possibility: You have spotted the contempt and derision towards others in my posts and taken a dislike to it. I make no apology for this but fully understand it may exercise some people. I know I'm getting a bit imaginative now, Liz, but I remain baffled. I am quite happy to be called out and insulted about things I say and would very rarely be offended by such posts but, to be criticised over a number of pages for an opinion I simply do not have and haven't expressed, even in irony is, frankly, a new experience for me. In an ideal world you would now read back over my posts and acknowledge that I speak the truth in this post but, well, it ain't an ideal world so I guess we'll call it a day. For completeness, though, in the hope it may help clear your head of any misapprehension regarding my attachment to bleedin' RBS, I do not hold any shares which do not pay a dividend. They stop paying a dividend, they are sold ... without fail. My strategy, which is in no way uncommon, is a low risk income strategy so RBS do not figure in my plans in any way, shape or form. Thanks again for your reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizmachin Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Hiya Liz. I appreciate your long reply, genuinely. In it, though, you have included a lot of information of which I am already aware and some opinion with which I fully agree - as I have pretty much all the opinions you have expressed on this thread which is why I am utterly bewildered at your responses. You have also included one suggested opinion of mine: "You decide that you don't want the row over bonuses to have effected the share price at RBS and therefore ignore everything bar about 5% of the information in order to try to prop up your preposterous claim." ... which, I assure you, is utterly incorrect. Course the bonus row caused the share price fall. I have not denied that at any stage. As I have tried, at great length to make clear to you (read back, have a look) that is not my point. My point is simply one of realised and unrealised losses (read back, have a look). In almost every response to you I have agreed with pretty much everything you have said and tried very hard to clarify my point and you have responded with comments such as the sad gambler one and the bonehead one and I am, genuinely, bewildered. I can, therefore, only assume one or more of the following is true: I have exhibited uncharacteristically poor communication during this thread and, if that is the case, I apologise. You made an incorrect assumption about my point when you read my first post on the matter and, as is the nature of we humans, that has clouded your interpretation of subsequent posts. You are "reading between the lines" of my posts and concluding an opinion that isn't there. Much less likely: I have underestimated you and you do not actually understand the idea of realised/unrealised losses and gains. Way out there but a possibility: You have spotted the contempt and derision towards others in my posts and taken a dislike to it. I make no apology for this but fully understand it may exercise some people. I know I'm getting a bit imaginative now, Liz, but I remain baffled. I am quite happy to be called out and insulted about things I say and would very rarely be offended by such posts but, to be criticised over a number of pages for an opinion I simply do not have and haven't expressed, even in irony is, frankly, a new experience for me. In an ideal world you would now read back over my posts and acknowledge that I speak the truth in this post but, well, it ain't an ideal world so I guess we'll call it a day. For completeness, though, in the hope it may help clear your head of any misapprehension regarding my attachment to bleedin' RBS, I do not hold any shares which do not pay a dividend. They stop paying a dividend, they are sold ... without fail. My strategy, which is in no way uncommon, is a low risk income strategy so RBS do not figure in my plans in any way, shape or form. Thanks again for your reply. That's cool. TBH I've been a bit bored sitting around at home with a cold and just dropped by to see how things were in my old university town. What is happening at RBS seems to be pretty symptomatic of a lot of UK stock at the moment. The whole scene is getting a bit politicised and we are recommending investments in the growing markets of the Far East rather than the shrinking ones of Europe. But good luck with the investments. I really mean that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 That's cool. TBH I've been a bit bored sitting around at home with a cold and just dropped by to see how things were in my old university town. What is happening at RBS seems to be pretty symptomatic of a lot of UK stock at the moment. The whole scene is getting a bit politicised and we are recommending investments in the growing markets of the Far East rather than the shrinking ones of Europe. But good luck with the investments. I really mean that. Cheers Liz. I'm with you, as always, with the investments in growing markets advice. Trouble is, I don't feel confident or knowledgeable enough to jump in just yet and, as I said, I'm more comfortable with income than growth - again because of not enough knowledge. There are enough megacaps with international interests on the London stock market to keep me happy for the moment but I'm sure I'll have to look elsewhere some time in the future. Thanks for the discourse & hope you feel better soon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizmachin Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Cheers Liz. I'm with you, as always, with the investments in growing markets advice. Trouble is, I don't feel confident or knowledgeable enough to jump in just yet and, as I said, I'm more comfortable with income than growth - again because of not enough knowledge. There are enough megacaps with international interests on the London stock market to keep me happy for the moment but I'm sure I'll have to look elsewhere some time in the future. Thanks for the discourse & hope you feel better soon! JD cures all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.