I am a share holder of RBS. I am profoundly distirbed at what's going on in RBS. They wasted an enormous sum of money buying ABN AMRO in the first place with wrong timing; and now they wish to raise cash through share dilution. I cannot see how this management can show their face to shareholders! They should resign enmasse, and immediately.

M. A. Jabbar
Altrincham
Cheshire.

M. A. Jabbar, Altrincham, Cheshire

The real consequence of this will be yet further erosion of the small private shareholder and increases in the power of mega-institutions/hedge funds. I own quite a lot of shares in RBS - which I have carefully bought over the years and am saving for my imminent retirement - and I now face the unenviable task of putting up a great deal more money. With so big a rights issue, the existing stock will be so greatly diluted that those who don't take up rights either have to sell now or compound their losses.

Mrs Thatcher rightly wanted to create an army of small, long-term shareholders, because they bring stability. That dream has well and truly gone. Instead, companies are increasingly at the mercy of speculators who have billions to gamble and are in it only for short term profit. My guess is that the RBS price rise on Friday was not a vote of confidence in the company. On the contrary, it merely represented millions of bets that the rights issue would be heavily discounted.

Frank, London, UK

Sell of the family silver to aleviate a temporary blip rather than put your hand a little deeper in your pocket. Brilliant! More short term madness of the sort that has ruined many British businesses. The rights issue should come before an asset sale. With the business intact ,even with a diluted capital base it is still a complete business that can, and will, recover. Sell the presently more saleable parts and what happens the day AFTER tomorrow? One possibility is that the reduced business will be snapped up by "our European friends". Another feather in the cap of our treacherous government, albeit not exactly of their making.

D.L. Stephens, York, England

Whilst I feel that ultimately a rights issue was inevitable, it leaves serious questions for the senior management of RBS to answer. No doubt the considerable losses which have been seen to date and look likely still to be announced on sub prime lending, will be part negated by savings on bonuses for the Chief Executive and others! The purchase of AMRO will ultimately prove good business for RBS of that there can be no question. The price paid however coupled with sub-prime issues suggests a change of leadership is necessary if the Bank is to gain its rightful place as a market leader.

D Goffin, Lowestoft,

Banks like RBS have nobody to blame except themselves!

This is a classic example of sheep mentality in sub-prime mortgages where a house of cards was just waiting to come down. I want to know why the very well paid risk analysts never never saw the elephant in the room or did they??

Have you ever tried to stop a huge snow ball as its rolling towards you? You either get out of the way or get crushed by it! More than a few risk analysts will have been told keep their mouths shut if they valued their jobs!

While the house of cards was still standing, the greedy piggies were busy feeding from the trough, from the top down, everyone was getting their cut.

These banks should suffer, heads must roll, bloated companies must shed jobs and dividends should be wiped out.

At the end of the day, the real crooks walk away laughing now that the party is over, they have banked huge sums of money and will get pay offs that most people could only dream of.
It must be awful.

graham, St. Albans, uk

Not true, I currently work for RBS selling Churchill Insurance and you get value for money and a decent claims and customer service. Also, does anybody spare a thought for us at the bottom of the tree? Once again we are on the recieving end of the worry if our jobs are still safe, whilst trying to raise a young family. Which is what we have felt ever since RBS bought the company.

Deb C, Beckenham,

thank god a bank now thinking about relising its profits the its important that this bank looks atself and why it is in this position in the first place. It may tell toehr buiness how to run the re buisness but it should be reducing its huge marketing bill too. It should cut bonuses. It shoudl bee doing these first before asking shareholders with more money. The board are to make the right decision for shareholders but it seems to me that they want to look after themselves first and shareholder second. This is not a good team of people if there go for a rights issue over selling assets and cutting bonuses. It quite funny that banks are cutting jobs rather than bonuses? questionable action. it should be reducing its wage bill first then cutting jobs as the team of people who work there are useful to grow a buisness. They cant do that with out cashflow so selling ASSETS and cutting wages then cutting jobs should be order of things in my opinion. The board need to think like shareholders!

amit hindocha, leicester, uk

Amazing!

I thnik someone did say that it was only a matter of time before a big bank went down. I wonder whether this will be the first?

Austin Tassletine, Bristol, UK

Shareholders in RBS should ask that all of the benefits that the bank achieves in a four year period , if a rights issue is implementeds be returned to the shareholders and no rewards are paid to the Board - other than their" normal" renumeration.
Had RBS muted that a rights issue may have been needed to support the acquisition of ABN Amro- this would have allowed large shareholders to give voice (perhaps they did- will we get to know ) this would have saved RBS from the silly short term position it finds itself in.

Do you think that if - I as a shareholder asked RBS for an interest only loan on the amount to purchase the shares offered under the rights issue I would seen as better risk than a business with huge exposure to the sub prime mortgage fiasco.

Ian

Ian Leslie, Alnwick, Northumberland

Any reduction in competition in the insurance market will be to the detriment of consumers. I hope the government is awake at the moment as this sort of thing should get more than a cursory nod.

Colin, shrewsbury,

You only have to look at the Share price to see that Mr Goodwin has seriously eroded shareholder value.
Following his resignation,probably on the spurious grounds of ill health,I can guarantee that the share price will rise.
What greater testimony can there be to his recent Kamikazee
leadership,what have the Non Execs doing whilst all this has been going on?

Bob Greenaway, Liss , Hants

Direct Line and Churchill are excellent brands that offer competetive products and are a sound source of revenue for RBS. I believe a rights issue is the way forward. Dilute the price rather than the asset base quality.

ABN Amro is a well known brand and an asset that sits well the RBS franchise. Yes mistakes were made in the timing and price of the sale. However Goodwin has done a lot right in the past few years. We all make mistakes. He is an incredibly shrewd, clever leader that will learn from his errors. Dont let him go, once this mess has passed he is the man to rebuild the balance sheet and the share price

john, bath, uk

so they buy a bank that's no good then they want to sell what makes money. i see big bonuses on the way for the financial geniuses running rbs.

phil barnes, preston, england

Clearly good business sense to sell your profitable insurance brands at this stage, considering that hardly anyone will be able to afford insurance on top of feeding themselves and keeping a roof over their head by 2010 if Gordon Brown's miracle economy keeps its inevitable downward trajectory.

Ian Evans, Twyford, Berkshire

Why sell your most well known brands?It doesn't make any sense.You buy a Dutch bank that nobody has ever heard of, and then sell Direct Line.They must be crazy or short of cash,probably both I'd guess.

stephen hulton, eure, france

If Direct Line and Churchill are making an ROI of 13.6% (£680 million on £5 billion) then one has to assume that they are charging substantially over the odds for the products they offer . . .

Perhaps it would be cheaper to go through the middleman after all.

John Bull, Consett, UK