Correct. The government done this to protect taxpayers NOT to protect shareholders. I would be surprised at any payout by the government of more than 25 pence per share
I thought nationalization belonged to the Margaret Thatcher days
Elphaba said:
I think you might be mixing up nationalization with privatization.
Are you reading the Tsimonoce ? It's a great magazine, but it gets things back to front a lot.
Brendan
privatizing nationalized companies.
Not true - this comment would suggest the companies started private, were at some point nationalised, then later were privatised.
As early as the week before last there were mumblings that the management & Virgin offers weren't acceptable by a LONG way...plus common sense would say that a private company getting the benefit while the government took the risk was never going to happen here.
As for Shareholder power - they will lose any court case because they are ultimately in the wrong, and anyone who bought in since the 'Run on the Bank' - for example the 2 private equity funds, are vultures attempting to take advantage of the British Governents propping the bank up and have no right to expect to profit or even break even.
My question is - if there is compensation, how will that be paid out? Will my shares simply be cancelled & the compensation credited to my account? Has anyone heard of a similar situation?
Looks like you wont need to worry about the answer to this now
You are joking, right?However it does seem harsh on many small shareholders for whom this was their first (& maybe only) foray into share buying & may have depended on the money for their retirement etc. Personally I think they should be compensated at least.
However it does seem harsh on many small shareholders for whom this was their first (& maybe only) foray into share buying & may have depended on the money for their retirement etc. Personally I think they should be compensated at least.
I'm not complaining - I bought in late as I said, although I had planned to keep the shares for the medium to long term as I genuinely believed in a private sale. You live & learn. However it does seem harsh on many small shareholders for whom this was their first (& maybe only) foray into share buying & may have depended on the money for their retirement etc. Personally I think they should be compensated at least.
You are joking, right?
Why not get onto FG - they wanted to compensate eircom shareholders for their losses at one stage if I recall correctly.
This is what happens to people when they dont do their research and dabble in things (stocks etc ..) that they dont understand ...
Sorry - I still fail to see why ignorance (in some cases) merits compensation. I would imagine that few people in this day and age are unaware of at least some of the risks/potential pitfalls involved in investing in shares. Both here in Ireland especially post eircom, in the UK after their more extensive experience of demutualisations and privatisations and more generally anywhere post Enron etc. I doubt that there are too many innocents abroad who have absolutely no appreciation of what can happen.No I'm not joking. A lot of people got the shares (admittedly for free) when NR was demutualised & knew nothing about the stock market. They held on to them as they would have if it was money for retirement. But I wonder how many of them were advised by the 'experts' to sell?
Surely the vast majority of Irish learned enough of a lesson from the eircom flotation to know that the future of a company and its share price isnt' based upon what you were 'hoping' at the time of purchase ?
You don't have to have participated to have learned lessons from this. The newspaper coverage was so extensive surely few if any people were unaware of the issues. Of course for some people the lesson learned was "never invest in shares" which many would argue was not really the point.I'm afraid I didn't learn from the eircom flotation - I didn't buy in the first place