Bank profits... state ownership... dividends etc..

[youngsyr]

heebeegeetee said:

But nobody is forced to join in with it all, nobody at all, but if you do, and suffer as a consequence, you've no-one to blame but yourself, and that applies whether you're an individual or a bank, imo.

That is where I disagree with you.

There are different ways of forcing someone (or an entity) to do something; some are more subtle than others.

If you have the responsibility of setting the rules of the game to allow or rule out a system where a bank has the choice of either keeping up with the competition in a potentially risky, but potentially rewarding, strategy or going out of business, and you allow that system, then to my mind you are equally culpable as the bank.

You keep implying that the banks had a choice whether to lend. Of course they could have refused the lending all it would take is to say "No". However, it's not really a choice if the board of the bank would lose their jobs due to the bank under-performing against the competition for several years on the trot, is it?

[youngsyr]

NoelWatson said:

You forgot the biggest player, El Gordo

I include him within UK Financial regulators as it was him who ultimately set and was responsible for the financial regulation.

[NoelWatson]

youngsyr said:

NoelWatson said:

You forgot the biggest player, El Gordo

I include him within UK Financial regulators as it was him who ultimately set and was responsible for the financial regulation.

I think you need to be explicit!

[heebeegeetee]

youngsyr said:

NoelWatson said:

You forgot the biggest player, El Gordo

I include him within UK Financial regulators as it was him who ultimately set and was responsible for the financial regulation.

Was there any request or lobbying from the financial sector to deregulate?

[fido]

Now we're on the subject of .. Lloyds TSB was one of the most prudent banks up to the credit crunch. Then El Gordo coerced them into that fateful marriage with HBOS, and the shareholders were shafted in the process (and not all of them voted in favour of the merger).

heebeegeetee said:

Was there any request or lobbying from the financial sector to deregulate?

With regards to the former, Brown personally intervened in this matter .. come on let's see you defend this one HB.. was Brown not involved in this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...

Edited by fido on Wednesday 11th August 11:46

[Fittster]

fido said:

Now we're on the subject of .. Lloyds TSB was one of the most prudent banks up to the credit crunch. Then El Gordo coerced them into that fateful marriage with HBOS, and the shareholders were shafted in the process (and not all of them voted in favour of the merger).

I still don't understand this argument. Gordon say, "Do you want HBOS, we can let the competition rules slide as they are in a state."

Lloyds plunges in thinking about market share and forgetting to do enough due diligence and gets burned.

How is it Gordon's fault? Why couldn't Lloyds have said "Not on your nelly" and walked away?

[NobleGuy]

heebeegeetee said:

NobleGuy said:

We all have to take responsibility for it.

Well, i wouldn't totally disagree with that. We're all responsible for our actions, and so are those who lend so much money to people with no money that they go bust.

We are an avaricious nation, no doubt about it. I can spend 2 weeks in France in my Boxster and count the other porsches i see on one hand. In a week in northern spain i saw no other porsches, and indeed mine would attract a lot of attention. Whereas in my neck of the woods they're as common as muck.

So yes, there has been a hell of a lot of promotion to follow a lifestyle beyond your means, and that is indeed a fault of governments (and it did NOT start in 1997).

But nobody is forced to join in with it all, nobody at all, but if you do, and suffer as a consequence, you've no-one to blame but yourself, and that applies whether you're an individual or a bank, imo.

I think that's a pretty fair statement

[fido]

Fittster said:

I still don't understand this argument. Gordon say, "Do you want HBOS, we can let the competition rules slide as they are in a state."

Lloyds plunges in thinking about market share and forgetting to do enough due diligence and gets burned.

How is it Gordon's fault? Why couldn't Lloyds have said "Not on your nelly" and walked away?

Hey, I'm certainly not condoning their stupidity at agreeing to the merger - one of my neighbours is an (ex)Lloyds employee and shareholder - he was pulling his hair out when the news came through - and that's before they found out how bad the books really were.

But i dare say that if El Gordo had rang you as CEO of Fittster Corporation and said hey we really need you to help us out with this merger, nudge wink, etc .. you might just go along with it. His grubby fingerprints appear everywhere - it's no coincidence that the banks that had less to do with him (Barc, HSBC, Lloyds pre-merger) and his regulatory poodles came out the least scathed.

Edited by fido on Wednesday 11th August 11:53

[heebeegeetee]

fido said:

Now we're on the subject of .. Lloyds TSB was one of the most prudent banks up to the credit crunch. Then El Gordo coerced them into that fateful marriage with HBOS, and the shareholders were shafted in the process (and not all of them voted in favour of the merger).

heebeegeetee said:

Was there any request or lobbying from the financial sector to deregulate?

With regards to the former, Brown personally intervened in this matter .. come on let's see you defend this one HB.. was Brown not involved in this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...

