Bank share holders,should we feel sorry for them?.

7sr2z3fely84g5

They on radio or tv everyday,blaming the banks for their lost,is it all their fault though?,where some people not warned their prices of shares would go up or down,would like hear from posters in the know.

Wolfe Tone

Yeah, because lots of people, elderly especially, were advised to put their savings in "blue chip" stocks like BOI.

Absurdum

sh1t happens!

Kev_ps3

Do you feel sorry for people who spend lots of their money on the lotto? Its basically the same thing.

Chuck Stone

I feel sorry for them.

But tough shit- not (shouldn't be) my problem.

charlemont

No.

votecounts

they gambled, they lost, end of

mikemac

Spread the risk
If you put your life savings in one area it happens.

Though I wish I bought shares in Apple a decade ago!

My name is URL

Should 'we' feel that this is a stupid thread?

Son Of A Vidic

charlemont wrote: »

No.

I join you.

grizzly

I would feel sorry for old couples who were mislead as to the risks associated with investments. Its sad that the people who where playing with their whole life savings are probably still minted.

BizzyC

I do.
A lot of these people were being told that this was a safe investment to make with there money, a lot of the time by paid financial advisors.

Very big difference between that and gambling.

These people had nothing to do with the collapse of the financial system and have been hit harder than most. Not only will they have less earnings/jobs like everyone else, all of their savings are gone on top of that.

doc_17

Hard not to feel sorry for OAPs who didn't know any better.

No sympathy at all though for institutional investors though.

Blisterman

Some pretty heartless people here. Many people's pension funds that they saved for decades were tied up in bank stocks, which had long been considered a "safe investment".

What happened was pretty unprecedented and unlucky.

El Siglo

BizzyC wrote:

I do.
A lot of these people were being told that this was a safe investment to make with there money, a lot of the time by paid financial advisors.

Very big difference between that and gambling.

These people had nothing to do with the collapse of the financial system and have been hit harder than most. Not only will they have less earnings/jobs like everyone else, all of their savings are gone on top of that.

I got a tip the other day about a horse racing in Curragh at 2.20 by a trainer there. Horse came in 6th, so I lost my bet, does that mean I should be refunded by either the bookie or the trainer or the general public because I made a loss on bad investment? Same thing as the bank shareholders, I don't feel sorry for them and age shouldn't be an excuse for not looking after their money and basing their decision on what a bank manager/worker told them.

ejmaztec

There aren't many people in Ireland who didn't get fucked over by the banks, one way or another.

Even bank staff who chose shares instead of cash for bonuses over the years got screwed.

mikemac

The saw their share price increase as the banks aggressively went after market share.

In 2006, Bank of Ireland declared a profit €800 million in only six months, incredible. At the same time were trying to cut back defined benefit pension schemes for their staff, all in the aim of even more profit

When the shareholders call stop? They just accepted the accounts and the promises of management and looked at their portfolio of shares as it increased even more
If they had doubts they could have sold out at any time, Irish stock exchange can execute a sale and you just pay tax on any profit you made

It couldn't last and it didn't last.

Blisterman

El Siglo wrote: »

I got a tip the other day about a horse racing in Curragh at 2.20 by a trainer there. Horse came in 6th, so I lost my bet, does that mean I should be refunded by either the bookie or the trainer or the general public because I made a loss on bad investment? Same thing as the bank shareholders, I don't feel sorry for them and age shouldn't be an excuse for not looking after their money and basing their decision on what a bank manager/worker told them.

The major difference between the Stock Market and Bookies, is that on average, you get more than you put in, investing in the Stock Market. While bookies it's the opposite.

Sure there's a risk, but there's a risk in putting money in the bank too, if inflation exceeds interest. And I don't need to tell you about property...

Saila

My name is URL wrote: »

Should 'we' feel that this is a stupid thread?

should we conclude that ^ had bank shares

ejmaztec

The investors I never feel sorry for are the idiots who get conned into investing, thinking they're going to get astronomical returns on their money. These people don't follow the rule: "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't".

