Banks!

steeljack said:
thats good , works out at about $ 3 .00 US per US gallon (3.78 liters),
payed equiv. to C$ 1,07 per liter today in Ca. ($3,52 US gallon)
I guess good things happen when you re-elect the Steve Harper guy and his Tory cronies ;) ;) :D
Click to expand...

Harper will have to lead a minority govt. He got a very strong rebuff in Atlantic Canada, and an ass kicking in Quebec .... point is, Harper had no real opposition, the Liberals are in a real mess, and he still couldn't win.
 
you could be right Neil, it is office work, and I dont do office work, all I know is, we are several hundred pound down because of banks errrm hiccups! :d
 
derekgas said:
you could be right Neil, it is office work, and I dont do office work, all I know is, we are several hundred pound down because of banks errrm hiccups! :d
Click to expand...


Do you think the bankers might be suffering from stress? :rolleyes:
 
I'm suprised that no one has mentioned conspiracy theories...yet, and all of this financial mess is the work of a few international Jewish financiers, seeking a new world order, or that it is the work of people who are actually lizards, such as the Queen.:D
 
garinda said:
I'm suprised that no one has mentioned conspiracy theories...yet, and all of this financial mess is the work of a few international Jewish financiers, seeking a new world order, or that it is the work of people who are actually lizards, such as the Queen.:D
Click to expand...
I hear Liz speaks highly of you as well Rindi:D
 
Hardly a day passes by without the revelation that yet another government department (Quango) admitting that it too has several million in an Icelandic bank.

I would be very interested to know how much the three major political parties have salted away and where.

And now as the government has announced that no share dividends will be paid to the shareholders of the three partially nationalised banks for one year, the shareholders are crying foul.

Of course those same shareholders seem to have forgotten the times a plenty when for years they have received dividends far above their expectations. Note to all shareholders – share values can go down as well as up.

Another note to shareholders – when you bought shares in a company you became part owner of that company. As part owner you are entitled to a share in the profits but the other side of the coin is that you are also responsible for any losses that you should make good.

There are more revelations to come in this banking debacle.
 
garinda said:
Personally I don't hold much store by conspiracy theories.

It's David Icke who thinks the Royal family, and most western leaders, are actually lizards.;)
Click to expand...
If your even listening to what David Icke say, I'm begging to worry about you Rindi:D
 
jambutty said:


Another note to shareholders – when you bought shares in a company you became part owner of that company. As part owner you are entitled to a share in the profits but the other side of the coin is that you are also responsible for any losses that you should make good.
Click to expand...

That's a very interesting point.

As for being dischuffed that there aren't going to be any dividends - how naive can they be? If the banks they had invested in had gone bust there wouldn't have been any shares at all never mind dividends! :rolleyes:
 
jambutty said:
Another note to shareholders – when you bought shares in a company you became part owner of that company. As part owner you are entitled to a share in the profits but the other side of the coin is that you are also responsible for any losses that you should make good.

.
Click to expand...

Was there not something like this a few years back with LLoyds of London , (the insurance brokers) seem to remember that more than a few had to dig deep into their pockets to come up with funds to cover some big claims , think the boxer Henry Cooper got his fingers burnt .
 
steeljack said:
Was there not something like this a few years back with LLoyds of London , (the insurance brokers) seem to remember that more than a few had to dig deep into their pockets to come up with funds to cover some big claims , think the boxer Henry Cooper got his fingers burnt .
Click to expand...
You mean the Lloyds names SJ, there was more than Cooperman that got his fingers burnt
 
jambutty; [FONT=Times New Roman said:
As part owner you are entitled to a share in the profits but the other side of the coin is that you are also responsible for any losses that you should make good.[/FONT]
Click to expand...

You never heard of limited liability, Jambutty? Shareholders are not responsible for losses.

What an idiot.
 
jaysay said:
You mean the Lloyds names SJ, there was more than Cooperman that got his fingers burnt
Click to expand...
Lloyds of London names are a different animal to shareholders.

Lloyds of London is a British insurance market. It serves as a meeting place where multiple financial backers or ‘members’, being corporations and individuals (known as names), come together to pool and spread the risk.
 
Tealeaf said:
You never heard of limited liability, Jambutty? Shareholders are not responsible for losses.

What an idiot.
Click to expand...
The limited liability applies to a company regardless of whether there are outside shareholders or not. A newsagents or a one man/woman plumbing/electrical/builder business can be a Limited Company that issues 2 shares, usually at a nominal fee of £1. One share is usually held by the owner of the business, who also holds the title of CEO and the other is held by a family member who holds the title of Company Secretary. Any debts incurred by that business are limited to the business’ value.

http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/limited_companies.php#lc_01

In any case I never said that shareholders were RESPONSIBLE for losses. I said, “As part owner you are entitled to a share in the profits but the other side of the coin is that you are also responsible for any losses that you should make good.”

Maybe I worded it wrong? On the other hand other readers understood what I meant.

My point was that if shareholders accept dividends they SHOULD also accept liabilities. Sadly that is not the case.

The only idiot round here is yourself for engaging in the infantile pursuit of trying to gain “Brownie points”.:tongueout
 
jambutty said:
Lloyds of London names are a different animal to shareholders.

Lloyds of London is a British insurance market. It serves as a meeting place where multiple financial backers or ‘members’, being corporations and individuals (known as names), come together to pool and spread the risk.
Click to expand...
Quite aware of that JB, its just that SJ mentioned Lloydes, and I merely said that these financial backers were known as names, aware they're not shareholders
 
jambutty said:
For years in times aplenty the shareholders have enjoyed dividends beyond their wildest dreams and the fat cat bosses scooped huge bonuses.

Now when the banks are going through severe times, times of their own making I might add, shouldn’t the shareholders and fat cats prop them up and not we tax payers?

Only this morning I received a letter from Barclays (I have never had an account with Barclays) offering me an unsecured loan of up to £10,000 and of course a credit card.

Has Barclays learned nothing?
Click to expand...
I have just had letter from my own bank Lloyds TSB offering me a £18000 loan, and if I need more just give them a ring and they're sure they'll be able to help. The mind boggles:eek:
 
jaysay said:
I have just had letter from my own bank Lloyds TSB offering me a £18000 loan, and if I need more just give them a ring and they're sure they'll be able to help. The mind boggles:eek:
Click to expand...

Take it...it's economically sound thinking to run up big debts...Gord says so!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top