If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Nationalising Northern Rock and 'human rights'
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
BBC.
I'm stunned and disgusted that the Human Rights Act is even of consideration and relevance.
I don't see any reason why NR should not be nationalised at its current share price. Any investor in the stock market knows its a gamble and that they're risking their money - the value of shares can go up as well as down... If shareholders lose money, tough luck frankly.
I'm stunned and disgusted that the Human Rights Act is even of consideration and relevance.
I don't see any reason why NR should not be nationalised at its current share price. Any investor in the stock market knows its a gamble and that they're risking their money - the value of shares can go up as well as down... If shareholders lose money, tough luck frankly.
0
Comments
I agree - but only if they nationalise it and pay the shareholders a fair price. If the Government tries to get it on the cheap they deserve to be screwed...
For government - read the taxpayer, which has already bailed out NR with £25 billion. And shareholders should be grateful that the government bailed out NR, if the government had let NR go bust they wouldn't get anything at all... The government should pay what the market thinks NR is worth - i.e. the current share price, I don't see that as an infringement of human rights. (Current share price is 80 something pence and the shareholders will want at least 4 or 5 times more than that).
Yep, but nationalisation doesn't work like that, as soon as there's wind of it share prices will fall massively and the Government may well pay under share price.
At the moment its not going to happen as the Government has to weigh up the loss of confidence in the bank struggling along as currently verse the loss of confidence if the Government has to start nationalising banks (something which didn't even happen in the 70s)
should be put into administration the only reason the bank is still functioning is due to it's loan supply from the BoE therefore it's an unviable bank so it should be pslit up and sold off, and creditors repaid in assets
HRA shouldn't apply here since it's a merely financial matter, and the 600 jobs, well you can do a lot with £30billion to the level of hundreds of thousands, like remove all uni top up fees, or give all adults free training courses
How come? They're the effective owners of the bank, and you're arguing they shouldn't even be considered when making decisions about the bank's future? :eek2:
I do care if the Government tries to shaft the shareholders and get the bank cheap.
If you bet on a horse and it comes last because it's ridden by a useless jacket - that's tough. If you loose your money because someone comes along and smashes the horses kneecaps, that's a different issue.
I don't give two shits about the shareholders. They invested their money, knowing full well what the risks are. The company's in the shit, and they're there with it. Tough. They should accept whatever they're offered and be grateful. Either that, or they get nothing. And I certainly wouldn't sympathise if that happened.
well consult them whilst they find a way to repay their loans and increase their liquidity without borrowing more from the BoE then
at the moment they are unable to meet their liabilities, the only reason they aren't in administration is the government loan and securities - if the creditor feels they need some repayment of their loan they have a right to seek assets
After causing the panic in the first place Government has guaranteed savings - in the unlikely event it did fold you'd be covered.