caparo Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Fair point. Could it not, though, also be presented as: "It seems that banks that didn't need bailing out a few years ago are still doing better than those that did"? [Disclaimer: I hold HSBC] I don't think so because the banks that didn't need bailing out mainly had to take on massive loans from the commercial market. They suffered the same hardship as Llloyds and RBS but just haven't suffered the same political interference since. If you hold HSBC stock you will know that they wrote off around £12 billion in toxic assetts between 2007 & 2009. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I don't think so because the banks that didn't need bailing out mainly had to take on massive loans from the commercial market. They suffered the same hardship as Llloyds and RBS but just haven't suffered the same political interference since. If you hold HSBC stock you will know that they wrote off around £12 billion in toxic assetts between 2007 & 2009. Indeed; and in 2009 they reduced their dividend payout by nearly half as a consequence. They have, however managed to increase the dividend each year since then. Is this because of lack of government interference or, simply, better management, systems and risk avoidance? I don't claim to know the answer to this, by the way, just musing. Also, I do not mean to suggest that dividend yield is the only way to judge the success of a company. It's the only one which interests me, though, which is why I've used it. From that point of view, whilst taking on board your points regarding commercial loans and debt write offs, it could well be argued that HSBC were in a much better position than Lloyds and RBS at the time of the "meltdown" and therefore it is no surprise they are still doing better and that "government interference" is irrelevant. On the other hand, of course, you could be right and it could simply come down to the choice ... "Bail out or commercial loans?" **Coin is tossed** "OK, commercial loans it is then". I remember some posters on another forum, at the time, claiming that HSBC's decision would mean that they would do better and be well placed to continue to pay out the dividend ... and plenty disagreeing with them. On that occassion the former were correct of course but, as always, hindsight gives the clearest view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caparo Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Indeed; and in 2009 they reduced their dividend payout by nearly half as a consequence. They have, however managed to increase the dividend each year since then. Is this because of lack of government interference or, simply, better management, systems and risk avoidance? I don't claim to know the answer to this, by the way, just musing. Also, I do not mean to suggest that dividend yield is the only way to judge the success of a company. It's the only one which interests me, though, which is why I've used it. From that point of view, whilst taking on board your points regarding commercial loans and debt write offs, it could well be argued that HSBC were in a much better position than Lloyds and RBS at the time of the "meltdown" and therefore it is no surprise they are still doing better and that "government interference" is irrelevant. On the other hand, of course, you could be right and it could simply come down to the choice ... "Bail out or commercial loans?" **Coin is tossed** "OK, commercial loans it is then". I remember some posters on another forum, at the time, claiming that HSBC's decision would mean that they would do better and be well placed to continue to pay out the dividend ... and plenty disagreeing with them. On that occassion the former were correct of course but, as always, hindsight gives the clearest view. Hester certainly thinks government interference is having an effect. Unlike other banks who appointed their own top man, Hester was a government appointee and has stuggled with interference at every turn. Of course other banks have better management. Most of RBS's senior team have left and gone to richer pastures. They are probably the better management that is helping HSBC etc to post massive increases in profits. What RBS is currently doing is selling off its investment banks, and because its share price is half what it was when the bank was bailed, these assetts are fetching a fraction of what we all paid for them. I think like it or not the markets have got the message that RBS is turning into another British Leyland. The politicians between them are designing the Morris Marina and we are going to lose the vast majority of what Gordon Brown overpaid for the shares he bought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I think like it or not the markets have got the message that RBS is turning into another British Leyland. The politicians between them are designing the Morris Marina and we are going to lose the vast majority of what Gordon Brown overpaid for the shares he bought. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caparo Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 . TBH. I don't understand why the government haven't sold the shares they hold already. I do not understand this idea that we need to get our money back. The share price reflects how the markets value a company at any point in time. So we have already lost £20 billion on the deal, and because the shares aren't keeping pace with the markets we are simply loosing more money as time goes by. I can only think that it is a political move. Perhaps Cameron is happy to sell off RBS on the run up to an election and show how Brown bought the shares at too high a price just like he sold our gold too cheap. The sale would still net £25 billion and give the government a handy giveaway in the months running up to the ballot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T 42 Posted May 18, 2012 Author Share Posted May 18, 2012 RBS share this week dropped below 20P having shed 33% of their value in 3 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 RBS share this week dropped below 20P having shed 33% of their value in 3 months. Taking them roughly back to the level they were when you OP'd. Your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T 42 Posted May 18, 2012 Author Share Posted May 18, 2012 Taking them roughly back to the level they were when you OP'd. Your point? You mean 30% less. ie 28 p down to below 20p. You should read your own posts.. Before the announcement, the SP was hovering just below 28p, the low after the announcement was around 26.3p, they're now at 27.75p. Todays rise of 1.13 % is larger than the total fall after the Hester thing of 1.12 %. If you are going to draw fallacious conclusions from random fluctuations of share prices, at least get your random fluctuation data correct or your subsequent erroneous claims will have no credibility. Even though I knew you were talking nonsense, I wasn't expecting the SP to bounce back so quickly (for other reasons I'm guessing you wouldn't understand - trust me, I follow the RBS SP very closely.) so I was delighted to be able to point out your fallacy much sooner than I'd anticipated. You clearly don't follow the RBS share price as closely as you claimed. I am delighted to be able to point out your fallacy as I'd anticipated. :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 You mean 30% less. ie 28 p down to below 20p. You should read your own posts.. You clearly don't follow the RBS share price as closely as you claimed. I am delighted to be able to point out your fallacy as I'd anticipated. :hihi: Yeah, fair dos. I did a quick look back on digital look and saw the SP around 20p in January but, as you say, when you OP'd it was up at 28p so I'll hold my hand up there. Surely, though, you're not just posting on here to get one up on little me ... If you are then I am very impressed because you started the thread so that's a canny bit of fishing. You're not, though, are you? So, come on. The RBS share price is the same as it was last December, quite a bit lower than it was last month and a fair bit higher than it was last November. So, what's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 By the way... You clearly don't follow the RBS share price as closely as you claimed. I am delighted to be able to point out your fallacy as I'd anticipated. :hihi: Ahem you are not really suggesting that, if one follows a share price then one must remember the share price on any given day in the past are you? Are you an investor, T? You know I don't have any RBS but, if I did, I assure you, the only day the SP would have any importance to me would be the day I bought them. With RBS, I have a sort of bet going so I check the SP each day. Yesterday's price is - always - irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.