Member Info for honestbob

Given that Xel and by definition its shareholders own XER I can't quite see how XER can be unaffected by liquidation of XEL - Perhaps I am missing something If anyone can enlighten me I should be grateful

I think XER is totally owned by XEL -ceiling cat is probable best person to confirm or otherwise

I personally think that once the immediate crisis was over it should have been dismantled in an orderly fashion and shut down - instead of which as you say there have been generous rewards for executives of a loss making bank ever since . To let it collapse at the time would I fear have lead to tremendous misery for most if not all of the population As it is still there it should , along with the others , be restructured in such a fashion that they can fail if not run properly, without creating civil mayhem.

Still not the faintest clue as to what happens post restructure if it goes ahead. Silence from our esteemed BOD is deafening They must have told bond holders what plan was - so should have decency to share it with the companys owners - i.e. shareholders. Although probably goes along lines of - we know where there is a lot of oil and know there is even more We have spent a lot of money finding this out .We now need shedfulls of cash and can find lenders who will finance others - in theory - but not us Believe nothing you hear except from us ( and we will not tell you anything ) In the meantime we will tinker with the companys rules and listing details and wonder where it all went wrong - obviously not our fault. Oh by the way could we have another 5 or 10 million to tide us over.

Yoiu are rightWe - have to remember RBS is also Natwest . If doors had shut - about a quarter of the hauliers and filling stations in the country would have no access to cash or a way to proceess payments - in short term they would have to cease business .Similarly with supermarkets - Tesco for one I think is an RBS customer and then all other businesses about a quarter would have ceased to operate - until they could open new bank accounts and then get facilities agreed .Also about a quarter of the working population would have lost access to their wages. Together with those on benefits again about a quarter would have not had any income Remaining banks , if not dragged down at same time , would have had to open millions of accounts and amend millions of payment details . Tens of millions of standing orders and automated payments would have rejected . In short there would have been large proportion of population with no access to money , not enough food , not enough fuel for anyone. It would be fair to say that anarchy might have ensued .The regulators had allowed RBS to become too big to fail. I don't think they have done much about it since.

might do - thats the plan - to share the misery bondholders and BOD perhaps better think of something

Bankers are people that help you with problems you would not have had without them. ---------------- A man visits his bank manager and says, "How do I start a small business?" The manager replies, "Start a large one and wait six months."

You are right tax payer and country could lose - but even so would be better if all skeletons were of of cupboard about time BOD and Mcewan got a grip and could confirm that the ship is water tight They are certainly paid enough On subject GRG and damage to businesses, normal repossession procedure is to repossess the asset - sell it openly and transparently on the open market cover the debt and give the balance to the borrower. It is not to sell it to a subsiduary or a linked party and take a profit on the subsequent disposal regardless of chinese walls etc. Be interesting to know what proportion of distressed assets bought by RBS property arm West Register were RBS / Natwest businesses and what were from other institutions - if it were completely independent would expect total RBS to be in minority If the bank had to have the property arm common sense should have dictated that it could not buy repossessed assets from its own parent company due to danger of their being a perceived conflict of interest and risk to reputation of both West Register and RBS

need check with your broker but usually if log on to your account will be message there under something like corporate action - or can simply ask them In unlikely event your shares are on certificate should get letter direct from company

yesterdays lawyer posting about killing the wounded amused me on an otherwise hectic day

I think that is the case reminds me of _ As the lawyer awoke from surgery, he asked, "Why are all the blinds drawn?" The nurse answered, "There's a fire across the street, and we didn't want you to think you had died."

In theory it is old news but if some of the email extracts etc are to be believed what is perhaps a greater concern is that the report commisioned by the bank found little evidence of wrong doing - while on the face of it this was not the case . If allegations are true then would indicate that senior staff either were not informed accurately of results of their own internal investigations or they were and drew different conclusions from the results that others might have done . Of course there may be no issue RBS has I think always said that is the case - until last week when _ ''In the aftermath of the financial crisis we did not always meet our own high standards and let some of our SME customers down''.

I havn t heard that saying but like it We don t know who bondholders are if there is one or more than one Dependent on their dentity it is possible that old shareholders might kick up fuss and complain here there and every where - when the true picture unfolds - this may be something that will bother them it may not Extension of licenee not a certainty and who can say if dozens previous shareholders complain it will make a difference - may do if decision is marginal

you will not have to attend the meeting - if you hold your shares on a certificate you will get a ballot paper . If they are held by your stock broker you will have to contact them when the time is right to tell them how to vote.

yes good point great pity their ability to extract cash from the company was not matched by a similar one to extract oil from the north sea or indeed funding from suitable lenders

I think you raise a really good point Sainsburys by and large hit problems when they became obsessed , like most of the others with market share, simply meant more items went off shelves for lower prices . Which slashed profits. For example if originally they sold loaf bread £1.20 with 30 p of that net profit ,If then reduce price to a pound to compete with ,Asda say, then profit reduced to 10p on the loaf Now need to sell three times as many loaves to make previous profit . If only sell twice as many then two loaves make 20p instead of one making 30p - but total sales now £2.. instead of £1.30 .Sales risen ( nearly doubled ) but profits down > Chairman and BODs supermarkets have really struggled with this basic concept. Sainsburys traditionally competed on perceived / actual quality not price - enabled them to have higher prices .In example above clear they can afford to lose a lot of customers and maker greater profits with slightly higher prices..

worth remembering that a lot of E bay sales are now delivered to argos stores for collection which will help foot flow

2016 accounts will be the key need to have better profit than 2015 - where more sales were made at lower price which slashed profit

I dont know about the others but think that if sainsburys can maintain a dividend at 4 to 5 percent with sustainable profits to back it - there has to be possibility with savings accounts typically paying half to one per cent that three pound or a bit more could be achievable within the year. Just my personal opinion

think it interesting that the larger supermarkets seem to be grasping at last that whilst total sales important - retained profit is more so