Member Info for honestbob

In my personal opinion they are either becoming a tremendous bargain or something is very wrong and I really don't know which

I don't know how many you have or if you have capital gains elsewhere .Butt you are perhaps aware if you do sell and make a loss on the original purchase price - you then have four years to register the loss with Inland Revenue and you can then use it to offset against future capital gains indefinitely One way to crystalise the loss whilst retaining the shares is to bed and ISA them

I think we didn' t question the rise to £4 and looking towards £5 because even though that much lower than historic highs it seemed reasonable for a bank that had spent several years rebuilding itself to improve its price.As such about four or five pounds seemed a reasonable figure. What does not seem quite right is that , even allowing for oil issues etc, that the city values the shares at little more than it did just before and after the RBS collapse. City will largely have priced in present trading position and known future prospects . So for it to value Bank at similar figure to when bank was technically insolvent is a worry - hopefully its is over reaction . Two pound does not seem a reasonable price

It is a good question . On your other point I have average own on another share - not by putting new money in but buying and selling on peaks and troughs - always danger that would miss sustained rise .Was quite - here need some modest peaks at least again prior to sell and buy back.

It is a difficult question At first glance looks like a half price bargain - but really only if the price has nearly bottomed. I would like to think it may have done but am very far from convinced. The one real worry in my mind is just as all seems well another skeleton pops out of the cupboard

I think thats a fair point and you are right I am perhaps not being fair holding them completely accountable - although when there are successes and bonuses to be paid the executives do not tend to turn them aside on the grounds that the up turn is largely due to the economic climate. Although regardless of whose fault it is the city clearly perceives RBS as being of similar vale - 22 p in old money to the days of the crash . This is my main concern and the fact that after eight years of hard work in the eyes on institurional investors at least the bank ( as measured by its share price / value ) is little further forward.

They are worrying times. With regard to RBS given that the share price has collapsed buy nearly 50 per cent in seven months perhaps a statement of reassurance from the Bank is due. The executives and directors are highly paid and a main measure of their performance is the value they add to the company. Given that they have overseen it lose half of its value in under a year it would not be unrealistic to expect some sort of explanation.

Crikey now just over 21p in old money didn t think that level would be seen again short of another major issue Either there is a lot of upside potential - although I don t know when or possibly something is seriously wrong

Hope he doesnt have to find some more money to pump in to make it saleable

No it probably wont happen because it can be a common view amongst higher ranks of management is that every one bar them selves is dispensable - sometimes overlooking that it is the lower ranked staff who interact with customers and actually produce income.

I think you are right not only do computers produce more information - with the ability to cc hundreds of people in to an email without any effort the amount of information that is shuttling about - for the right reasons , also to cover backs or simply to demonstrate how busy the sender is must swamp the recipient in many cases . i suspect that not many chief executives have a complete grasp of what is happening below them - in some cases there is an old saying less is more !

If I remember rightly the government had to inject £46 billion odd at the peak of the crisis to keep the bank afloat . and having researched the accounts, since then accummulated losses since the injection come to £48 billion . In other words the bank seems to have swallowed up nearly £100 billion during and since the crisis - which paerhaps does explain the share price What I am not clever enough to understand is how the Bank they have managed without a further injection of cash to restore their capital position again . I would be grateful if any one here understands it - if they could explain.

When you think that in the banking crisis the price dropped to 10 p but then recovered to 20 to 30 p and it is now ( after 10 shares converted into one 230 p - or in comparison terms 23 p , Either the city places no vale on the banks recovery , or the apparent recovery is not robust . It is a concern

Apologies H Davies didnt sell similar amount but other pair appear to have done so

Agree is good to see them buying . Although looking at past sales does appear they sold amounts not far away from those they are purchasing now when price £3 plus last year Price certainly edged down after they sold perhaps it will now edge up now they have bought

You are right governments idea of helping first time buyers usually involves making it possible for them to borrow more .Which means they can afford bigger mortgages and more expensive houses .This helps push house price up so they are no better off than before but with a bigger debt .Government would perhaps do better to look at buy to let - which buy large proportion of starter homes - not fair perhaps to penalise existing - but new ones subject to an even greater stamp duty - which could go towards social housing

Goodness knows at this rates of knots they will have to merge two or three shares into one to convince themselves it is not a penny share again In practice my guess is price will drift until there is sign of a real retained profit - ie after all so called one offs and write downs

Be interesting to know details of the argos / ebay tie up as increasing numbers of ebay sales being delivered via argos

Last sentence really is a poor/sad reflection on management - translated it means we expect profit to drop year on year and reduce amount available for dividends . Management should be doing all within their power to at least maintain profits if not grow them - this is what they are paid very generous salaries for - not to predict that under their stewardship profits / dividends will fall year on year .

I know no more than anyone else but my guess is there will be two separate dates - and the special payments will be payable to shareholders who owned the shares on the specific dates - in same way as dividends are paid So it could be possible to get either payment without receiving the other .This could help underpin the share price after the initial payment. I wonder for tax purposes if the payments will be income or treated as capital disposal