El Siglo

Blisterman wrote: »

The major difference between the Stock Market and Bookies, is that on average, you get more than you put in, investing in the Stock Market. While bookies it's the opposite.

Sure there's a risk, but there's a risk in putting money in the bank too, if inflation exceeds interest. And I don't need to tell you about property...

No, stock market and bookies are the same thing. You're investing in what the predicted change of market conditions are going to be like. Inflation is one thing, that affects the entire euro-zone, and affects the money supply. However, investing and losing your money such as what these shareholders did, that's their problem. So they lose their money, well that's too bad. You make a decision, you face the consequences.

Obviously taking shares in any company comes with a risk but as a shareholder you should at least expect the company to be run properly thus not putting undue risk on the value of your shares.Irish banks were clearly not run properly and with the help of the lack of financial regulation took the piss with their loan books.

These shareholders should be going after the people who ran the banks if they want any compensation, not the Irish government for nationalising the banks.

ejmaztec

Dexter Attractive Undergarment wrote: »

Obviously taking shares in any company comes with a risk but as a shareholder you should at least expect the company to be run properly thus not putting undue risk on the value of your shares.Irish banks were clearly not run properly and with the help of the lack of financial regulation took the piss with their loan books.

These shareholders should be going after the people who ran the banks if they want any compensation, not the Irish government for nationalising the banks.

No bankers here could possibly compensate them, the losses are so huge.:eek:

My name is URL

Saila wrote: »

should we conclude that ^ had bank shares

Nah.. I'm just fed up of seeing this type of thread in AH. It reeks of the 'them vs us' mentality which is all too common here these days. Same thing happens in threads about those working in the public sector, on the dole, in negative equity etc.

There doesn't need to be some sort of fixed national mindset when it come to these things.

ilovesleep

But bondholders are not losing out. We're bailing them out, are we not?

Sticky_Fingers

I assume the OP is referring to the people who are going to lose their shirts in the Irish Life and Permanent debacle. It may surprise many but this particular institution was one of the better managed ones, didn't lend to commercial ventures and concentrated on residential mortgages.

They have not been caught out by massive retarded property deals they have undertaken but the simple fact that the regulator decided to move the goal posts with regards the need for greater cash reserves. If I was a shareholder I'd be pretty piss3d off at the moment considering that the company had a chance to trade its way out of its difficulties and this decision has been foisted upon them by the government who if anything are overcapitalising the banks.

*I have no shares in IL&P

whiteandlight

Can someone explain to me how the shareholders get wiped out? I had thought that more shares would be issued by the bank which the state would buy. However that would mean that the shareholders still have their shares, albeit almost worthless. My question is if this is the case, surely eventually the shareholders original shares will increase in value again if the company recovers? Obviously since there are now significantly more shares in circulation (assuming the state doesnt assume ownership indefinitely) they will not recover to their previous value but they may make some of their investment back?
Its all a bit confusing!

Sticky_Fingers

Musicmental85 wrote: »

Can someone explain to me how the shareholders get wiped out? I had thought that more shares would be issued by the bank which the state would buy. However that would mean that the shareholders still have their shares, albeit almost worthless. My question is if this is the case, surely eventually the shareholders original shares will increase in value again if the company recovers? Obviously since there are now significantly more shares in circulation (assuming the state doesnt assume ownership indefinitely) they will not recover to their previous value but they may make some of their investment back?
Its all a bit confusing!

Many of the shares would have been bought over the last few years so their price was massively inflated to start with. Now that they are going to issue a whole lot more meaning that existing share value will be diluted by a corresponding amount. You thus have two problems, you have to grow the business enough so that the inflated price you bought the shares at actually correspond to the true worth of the company. Added to this you also have to grow to compensate for all the extra millions of shares that are sloshing around in the system.

123balltv

last week I played the Monday millions/euromillions and Irish lotto etc
did'nt gain anything nobody to blame but myself same
for the shareholders

Blisterman

For those who think that "They took a risk, so face the consequences".

