Member Info for Broomfielder

Guys - I genuinely value the opinion of so many contributors here but we are straying into the kinds of territory we have been rightly critical of our BoD when point scoring trumps all.
PI's spend our (investment) lives outside the 'data room', so too speak, of whichever company we purchase shares/bonds etc in. We are fed scraps of often dated info from some Co's when it suits their particular agenda and getting close to any sort of in-house Management accounts/decisions etc to get a clearer picture is just a dream.
So, not to overplay it, bulletin boards can be both informative and productive although accepting that real hard-to-get details are as rare as hens teeth.
But it's not the first time I have taken a contributors view and run with it researching it in depth to my satisfaction often in an area that either I hadn't previously considered fully or I had simply missed altogether.
I think we all have to accept the limitations of what is said on bulletin boards but as someone has already written, there are people of all sorts of experience, skills and backgrounds reading but not always contributing.
The idea must be to get as many of such people contributing which can only help us all in our ongoing risk assessment.

Yep......we have a leaky ship in full sail with strong tail winds.....what could possibly go wrong?

From the bad bad old days which saw Hur dance far too close to the edge of disaster, I think its fair to say we have benefitted from a number of events that have combined to bring about the redemption of our Company. IMO this is about to be further strengthened by a PM who appears to be the most vocal in her support for further North Sea energy development as you could have imagined a couple of years ago.
I was about to mention 'tailwinds' and 'our sails now being full' etc as we hopefully now push the SP upwards and then someone mentions a leaky ship............!

We all know there are no guarantees in life, and certainly none in exploration mining, but as far as boxes being ticked for positive signs of a successful outcome, then a healthy number were ticked in today's RNS.
A long way to go I concede, but the positive signs the Company were looking for from initial drilling are all there.

......oh dear, someone doesn't know the difference between £ and €.
On a more serious note, the 'need' for the latest share consolidation tied to the Special Dividend has been undertaken more for the benefit of NWG than its shareholders as others have mentioned and whilst (subsequent) share price movements have been essentially Market driven, the exercise did produce unnecessary risk to shareholders IMO.
Quite why payment of the Special Dividend wasn't conducted separately from any share consolidation hasn't really been explained.
It would certainly have improved the clarity and avoided shareholders feeling they have somehow lost a bit of ground with their investment value when we should all have been thinking about what we might spend a true Special Dividend on.

Hi Doyezee - I don't know if that late trade you mention in some way explains my Interactive Investor A/c displaying today's SP increasing by 5.38p.
Given that, you might expect the Closing Price to increase accordingly but they continue to quote 47p.
However, as the price paid is clearly in auction, as such it may not affect the Opening Price on the next business day .
The transaction involved was more than 4 times the daily Market (transaction) size of 5000 shares, but the premium paid is somewhat surprising IMO.

Did someone mention 300? I'll take that!
.........oh darn, it was pennies you were referring to LuckyL.
Definitely heading in the right direction though.

Brixton/Lucky L- Thank you for your comments.
Life changing losses for me they certainly were, but I know and, know of, so many people who were worse off as a consequence of RBS Group's collapse. I, at least, still had a job but for some this former 'widows and orphan' stock was also their main source of income (dividends). And many people lost their jobs etc.
So, life has an uncanny knack of putting things in perspective and you begin to recognise the aspects and things that truly do matter.
Everything else is a bonus.
Best of luck everyone.
B

I'm with you all the way Lucky........keep logging these 'year highs' for the SP and one day you might reach my break even figure!
Unfortunately, this is going to have to reach North of £200 (£20 before the 10:1 consolidation). Regrettably, I'm not exaggerating.
Any other LTH's in this boat are bound to be relatively relaxed about current SP progress, however welcome it might be.
But best of luck to newbies and relative newbies who have escaped any grief with this share........just wish I was one!

MikeS02 - Agree with your stance; I have voted in a similar manner (and with similar expectations).

The linkage of the Special Dividend payment to a Share Reduction (...or Consolidation in today's speak), introduces a needless risk to shareholders IMO.
As I have mentioned previously, in a perfect world, the impact of the exercise should in fact be 'neutral' to shareholders in terms of capital values.
But as we are all aware, this ain't a perfect world and quite why the Special Dividend was not paid in isolation/unconnected to any Share Capital manoeuvre has not been explained and the 'silence' on the issue reflects poorly on the Group.
Whether the Market is relaxed on this issue is really not the point here.

.....message below should read '......pro rated equivalent of the Group's REDUCED Share Capital divided by our own fewer shares.

Firstly, thanks to everyone contributing their thoughts here as I think it's a positive example of bb's.
Like many, I am not entirely clear on the impact of the Special Div/Share Consolidation exercise on the Group's SP once the stock goes ex-div.
Simplistically, it looks as if all shareholders will still hold the same % of NWG Share capital after receipt of the Special Div. (albeit less shares), the SP should increase. In a perfect world (sic) it should rise by the pro rated equivalent the Group's Share capital divided by our own fewer shares.
It's really the opposite of SP dilution when companies issue additional shares at less than market value.
However, there is a risk the SP won't rise sufficiently to fully compensate for the reduction in our shareholding as we all know, this is not a perfect world.
All this talk about Share consolidation is today's euphemism for a Share Reduction and these exercises used to require Court approval in the not too distant past. And for very good reason.
I might be wrong, but it looks as if the Bank are obtaining their desired Capital reduction but shouldering a degree of risk on to shareholders in the process needlessly (should the SP not rise after the exercise is completed).

