Go Back   Business and Finance Forum > Careers & Employment > Financial Services
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 10-31-2009, 10:52 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 35
Default Is this another of the Financial Services Authority,( FSA) unkind act ?

The Financial Services Authority said Darren Morton and Christopher Parry, committed market abuse because they sold Barclays Bonds based on inside information about a new issue in March, 2007.
Why had the FSA remained silence and had in fact lifted the short selling ban which it had imposed during November 2008. And the very day enabling those Institutional short sellers to selling Barclays shares to limit downs.and continue to several trading days until it share price reached its all time historical low of 50p.
The next day after the panic sellings of Barclays share, Lord Turner,Chairman of FSA, told the News that he saw nothing wrong with the sellings of Barclays in the London and New York Stock Exchange.
Many shareholders actually paniced and started selling off their shares to cut losees. Even a top Asian sovereign wealth fund sold off its shares at a 800 million pounds loss.
Barclays is a top and profitable British bank. FSA which is its regulatory body should had instructed the London Stock Exchange to either suspend Barclays shares or to 'designated' the shares pending an investigation.
Many of my shareholders friend and soverign wealth funds also paniced, but a majority held on to their shares because they have full confident with Barclays' Board of directors and its top management.
I did wondered how Barclays share price of around 280p can be allowed to sold down to 50p. in November, 2008.
Steve B, I do agree with you on what you had said. But I still cannot understand why FSA lifted the short selling ban and allow those institutional short sellers to sell. Because I had been trading with shares for the past 40 years.
In the case of Northern Rock. The Bank of England came in to save NR's depositors so that they were repaid in full. As bankers bank and as their last resort.
My question again, why did'nt the FSA as regulator step in and request the London Stock Exchange to suspend NR's shares immediately pending investigations. This is what most regulators all over the world are doing. Why was the FSA different.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Web Hosting by Chime Host