Edited by fido on Wednesday 11th August 11:46

I'm not defending anyone. I think Brown should be put up against a wall and shot for the damage he's caused. Mind you though, as i always said, where was the opposition? According to that report you linked to, Cameron too thought the merger was a good idea.

But what was Sir Victor Blank doing? To where or whom did his loyalties lie? When Brown was coercing him to merge his highly profitable organisation with that of a bunch of feckwits, who was Blank thinking about? His investors, his shareholders, his customers, his staff, or himself? Was he thinking about what place or status he might hold in the scheme of things having bailed out Brown, and placed his investors and shareholders and customers and his loyal, hard working staff behind himself? What a fking disgrace, pardon my language.

Brown is responsible for what he did, but why on earth does anyone want to let Blank off the hook?

[youngsyr]

heebeegeetee said:

fido said:

Now we're on the subject of .. Lloyds TSB was one of the most prudent banks up to the credit crunch. Then El Gordo coerced them into that fateful marriage with HBOS, and the shareholders were shafted in the process (and not all of them voted in favour of the merger).

heebeegeetee said:

Was there any request or lobbying from the financial sector to deregulate?

With regards to the former, Brown personally intervened in this matter .. come on let's see you defend this one HB.. was Brown not involved in this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...

Edited by fido on Wednesday 11th August 11:46

I'm not defending anyone. I think Brown should be put up against a wall and shot for the damage he's caused. Mind you though, as i always said, where was the opposition? According to that report you linked to, Cameron too thought the merger was a good idea.

But what was Sir Victor Blank doing? To where or whom did his loyalties lie? When Brown was coercing him to merge his highly profitable organisation with that of a bunch of feckwits, who was Blank thinking about? His investors, his shareholders, his customers, his staff, or himself? Was he thinking about what place or status he might hold in the scheme of things having bailed out Brown, and placed his investors and shareholders and customers and his loyal, hard working staff behind himself? What a fking disgrace, pardon my language.

Brown is responsible for what he did, but why on earth does anyone want to let Blank off the hook?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lloyds TSB wasn't a dictatorship - did the shareholders not approve the merger?

[heebeegeetee]

youngsyr said:

heebeegeetee said:

fido said:

Now we're on the subject of .. Lloyds TSB was one of the most prudent banks up to the credit crunch. Then El Gordo coerced them into that fateful marriage with HBOS, and the shareholders were shafted in the process (and not all of them voted in favour of the merger).

heebeegeetee said:

Was there any request or lobbying from the financial sector to deregulate?

With regards to the former, Brown personally intervened in this matter .. come on let's see you defend this one HB.. was Brown not involved in this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...

Edited by fido on Wednesday 11th August 11:46

I'm not defending anyone. I think Brown should be put up against a wall and shot for the damage he's caused. Mind you though, as i always said, where was the opposition? According to that report you linked to, Cameron too thought the merger was a good idea.

But what was Sir Victor Blank doing? To where or whom did his loyalties lie? When Brown was coercing him to merge his highly profitable organisation with that of a bunch of feckwits, who was Blank thinking about? His investors, his shareholders, his customers, his staff, or himself? Was he thinking about what place or status he might hold in the scheme of things having bailed out Brown, and placed his investors and shareholders and customers and his loyal, hard working staff behind himself? What a fking disgrace, pardon my language.

Brown is responsible for what he did, but why on earth does anyone want to let Blank off the hook?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lloyds TSB wasn't a dictatorship - did the shareholders not approve the merger?

Good point, though i thought it was just Blank who went for beer and sandwiches (or whatever) at No 10.

So, if the shareholders were appraised of the full facts and made a decision, how is the responsibility for the consequences anyone but theirs?

And anyway, IIRC the shareholders were kicking off big time after the st hit the fan.

So, it seems Brown thought it was a good idea to merge the two banks, Blank thought it was, Cameron has said he thought it was, and the shareholders thought it was a good idea.

But when it turned out not to be a good idea it all became Brown's fault, right?

[youngsyr]

From memory it was very vocal minority that were kicking off about the mergers - the press focused on one individual in particular who harangued the Board at the shareholders' meeting, obviously trying to paint a picture that all the shareholders were members of the public who were against the merger.

In reality, I would imagine that the majority of the shareholders at the time were institutional, possibly not even British, and thought/were persuaded that they would profit out of the merger one way or another. Obviously this doesn't make as good television though, so was ignored.

Nonetheless, the Lloyds TSB board have a responsibility to shareholders to maximise their wealth and so have failed in their duty (I assume the shareholders at the time have actually lost money on the merger?) and must take their share of the blame.

The shareholders as a whole agreed with the board on the merger, so they can take their share of the responsibility too.

If Brown did exert influence on the Lloyds TSB board to gain their agreement then he should take his share too.

