LLoyds/TSB HBOS bail out announcement....

[Tony*T3]

Made on a Saturday when the stock markets arent open....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7929957.stm

Are they trying to avert another tanking for these shares....?

Interesting to see what happens Monday morning.

[glazbagun]

Merging with HBOS really wasnt a very good idea at all, was it?

[dazren]

glazbagun said:

Merging with HBOS really wasnt a very good idea at all, was it?

It was verging somewhere between inept or corrupt. Take a pick.

[NoelWatson]

dazren said:

glazbagun said:

Merging with HBOS really wasnt a very good idea at all, was it?

It was verging somewhere between inept or corrupt. Take a pick.

I vote latter

[Swilly]

Does the tanking of the share price really matter that much?

From the article, by taking control the gov are forcing through the strategy to increase lending and liquidity to businesses and mortgagees.

Lloyds is effectively a gov tool now.

Is the share price tanking realy just a small part of the bigger picture ??

[PPPPPP]

dazren said:

It was verging somewhere between inept or corrupt. Take a pick.

Or Coercion?

[chris watton]

Swilly said:

Does the tanking of the share price really matter that much?

From the article, by taking control the gov are forcing through the strategy to increase lending and liquidity to businesses and mortgagees.

Lloyds is effectively a gov tool now.

Is the share price tanking realy just a small part of the bigger picture ??

I guess share prices don’t matter that much in a state that’s turning away from capitalism and democracy, and into a super controlling quasi communist state – little by little…

[Chrisgr31]

If I had been a shareholder in Lloyds before they merged with HBOS I'd be pretty pissed off now! Surely that deal was pure mis-management?

Yes HBOS would have needed rescueing by the Government but would Lloyds have needed all this money without HBOS?

[Swilly]

chris watton said:

Swilly said:

Does the tanking of the share price really matter that much?

From the article, by taking control the gov are forcing through the strategy to increase lending and liquidity to businesses and mortgagees.

Lloyds is effectively a gov tool now.

Is the share price tanking realy just a small part of the bigger picture ??

I guess share prices don’t matter that much in a state that’s turning away from capitalism and democracy, and into a super controlling quasi communist state – little by little…

my question was more serious than your answer.

Considering the environment we are in, ignoring fault etc, one of the big problems is lack of liquidity in the economy and bank lending.

The gov are effectively taking control of the big risk i.e. the toxic debt and enforcing the normal operation of the banking system i.e. trying to put oil back into the engine before it completely seizes.

Assuming the situation we are in i.e. the Gov/taxpayer owning the banks, is a short-term situation and one which would revert back to normal once it is suitable to do so, then surely in the light of the banks reluctance to consider the greater good of the economy (of which they are a part) but to only consider their own position then is the gov's strategy the right thing?

I would say theoretically yes, although having to ignore the fact this shower of shiite will probably feck it up, mistime something critical, move too fast, be unrealistic etc etc

By rights all the banks that needed gov help should have folded and that would have been catastrophic for the UK economy and likely the world economy.

[s2art]

Swilly said:

chris watton said:

Swilly said:

Does the tanking of the share price really matter that much?

From the article, by taking control the gov are forcing through the strategy to increase lending and liquidity to businesses and mortgagees.

Lloyds is effectively a gov tool now.

Is the share price tanking realy just a small part of the bigger picture ??

I guess share prices don’t matter that much in a state that’s turning away from capitalism and democracy, and into a super controlling quasi communist state – little by little…

my question was more serious than your answer.

Considering the environment we are in, ignoring fault etc, one of the big problems is lack of liquidity in the economy and bank lending.

The gov are effectively taking control of the big risk i.e. the toxic debt and enforcing the normal operation of the banking system i.e. trying to put oil back into the engine before it completely seizes.

Assuming the situation we are in i.e. the Gov/taxpayer owning the banks, is a short-term situation and one which would revert back to normal once it is suitable to do so, then surely in the light of the banks reluctance to consider the greater good of the economy (of which they are a part) but to only consider their own position then is the gov's strategy the right thing?

I would say theoretically yes, although having to ignore the fact this shower of shiite will probably feck it up, mistime something critical, move too fast, be unrealistic etc etc

By rights all the banks that needed gov help should have folded and that would have been catastrophic for the UK economy and likely the world economy.

Not convinced that letting RBS go would have been worse that the alternative we have.

[Chrisgr31]

Swilly said:

By rights all the banks that needed gov help should have folded and that would have been catastrophic for the UK economy and likely the world economy.

Would it? What would have happened if a big bank went bust? Companies with money in the bank would have lost it, individuals wouldn't as long as it was under a limit. The taxpayer would not have invested billions in banks, but what would the likely outcome have been?

[Swilly]

s2art said:

Swilly said:

chris watton said:

Swilly said:

Does the tanking of the share price really matter that much?

