any comments, thoughts, on this stock.

Thanks for the good news my friend

Investors would be offered compensation for their shares set by a Government-appointed arbitration panel which decides on a fair price. But shareholders, including two hedge funds, could launch legal action if they are unhappy with the amount offered. Shares in the company are trading at less than 100p although the two hedge funds have reportedly written to the Treasury calling for 400p a share in compensation.

A legal fight ahead for compensation might take 2/3 years it did with Railtrack.

So if like i have bought in at @ 1.45 each does that mean i would be in profit or is that me living in a dream land , like when i bought them thinking they would at least double . Lesson well and truly learnt me thinks !!!!

what would be an avarage estimate of commpesation that could be offered, is it likely to be less than the current share price or is it likely to be more that 2 or just in between.

Cant see how the hedge funds can claim compensation when they bought shares in a bank which was known to be in financial difficulties, thats just speculation not investing.

Let's have a poll on the matter:

4+
3-4
2-3
1-2
50p-1
25-50p
10-25p
1-9p
<1p

1p to 9p if your lucky.

Does nationalisation of NRK means shareholders have lost all their money?...it has been suspended today.

hedgefunds who kept buying will have done their bollox ..... ordinary shareholders may get a nominal amount, but would not bet on it and probably not for many many months

Totally agree. Shareholder's compensation is a v low priority.

bet there'll be some hedgefund managers looking for new jobs - prob as shelf-stackers!

Do you mind I used to be a shelf stacker..!

If you got caught in this then my sentiments are you have yourself to blame... Shareholders have known the risk for sometime. Government priority is depositors funds and keeping the business running. It was rumoured that the Virgin offer valued shares at around 25p each, even so shareholder compensation isn't likely to announced soon. Like the government say 'business as usual' until I fear the government either announces Nationalisation or a sale. No doubt it'll be in a hurry to announce either and will play the 'temporary nationalisation card' as its doing to buy further time and hold onto investors money.

Wonder if the hedge funds and other major shareholders will sue

SUE WHO us the good old tax payer.

when do you sell. THE chart tell you, its going down.

NRK now suspended, pending Nationalisation fudges - - -

To suggest NRK was worth 25p is nonsense. That implies that everyone that traded the shares during early-2007 was paying ten times their true worth.
Frankly I suspect it was reasonable value somewhere above 4 - although it was selling for nearly12 not that long ago . . . but there was growth then, with many folks swapping Pensions for Property.
(However, that was a "housing-bubble" IMHO - created by the hidden greed of both Builder and Banker, assisted by amateur landlords, that's us!)

The NRK issue was caused by blinkered Management, who could not recognise that their whole business rested on a rolling-program of cheap finance. Had they considered the effect of interest-rate rises then the buiness could have been valued according to the interest-rate.
For example take the recent past - interest touched 20%, so it would not be unreasonable to calculate four "valuations" - based on 5%, 7%, 10% and 14% - if we believe that 20% is impossible in the next year.....this would have given some grim reading for the last two - with NRK unable to continue its business!!! - no-wonder no-one published the consequential figures.....but such calculations should have been done - in the same way when a business plans a new factory they explore the possibility of rising costs AND reduced markets ( e.g. during a recession)......if this is not done, then by the time the factory is completed, they could be out of business.

Taking the interest-rates of 5% and 7% - what would NRK be worth....on much lower turnover ( =the amount they could borrow from Savers ).?
Whilst it wouild take the shine off a sp = 10 I doubt it would reduce to 25p - partly because they could increase the interest they pay - and even with increased Mortgage payments there would still be business out there.

It would be far smaller and that their generosity to "Sports Projects" might have to be halted, but over time the LIBO interest-rate would come down and then NRK would resume its earlier model...///..and the sp would return to 10.

The question that needed to be asked was why there was no realisation their business would be significantly smaller, if they could only trade on genuine savers....and maybe that would drop the sp for a few years........for I cannot imagine, had the Execs taken the right precautions in knowing what would ensue....the sp would fall anywhere near 25p.

Easy to say "now!" - but then there were Regulators who understand Banking and Mortgages, Borrowing etc........ that's why they're paid ots of money - we should expect their judgement to be very close to "spot-on" - - - - whereas it seems to me they were rubbish - invited Guests" whose only claim was they knew someone who knew someone who knew something, or other.

In truth the Regulators and particularly Executives served Northern Rock very badly, believing the good times would continue forever. I think that the Auditors should be subject to some careful checking; was their interest aligned with shareholders, or rather fees generated from Management contracts? Oh dear. It seems to me the shareholders have been lied to, cheated and ignored in respect of the fundamental operational risks of the business. Something that is very clear now....and one has to ask what were the Salary and Fee-payments made by shareholders to others - for?
Some refunds are due, IMHO.

In any Review it may be that the Government will receive some blame "for dither", but they came to this fiasco" rather late" and whilst it would be nice to blame individuals - the facts are that the underlying damage was already in place......and there were enough people being paid to make sure that NRK was sound - and they had systematically failed in their duty.....so the Government found a very poor hand - maybe there was then no easy answer.

I think we ( UK plc) should look at (in this Order)
Executives - ignoring risk modeling, jail should be considered for them all!
Auditors - failing to insist on risk modeling and telling shareholders
Regulators - for timid moves too little and confused - so they were ignored
Shareholders - for not asking the right questions
Beneficiaries - for not realising it wouldn't last.

I wil add two more....1) the tripod arrangement created by Government FSA/BoE/etc. for being too timid and agreeing to sharing power. - and -
2) The Media for making a storm out of it, far too late.
and finally the Government (again) for not allowing shareholders sufficient power to prevent the loss of their Company and investment. Of all parties that have lost in this fiasco - sharehodlers appear to have least power....yet their work is free and very specific . . . . to stay in business profitably.

It is this aspect of investment that needs looking at.....for institutional holders like RAB - only make use of their power when it suits them . . . and this time it's too late.
Retail-Shareholders would be better served by having independent Auditors, rather than their current role, which appears to be . . .well, I don't know...."cosy"

Great so after reading all that we're looking at yet another expense this time in the form of a public enquiry.... Just hammer the last nail in and leave it alone..

I'm a bit confused over how shareholders can do any moaning. They invested knowing the risks and it went tits up. So what. They knew the risks and thought they might make a quick buck. No-one cares less about (ie) SEO shareholders, what makes the rock any different?
With UK PLC buying it, they may get a few bob back. If UK PLC didn't it would be allowed to go bump and they'd get nowt.
Would the same shareholders wanting compensation for their losses be as quick to offer extra taxation to the government had they rocketed to 12 a share? No. So why should they be compensated when it goes down?
Unless its on the back of the bloke suing William Hill for 2m. He lost big on a gamble as well.