Scad - There's certainly precedents for your 'cynical' thoughts! Both GM and FG when CEO's of RBS Group had a reward structure heavily predicated toward SP performance (upwards).
The result of that reward structure is borne out in history as also they BOTH were behind policies which leveraged extremely thin Tier 1 capital levels which of course greatly assisted Returns on Equity and profitability in general. NWG has of course a completely different level of T1 Capital to those days, but interesting that latest announcement now advocates a lowering of CET 1 levels.
As many others on this BB have commented, it is somewhat intriguing that there remains a lack of clarity surrounding the Special Dividend link to Share consolidation which should, at least, be answered next week when the Circular/Prospectus is released.
I can find no specific concerns on this matter being voiced by Brokers (unless other bb contributors can advise otherwise) who seem invariably to be upgrading the Group or increasing its Target SP on the back of the Group's better than expected Results.

Despite the nightmare most lth's have been through with this share, I can't help thinking it is now close to a dream investment opportunity for many given the fundamentals now (finally) in place here.

Agree Ronw - the scale of the drop in SP of late is getting a bit concerning.

I just hope that all this 'surplus cash' is fully accounted for!

Mike - your opinion and, for that matter, my opinion don't really matter here.
The sad facts are that for an entity that paid no Dividend for 10 years after its rescue by HM Gov in 2008 and which sees its current SP at 21p (pre consolidation) stalled Well below 'resue' levels, has been a very poor return for many people. You don't have to construct a Discounted CF to realise that. It's fact; not an opinion, mine nor anyone else's.
That's the issue raised by Oldapache and I along with most lth's will unsurprisingly have a similar view. And that's because we will have all lost a lot of cash if we held RBS stock pre 2008.
NWG's more recent performance to which you refer, has improved. A point I acknowledged in an earlier post. As you know, RBS/NWG was the most seriously affected of all major UK Banks in the Financial crash of 2008. Having made steady progress despite the plethora of legacy issues it faced, it would seem reasonable to have expected a better response from the SP, particularly given the reintroduction of Dividends etc. and the improving 'trading' performance.
That was the simple point I was trying to make in my first post.
I am guessing, but I don't think many lth's will have gone to the extent of constructing any serious sort of Peer Group Analysis as most I suspect will simply want to offset past losses. I do it instinctively given my past life, but my sole focus now in seeing SP/Div growth is driven more by curiosity than any realistic hope of recovering past losses.
Mike - I have to admit the foregoing was not my initially intended response, but I have chosen to respond in as straight a manner as I can as the initial point I raised was a legitimate one in my view. And isn't that the point, if there is one, in participating on bb's?

Mike - I am somewhat perplexed by your remarks in relation to my earlier post.
Whilst NWG's business performance has improved, the SP has shown more inter causal independence than direct linkage as you might expect, over a similar period and rightly we (shareholders) should query why.
So, in that respect, there is a case to answer as to why the SP continues to languish at c21/22p (ignoring the fatuous consolidation) and, all the more so given our Group's steady improved trading performance in a similar period. The fact that the SP may have briefly risen in 2015 ( as you say) before falling back again, simply serves to underline this critique.
The only relevance, such a brief dalliance with any sort of increased SP you mention, would be for the benefit derived by newbies and represent a fair gain for them. I have no problem with that.
However, for a share that once traded North of £20 (pre consolidation!), the lack of any traction in the SP over c14 years justifiably provokes the ire of lth's. In that respect I am very much with Oldapache as there can be little doubt, the performance of RBS/NWG SP has been absolutely dire over the period in question.
So, my assertion does not require your's or anyone else's correction.

Oldapache - I was about to post something similar.

I keep harking back to the fact, the SP is in fact 22p but for the window dressing 'consolidation' exercise.

I would however agree with some recent posts supporting the fact that progress in a business context has improved from the bad old days, but any improvement in the SP since has been RELATIVELY modest, so there is clearly something of a disconnect between these two normally closely aligned aspects of business performance.
And I don't think it can all be laid at the door of (the level of) HM Gov shareholdings but I do acknowledge that Banks generally are not flavour of the month/year in the Market especially as our UK dominated business is about to buffeted by a likely UK recession, ongoing Brexit problems as well as the geopolitical issues affecting the rest of the world.

Goldenbadger1 - I agree CA's position and strategy going forward are 'key' but the problem for us PI's, is that we are not and probably never will get to be privvy to their stance and future plans. Hence the speculation on what their position might be.
I actually think that whilst it is comforting to have CA on board from a PI's perspective, particularly given certain existing Directors etc., I wonder if their influence (given their near 30% holding) is viewed as a negative by prospective Inst Investors, especially given Hur's much commented other risks.
I appreciate that really doesn't help greatly ahead of the AGM!