How would you feel, if instead of the banks being bailed out by the government, people who held savings accounts in the bank lost their money. Same thing? If not, why?

Liam Byrne

My name is URL wrote: »

Nah.. I'm just fed up of seeing this type of thread in AH. It reeks of the 'them vs us' mentality which is all too common here these days.

Well of course there's an "us vs them" mentality.

There's people who got greedy and invested like mad in property and shares, and there's people who didn't.

Unfortunately, the people who didn't are being forced to foot the bill. And being ridiculed with "hindsight's great", etc.......it's not hindsight, as proven by the fact that we didn't dive in on the bandwagon.

Let the shareholders sue the likes of Drumm & Ronan & Aherne if they want.

But quit raiding my savings.

Zebra3

Gamblers who went for bank shares did so in an effort to get their hands on some of the huge profits being generated by financial institutions through the milking of young people wanting to put a roof over their heads.

So f*ck them.

Blisterman

That's generalising to say the least. For every greedy speculator, there was undoubtedly a couple planning for retirement, or parents saving up to send their kids to college.

And by "young people wanting to put a roof over their heads", I assume you mean people who bought their own house. ie investors.

Liam Byrne

Blisterman wrote: »

And by "young people wanting to put a roof over their heads", I assume you mean people who bought their own house. ie investors.

No. And this is the idiocy that most people fell for.

A car isn't an investment, it's a requirement.
A house shouldn't ever have been an "investment"; it should have been a place to live.

Blisterman

Yes, but you don't need to buy a house.

You buy a house, because you assume that in the long run it'd be cheaper than renting. You're sacrificing money in the short term, because you believe it'll bring long term gains. That's investing.

Liam Byrne

Blisterman wrote: »

Yes, but you don't need to buy a house.

You buy a house, because you assume that in the long run it'd be cheaper than renting. You're sacrificing money in the short term, because you believe it'll bring long term gains. That's investing.

No. I bought a house so that I could do what I want with it and wouldn't have to ever worry again about cardboard-thin walls and obnoxious neighbours.

Blisterman

Well, for most people that's the reason they buy houses. And how can you control who your neighbours are?

Liam Byrne

Blisterman wrote: »

Well, for most people that's the reason they buy houses.

That is what FF and the banks and developers tried to convince us of.

Come back to me when you've surveyed "most people" as to their reasons.

I'm not "most people" and I'm not unique.

bnt

People are assuming that people with a stake in banks made an active choice to invest in those banks. But what about pension funds and the like? Your company puts the money in to the fund on your behalf, and the fund then goes and puts it in to bank shares. The shares go pffft, so the your pension goes pffft, and you had no say in the matter.

sheesh

some people on this thread seem to think gambling and investing in bank shares are the same.

bank shares do not pay out multiples of the initial investment.

the banks were supposed to be managed, independently audited and regulated by professionals.

banks were supposed to be a safe investment given the above. people invested because the interest rates given by the banks were lower than inflation so leaving your money in the bank meant it was loosing value.

you bet on a horse you are told that if the horse wins you get a defined return at a specified time there is a probability that the horse will win gambling is done largely for entertainment purposes. Very few people are gambling the majority of their savings mostly.

Some people seem to think that stock market = high risk and huge returns

when in actual fact it can also mean low risk and low returns depending on which shares you invest with.

orourkeda

No it was a gamble that failed. Tough luck but thats life.

Ellie2008

Forget the institutional investors of course I feel sorry for the people who have lost their hard earned pension money, who thought the banks being regulated entities were a safe investment and who could hardly have been expected to see this coming as the Regulator himself didnt..

Zebra3

bnt wrote: »

People are assuming that people with a stake in banks made an active choice to invest in those banks. But what about pension funds and the like? Your company puts the money in to the fund on your behalf, and the fund then goes and puts it in to bank shares. The shares go pffft, so the your pension goes pffft, and you had no say in the matter.

The people at the AGM earlier today crying on the news, I assume, were private shareholders and not there as those whom have their pension fund invested in the bank and are represented by the pension fund managers.

You gambled, you lost.

Tough sh*t.