Charles Ellson:
If it was stock not shares then there was no share ownership.

Your dialect differs from mine, then. As to the LPTB, I have
no more to add.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "*I* never have problems distinguishing
| Peter Seebach and Steve Summit!" -- Steve Summit

On Tue, 29 May 2012 17:13:34 -0500, (Mark Brader) wrote:

Charles Ellson:
If it was stock not shares then there was no share ownership.

Your dialect differs from mine, then. As to the LPTB, I have
no more to add.

The interpretation of "stock" seems to be a bit woolly and
internationally variable; I was taking it as investments issued which
were backed by LPTB's assets but which involved no rights of
ownership. It seems unusual that the LPTB would have involved any
share capital and that what the predecessors were actually issued with
were investments backed by the LPTB's assets as implied in :-
http://archive.tribunemagazine.co.uk...llion-pounds-a
including :-
"The amount to be paid on the C stock is now 51 per cent. per year. If
this rate of interest is not paid to the C stock holders in each of
any three consecutive years after June 30, 1935, the holders may
appoint a receiver."
Phew! (or has someone missed a decimal point ?)

Charles Ellson:
"The amount to be paid on the C stock is now 51 per cent. per year. If
this rate of interest is not paid to the C stock holders in each of
any three consecutive years after June 30, 1935, the holders may
appoint a receiver."
Phew! (or has someone missed a decimal point ?)

Well, you can see from other parts of the text -- especially the
third-last paragraph -- how bad the OCR is. I wish they'd given us
a full-resolution scan of the original page instead of a thumbnail.

Here I think the 1 is supposed to be a ½, giving 5½. Similarly for
the + sign in the next paragraph: 5+ is again 5½. The fact that
£5,100,000 and 51 start with the same two significant digits would
just be a coincidence.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | It is never good to adapt the design to the software;
| it should be the other way around. --J.A. Durieux

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Charles Ellson wrote:
The interpretation of "stock" seems to be a bit woolly and
internationally variable; I was taking it as investments issued which
were backed by LPTB's assets but which involved no rights of
ownership.


That would seem to indicate that they were bonds.