T 42 Posted February 1, 2012 Author Share Posted February 1, 2012 So, you didn't fancy answering my question then? Fair enough. Since I'm here, though, I'll put right some of your innacuracies for you. Nope. 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. You miss my point. 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. Conceivably. If you'd used this as your evidence in the OP, instead of the SP fall, you would have been more convincing. It never ceases to amaze me that posters, having had the weakness of their evidence pointed out by me suddenly think they know my opinion, even though I haven't stated it. Are you Jim in disguise? Nope. We haven't lost a bean old boy. That has been explained to you above so I won't elaborate. You can post any load of tripe that you want but it won't alter the facts. The market reacted badly to the anouncement that the government were interfering in the functioning of a major corporation. The news went round the world. It was reported by news agencies in New York and Hong Kong. The credit rating agencies have noted it and the company will have been marked down. There is nothing that you or I can do about it. It is rather like the posturing by France when their credit rating was about to be marked down. The investors listen to the experts and France is now paying a higher rate for its borrowing. RBS is now looked on less favourably by the markets. It is a fact and not dependent on your thoughts. We all lost money this week and when the politicians interfere again the same will happen. RBS is not free to do what is best for RBS shareholders. RBS must be seen to do what is best for politicians who want to appease people like you. By the way you make the mistake of attributing my posts to my ideas. I am simply pasting what is being reported by the financial publications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 It's shocking the way that our politicians behave. Save £1m to lose £900m, just so you can score a few points off your opponent. Screw what's best for the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 when will people realise that the banks are not a law unto themselves ?now they have let the banks know that they are trying to sort things out they should start on the well off in getting them to pay tax at a rate comparable to the working man . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 You can post any load of tripe that you want but it won't alter the facts. The market reacted badly to the anouncement that the government were interfering in the functioning of a major corporation. The news went round the world. It was reported by news agencies in New York and Hong Kong. The credit rating agencies have noted it and the company will have been marked down. There is nothing that you or I can do about it. It is rather like the posturing by France when their credit rating was about to be marked down. The investors listen to the experts and France is now paying a higher rate for its borrowing. RBS is now looked on less favourably by the markets. It is a fact and not dependent on your thoughts. We all lost money this week and when the politicians interfere again the same will happen. RBS is not free to do what is best for RBS shareholders. RBS must be seen to do what is best for politicians who want to appease people like you. By the way you make the mistake of attributing my posts to my ideas. I am simply pasting what is being reported by the financial publications. Oh, you're one of those are you? Let's try this then... "The market reacted badly to the anouncement that the government were interfering in the functioning of a major corporation." (as per your post above) = true. "Taxpayers lose 900M" (as per your thread title -it's still there no matter how much you back track, modify your point or claim that precise figures are "tripe") = false. Do you understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Oh, you're one of those are you? Let's try this then... "The market reacted badly to the anouncement that the government were interfering in the functioning of a major corporation." (as per your post above) = true. "Taxpayers lose 900M" (as per your thread title -it's still there no matter how much you back track, modify your point or claim that precise figures are "tripe") = false. Do you understand? You understand that those shares are a public asset? One they have devalued by a lot with the recent political games. If the shares could be sold easily, then they'd be equivalent to money. They've just made the day when they could be sold at a profit even less likely to ever come & increased the losses to the taxpayer when they do sell them. Whether it's £900m or £90m it's still a lot more than the bonus they were arguing about. When the government owns the major corporation in question you're first statement proves the second one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 You understand that those shares are a public asset? Yes thanks. Have you read the thread? They've just made the day when they could be sold at a profit even less likely to ever come Can you quantify that? If not, can you at least tell me how you know that statement to be true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Can you quantify that? If not, can you at least tell me how you know that statement to be true? If I could put an exact figure on things like that then I wouldn't be a website developer, I'd be a billionaire trader. Political pressure on some banks not to pay high bonuses & wages is going to have an adverse effect on their share price because it'll mean that bank can no longer attract the best staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 If I could put an exact figure on things like that then I wouldn't be a website developer, I'd be a billionaire trader. Political pressure on some banks not to pay high bonuses & wages is going to have an adverse effect on their share price because it'll mean that bank can no longer attract the best staff. not that old chestnut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emily Moore Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 not that old chestnut I suppose it is like someone taking over at Manchester United and saying that the manager shouldn't pick the team and why are we paying him £5 million anyway. Then we look at those players. £5/10 million each for kicking a bag of wind around. I could get some boys from our pub team to do that. How hard can it be? There you go. We've saved a fortune. How can that affect anything particularly the balance sheet and share price? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Vader Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I suppose it is like someone taking over at Manchester United and saying that the manager shouldn't pick the team and why are we paying him £5 million anyway. Then we look at those players. £5/10 million each for kicking a bag of wind around. I could get some boys from our pub team to do that. How hard can it be? There you go. We've saved a fortune. How can that affect anything particularly the balance sheet and share price? Manchester United! No, it's more like Mansfield's Manager and Players expecting the same salary as Manchester United's and then saying, if we don't get what we want, we'll take our balls elsewhere. Well, I wish they would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.