Clik here to view.
Dennis Grainger (Letters, 23 March) gives a distorted view of shareholders' rights. During 2007 there was much stock exchange speculation in Northern Rock shares, buoyed by the common knowledge that all was not well with the company's finances. One option – to sell – was available to shareholders at all times and it ill-behoves those who neglected to take up that option, preferring to wait and see what happened, now to demand compensation from the government. Directors have to manage company assets in the best interests of shareholders. When they are less than successful at this, the shareholders may suffer. As the Treasury committee on Northern Rock observed in 2008: "The directors of Northern Rock were the principal authors of the bank's difficulties because of the reckless business model which they pursued." I suggest Mr Grainger and his organisation stand about as much chance of obtaining "compensation" through the European court of human rights as they would have if they sued the Northern Rock directors of the day.
Peter Harris
Lewes, East Sussex
• Dennis Grainger argues for compensation for shareholders. As he notes, some of the shareholders were originally with the Rock when it was a mutual. On conversion, it is usual for mutual members to receive shares at no cost. If that happened in the case of the Rock, I can't see what those people have to complain about. No doubt the shareholders had the benefit of dividends while the Rock traded injudiciously. Why should the public now compensate them?
Bob Nicholson
Frodsham, Cheshire
