fibonelli
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,338
- Likes
- 288
JTrader
Guest
- Messages
- 5,741
- Likes
- 507
Well, there was no partial retrace and sp is below £3!
WHEN DO WE GO LONG THEN CHAPS? IF AT ALL?
bond_trader1
Active member
- Messages
- 209
- Likes
- 3
I don't see any sign that this is going to turn around just yet.
Not to say of course that the market always gives a sign when it will.
Of course I suppose you can say that fundamentally it may be a takeover target and that could be a reason to pick some up at this price but look at the chart...it's a one way street and it would take a braver man than me to go long right now.
Not to say of course that the market always gives a sign when it will.
Of course I suppose you can say that fundamentally it may be a takeover target and that could be a reason to pick some up at this price but look at the chart...it's a one way street and it would take a braver man than me to go long right now.
Jack o'Clubs
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,554
- Likes
- 342
there's no point buying unless you have a view on the fundamental value of the business and therefore what a trade buyer might be prepared to pay for the assets in a firesale situation. IMO this could go to zero - as I've posted before, the BoE/govt are declaring an interest to protect savers/customers, but have no interest (and should have none) in protecting NR equity holders. This is also one of those situations where the amateurs (us) have infinitely less information to make a decision than the big boys. Short, or steer clear. No reason I can see why you would want to go long.
If people do what people usually do (panic) then there will be little of value left in this business in which case as the major lender I see the BOE determining the sale price to be anything it wishes it to be to move it off the market and I doubt the management of NR will have much to do with it other than rubberstamping it.
It really pi**es me off sitting in front of BBC news 24 all day , yet I can't seem to drag myself away from it or even change the channel, probably because I hate antiques and chavs, it just gets to me how they can refer to empty 6 hour old comments as NEWS. I think this whole Nothern Rock fiasco is a brilliant example of how 99% of 'market' news is 'bull'. All the way from the journalists reading the prompt up to analysts working for the big guys. *'Almost'* Everything is speculative, and these opinions which are stated with such authority and sureness change on a day to day basis. It's all a load of crap. And apart from someone who needs to be highly liquid, which I'm sure all these 65 year olds don't, what idiot is gonna have more than 30k in a current account, at least pick 2 banks if you really feel the need to. In any case, my opion, which obviously is excluded from what i just said above is that Britain is more removed from this credit crunch than it may seem. Northern Rock's gonna find it's way back to £4 fairly soon, and anything below this just wouldn't cut it as a takeover bid as far as I'm concerned.
, yet I can't seem to drag myself away from it or even change the channel, probably because I hate antiques and chavs, it just gets to me how they can refer to empty 6 hour old comments as NEWS. I think this whole Nothern Rock fiasco is a brilliant example of how 99% of 'market' news is 'bull'. All the way from the journalists reading the prompt up to analysts working for the big guys. *'Almost'* Everything is speculative, and these opinions which are stated with such authority and sureness change on a day to day basis. It's all a load of crap. And apart from someone who needs to be highly liquid, which I'm sure all these 65 year olds don't, what idiot is gonna have more than 30k in a current account, at least pick 2 banks if you really feel the need to. In any case, my opion, which obviously is excluded from what i just said above is that Britain is more removed from this credit crunch than it may seem. Northern Rock's gonna find it's way back to £4 fairly soon, and anything below this just wouldn't cut it as a takeover bid as far as I'm concerned."as I'm concerned."...but you're not are you...the BOE is..they are the one's holding the collateral..they are now the one's holding the chequebook who determine if and when they will accept more collateral and provide more funds...you can't give that leaverage to some third party and still expect to have the controlling voice over what your company is worth...it may not be written down anywhere,but effectively BOE will 'tell' NR what offer to accept as a going concern...I couldn't think of a figure small enough to value NR for a buyout given the current context.