As with all these events, there are many people involved; pointing the fingure at one person and saying that (s)he in particular is to blame is ridiculous.

[fido]

heebeegeetee said:

But when it turned out not to be a good idea it all became Brown's fault, right?

No, but then by your own argument, you are implicitly saying that it wasn't all the Banks fault either - which seems to be the same line that you trot out on each and every occasion. So in summary it was Greedy Banks [but not all of them] lending to Greedy/Feckless borrowers overseen by ineffective Regulators and Winky involved in many of the incompetencies, whether it be the regulatory framework or public finances. Phew.

Edited by fido on Wednesday 11th August 14:55

[heebeegeetee]

fido said:

heebeegeetee said:

But when it turned out not to be a good idea it all became Brown's fault, right?

No, but then by your own argument, you are implicitly saying that it wasn't all the Banks fault either - which seems to be the same line that you trot out on each and every occasion. So in summary it was Greedy Banks [but not all of them] lending to Greedy/Feckless borrowers overseen by ineffective Regulators and Winky involved in many of the incompetencies, whether it be the regulatory framework or public finances. Phew.

Edited by fido on Wednesday 11th August 14:55

But Brown and Cameron are not part of the bank. Blank, the board and the shareholders are, so i blame the bank. They shouldn't have let career politicians meddle in their business.

[youngsyr]

heebeegeetee said:

fido said:

heebeegeetee said:

But when it turned out not to be a good idea it all became Brown's fault, right?

No, but then by your own argument, you are implicitly saying that it wasn't all the Banks fault either - which seems to be the same line that you trot out on each and every occasion. So in summary it was Greedy Banks [but not all of them] lending to Greedy/Feckless borrowers overseen by ineffective Regulators and Winky involved in many of the incompetencies, whether it be the regulatory framework or public finances. Phew.

Edited by fido on Wednesday 11th August 14:55

But Brown and Cameron are not part of the bank. Blank, the board and the shareholders are, so i blame the bank. They shouldn't have let career politicians meddle in their business.

Are you arguing that the directors of a bank should pay absolutely no regard to the prime minister, government or financial regulations?

That's an interesting position!

[heebeegeetee]

youngsyr said:

heebeegeetee said:

fido said:

heebeegeetee said:

But when it turned out not to be a good idea it all became Brown's fault, right?

No, but then by your own argument, you are implicitly saying that it wasn't all the Banks fault either - which seems to be the same line that you trot out on each and every occasion. So in summary it was Greedy Banks [but not all of them] lending to Greedy/Feckless borrowers overseen by ineffective Regulators and Winky involved in many of the incompetencies, whether it be the regulatory framework or public finances. Phew.

Edited by fido on Wednesday 11th August 14:55

But Brown and Cameron are not part of the bank. Blank, the board and the shareholders are, so i blame the bank. They shouldn't have let career politicians meddle in their business.

Are you arguing that the directors of a bank should pay absolutely no regard to the prime minister, government or financial regulations?

That's an interesting position!

How did financial regulations affect the decision to merge Lloyds and HBOS?

I agree that Victor Blank was pressurised by Brown etc, but when he and the board made the fateful decision to go ahead, whose interests were they putting first?

And i'd ask again, has the financial sector never lobbied government(s) to relax regulation?

[Randy Winkman]

heebeegeetee said:

I agree that Victor Blank was pressurised by Brown etc, but when he and the board made the fateful decision to go ahead, whose interests were they putting first?

Their own bank balances. The trouble with people being very handsomely rewarded is that, unlike most of us, they don't have to look very far ahead.

[youngsyr]

The board don't make the decision to go ahead - they make the decision to ask the shareholders to approve the merger.

In doing so, you have no idea what threats/promises were put on the table by Brown, so how can you conclude so categorically that the board should have ignored them?

[Fittster]

youngsyr said:

The board don't make the decision to go ahead - they make the decision to ask the shareholders to approve the merger.

In doing so, you have no idea what threats/promises were put on the table by Brown, so how can you conclude so categorically that the board should have ignored them?

What threats could Gordon make to a PLC? Buy this company or else what?

I don't buy this conspiracy theory that Gordon had enough influence to bully a PLC into a merge that would destroy vast amounts of shareholder value.

[youngsyr]

Randy Winkman said:

heebeegeetee said:

I agree that Victor Blank was pressurised by Brown etc, but when he and the board made the fateful decision to go ahead, whose interests were they putting first?

Their own bank balances. The trouble with people being very handsomely rewarded is that, unlike most of us, they don't have to look very far ahead.

I find it highly unlikely that the board would have any kind of monetary reward that was contingent on the merger going ahead.

In fact, it's much more likely that they held shares or options which would mean that they only benefitted if the market value of the combined group post-merger increased.