The Golden Shower (1 Viewer)

[La La]

because no one's said it yet, I will.


GOLDEN SHOWER OF CUNTS





[i subbed a story the other day in which the columnist referred to them as the Maple Ten]

why??

 

[magicbastarder]

Basically, they own loads of shares. If the value falls (or, say the bank gets nationalised) they lose nothing because the shares themselves are the security. If the value rose, they could have kept the profits

as far as i know, the security being worth nothing is not in itself a get out clause for the borrower; that's your tough shit, usually. you still owe the money.

however, in this case, since it was the bank requesting the 'borrower' to take the loan and buy the shares, the 'borrower' has a strong case for arguing he was just a proxy and the risk was the bank's, and the bank's alone.

 

[Jim Daniels]

as far as i know, the security being worth nothing is not in itself a get out clause for the borrower; that's your tough shit, usually. you still owe the money.

however, in this case, since it was the bank requesting the 'borrower' to take the loan and buy the shares, the 'borrower' has a strong case for arguing he was just a proxy and the risk was the bank's, and the bank's alone.

Is it not illegal for an institution to lend somebody money, with the sole purpose of enabling that person to buy shares in the institution, and propping up the share price artificially?

 

[ann post]

i dont like that ulick fella, he's got the air of a plant around him. share wise this basically is probably one of the most lucrative investments in history, and it was handed in secret to the richest people in (and outside) the country. a year before, 451 billions would maybe have been 6-7% of the bank. i happen to be mates with a guy who's had shares there a few years.

i'm expecting the ulick my balls spiel will evolve into ;'we didnt want it to turn iceland on this, or northern rock', which translates to 'we wanted to buy a higher percentage of elbow room at a very fragile time

the political connotations are very ugly.

 

[magicbastarder]

Is it not illegal for an institution to lend somebody money, with the sole purpose of enabling that person to buy shares in the institution, and propping up the share price artificially?

if it was illegal, the opposition would not be calling for these guys to be named, they'd be calling for them to be arrested.
i assume.

 

[nlgbbbblth]

Is it not illegal for an institution to lend somebody money, with the sole purpose of enabling that person to buy shares in the institution, and propping up the share price artificially?

No, not illegal. A number of UK banks have had share rights issues - where they offer x amount of shares to shareholders (say 10 for every 15 held) at a low price. In some cases people will wanna borrow to fund the purchase of those shares.

 

[Jim Daniels]

No, not illegal. A number of UK banks have had share rights issues - where they offer x amount of shares to shareholders (say 10 for every 15 held) at a low price. In some cases people will wanna borrow to fund the purchase of those shares.

Fair enough, but it seems that it should be at least frowned upon!

 

[nlgbbbblth]

Fair enough, but it seems that it should be at least frowned upon!

It's quite possible that those shareholders could get loans from other institutions too.

Comes down to the following

- Are they good for the loan if the investment doesn't work out (i.e. the price collapses)?

- If they have the ability to term out the debt and repay it over a few years then they'll get the loan once they can provide security.

 

[Cormcolash]

I may as well own up.
I'm one of them, I borrowed 50 million euro, I'll pay it back over the next year though, honestly.

 

[pete]

i subbed a story the other day in which the columnist referred to them as the Maple Ten]

why??

maple / golden syrup?