True, but they haven't dug in to what's on offer as of yet, of course they'll have to if they're gonna try and get the business back on any kind of track, but if getting out was on the books, why not just do it now. Shut shop and sell up, surely they'd end up with more money doing this than getting BoE involved, especially when BoE wouldn't be concerned with the owners...
the numbers that I saw were, that of collateral acceptable for loan purposes they should just have enough to meet all depositor/creditor demands circa 34B were they to be made based on the collateral being discounted 5% for loan purposes....the other securities held not suitable for collateral purposes would appear to be 'difficult' to value. My understanding is two other institutions have already looked at them (one being Lloyds) ,but both have declined to move at a time when they obviously need to sort out theirown balance sheets.However , anything can be sold if it is 'cheap' enough and that must be the process occurring at the moment.
Every penny guaranteed, is that wise? Could be setting a precedent.
If their assets only just cover their positions you are probably right, their physical assets are negligible. But are you 101% that Northern Rock, the brand, has had it? Lessons are never really learned, they're soon forgotten. Would this really affect the decision of a lender? Maybe they could hold on until this all passes over...
If their assets only just cover their positions you are probably right, their physical assets are negligible. But are you 101% that Northern Rock, the brand, has had it? Lessons are never really learned, they're soon forgotten. Would this really affect the decision of a lender? Maybe they could hold on until this all passes over...
"every penny guaranteed" isn't it....the collateral worthy of lending against exceeds the liabilities which is not the same as your comment...had the FSA not pronounced this company solvent the BOE would not have been able to make this offer...as for brands I'll say just one thing...it takes years to build a reputation and no time at all to lose it...ask gerald ratner
depends what you call a good way...LOL...if depositors get covered and only shareholders/bondholders end up getting stuffed then in risk terms that seems reasonable enough. I know what you mean though..time is actually against them on this...chump to the rescue...max out the collateral to cover depositors and BOE negotiate the buy of NR at a nominal price to take it off the market and reduce any dominoe effect ..then ...use it as a start up merging it with NSI into a new mortgage entity subsidiary.Dump the NR brand entirely and use the NSI brand to form a new mortgage instrument..which I might say is perhaps overdue anyway....sorted.
well, not a good way, because, of
1) the terms of deposit insurance: they have been changed in practice. and hopefully, there will be no immediate contagion, and the problem will be contained. Chile, 1982 started like that. full deposit insurance extended for 1 bank, and thus implicitely for all the system when they started falling like flies several months after.
2) the BOE and the FSA are signalling a real risk of systemic risk, and of this particular bank's insolvency, and thus, the BOE's loan runs the risk of becoming a capitalisation. i.e. a bailout. need to wait for hard data for this to be confirmed.
so far, those are the signals given , and obviously should be read as what they are, speculation.
1) the terms of deposit insurance: they have been changed in practice. and hopefully, there will be no immediate contagion, and the problem will be contained. Chile, 1982 started like that. full deposit insurance extended for 1 bank, and thus implicitely for all the system when they started falling like flies several months after.
2) the BOE and the FSA are signalling a real risk of systemic risk, and of this particular bank's insolvency, and thus, the BOE's loan runs the risk of becoming a capitalisation. i.e. a bailout. need to wait for hard data for this to be confirmed.
so far, those are the signals given , and obviously should be read as what they are, speculation.
catracho
Well-known member
- Messages
- 355
- Likes
- 34
Seems like there are probably quite a few horror stories out there - not limited to UK banks..and all Central Banks (imo) are trying to gloss over the problems - hopefully they will - otherwise it could collapse like a house of cards - OWN GOLD!
Jac,
I hear you ,BUT in the fullness of time there may ,or not may not be more of these institutions,BUT if they stepped aside when this business is still technically solvent they would be greatly enhancing the possibility that this institution became a tipping point.
The lesser of those two evils would appear to be served by this intervention on the specific terms it has been made. Yes, there may be more ,but if there are it won't be because of their failure to act on this one.
I hear you ,BUT in the fullness of time there may ,or not may not be more of these institutions,BUT if they stepped aside when this business is still technically solvent they would be greatly enhancing the possibility that this institution became a tipping point.
The lesser of those two evils would appear to be served by this intervention on the specific terms it has been made. Yes, there may be more ,but if there are it won't be because of their failure to act on this one.