From the article, by taking control the gov are forcing through the strategy to increase lending and liquidity to businesses and mortgagees.

Lloyds is effectively a gov tool now.

Is the share price tanking realy just a small part of the bigger picture ??

I guess share prices don’t matter that much in a state that’s turning away from capitalism and democracy, and into a super controlling quasi communist state – little by little…

my question was more serious than your answer.

Considering the environment we are in, ignoring fault etc, one of the big problems is lack of liquidity in the economy and bank lending.

The gov are effectively taking control of the big risk i.e. the toxic debt and enforcing the normal operation of the banking system i.e. trying to put oil back into the engine before it completely seizes.

Assuming the situation we are in i.e. the Gov/taxpayer owning the banks, is a short-term situation and one which would revert back to normal once it is suitable to do so, then surely in the light of the banks reluctance to consider the greater good of the economy (of which they are a part) but to only consider their own position then is the gov's strategy the right thing?

I would say theoretically yes, although having to ignore the fact this shower of shiite will probably feck it up, mistime something critical, move too fast, be unrealistic etc etc

By rights all the banks that needed gov help should have folded and that would have been catastrophic for the UK economy and likely the world economy.

Not convinced that letting RBS go would have been worse that the alternative we have.

What would letting RBS go have triggered off though, in terms of the results of failed obligations etc to 3rd parties ?

[grumbledoak]

Swilly said:

... and that would have been catastrophic for the UK economy and likely the world economy.

I've said the opposite all along, but that is clearly what the govt want us to think. By now we must have spent enough money that it would have been cheaper to guarantee all savings and let the shareholders accept the risks that they took.

We'll be paying for this calamity for 20 years or more, and it isn't over yet; Gordon has played his cards and can/will not back out now. I expect more to come.

Or, maybe Gordon really does want to make good on that manifesto promise?

[s2art]

Swilly said:

What would letting RBS go have triggered off though, in terms of the results of failed obligations etc to 3rd parties ?

Similar but a bit bigger than the yanks letting Lehmans go I would think. Once the yanks had done that then letting RBS go would have had less impact on reputation than otherwise.

[Swilly]

Chrisgr31 said:

Swilly said:

By rights all the banks that needed gov help should have folded and that would have been catastrophic for the UK economy and likely the world economy.

Would it? What would have happened if a big bank went bust? Companies with money in the bank would have lost it, individuals wouldn't as long as it was under a limit. The taxpayer would not have invested billions in banks, but what would the likely outcome have been?

what about the various obligations etc owed to other banks, institutions, investors.

these banks are in the doodoo because of the toxic debt. They have previously borrowed (and lent out) £gazillions from where.... ??

If they go bust, these original lenders of the £gazillions will be affected how ??

The banks/institutions that insure against debt defaults will have to pay out on default (Is this why AIG has tanked in the US and sucked up $186billion of gov handouts already?)

The £gazillions is gone, spread out through the economy and the assets underlying the obligations are devalued.

If a bank goes under the ripples will be huge i imagine.

[NoelWatson]

Swilly said:

The banks/institutions that insure against debt defaults will have to pay out on default (Is this why AIG has tanked in the US and sucked up $186billion of gov handouts already?)

Swilly said:

The banks/institutions that insure against debt defaults will have to pay out on default

Do you think they will have a lot of next exposure?

Swilly said:

(Is this why AIG has tanked in the US and sucked up $186billion of gov handouts already?)

Different problem

[uk_vette]

lloysds was doing quite well, and not in the st until the government almost 'forced' lloyds to buy HBOS.

How the fk can the 'Brown' government make bank buy a load of ste like HBOS. who they didn't want to buy anyway !

Isn't 'brown' a scottsman, maybe he was hoping an English bank could save his scottish HBOS.

HBOS was so much in st, that now they also took down lloyds

[Swilly]

NoelWatson said:

Swilly said:

The banks/institutions that insure against debt defaults will have to pay out on default (Is this why AIG has tanked in the US and sucked up $186billion of gov handouts already?)

Swilly said:

The banks/institutions that insure against debt defaults will have to pay out on default

Do you think they will have a lot of next exposure?

Swilly said:

(Is this why AIG has tanked in the US and sucked up $186billion of gov handouts already?)

Different problem

Isn't or wasn't AIG a big player in the CDS market ?
Weren't CDSs used to insure against debt defaults and the like ?

I'm not a banker or anywhere near banking so clearly don't know the detail... or anything for that matter

[miniman]

My brother works for LTSB and the view from inside is that with the long term view in mind, the HBOS deal was excellent.

[NoelWatson]

miniman said:

My brother works for LTSB and the view from inside is that with the long term view in mind, the HBOS deal was excellent.

My company director owns LLoyds shares and he can't see why the hell Lloyds bought HBOS. Why would you want ti increase your exposure to markets that were going belly up?