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

[youngsyr]

Fittster said:

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.

Perhaps a politician's power over individual plcs isn't immediately obvious, but ask yourself this: why do companies spend so much money lobbying parliament and having ex politicians on their board if politicians cannot affect the company's situation significantly?

[youngsyr]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Even more incentive for the successful Lloyds TSB board to [i]not[\i] do the merger then.

[heebeegeetee]

youngsyr said:

Fittster said:

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.

Perhaps a politician's power over individual plcs isn't immediately obvious, but ask yourself this: why do companies spend so much money lobbying parliament and having ex politicians on their board if politicians cannot affect the company's situation significantly?

But that doesn't make sense, in the light of Lloyds and HBOS. That merger ended up being a disaster for everyone, including Brown and the govt. Why didn't Blank persuade Brown of this?

[youngsyr]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

That's not true according to my recollection of it.

My memory of it is that the merger was offered up as one time only cheap deal to get HBOS out of the 5hit by tagging it on to a strong bank.

My understanding is that little to no DD was undertaken because HBOS wouldn't have survived long enough for it to have been completed.

That happens quite often in the acquisition of distressed assets - companies essentially take a punt on the asset and factor the risk into the price.

I also recall that the two banks had been trying to effect a merger for quite a while beforehand, but had been blocked by government regulation?

I'm quite happy to admit that my recollection of the events may be flawed though.

[youngsyr]

heebeegeetee said:

youngsyr said:

Fittster said:

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.

Perhaps a politician's power over individual plcs isn't immediately obvious, but ask yourself this: why do companies spend so much money lobbying parliament and having ex politicians on their board if politicians cannot affect the company's situation significantly?

But that doesn't make sense, in the light of Lloyds and HBOS. That merger ended up being a disaster for everyone, including Brown and the govt. Why didn't Blank persuade Brown of this?

You're looking at it with the benfit of hindsight and without the benefit of being privy to the discussions between Blank and Brown.

[heebeegeetee]

youngsyr said:

You're looking at it with the benfit of hindsight and without the benefit of being privy to the discussions between Blank and Brown.

I am, yes, but Blank should have known what he was getting into.

[youngsyr]

heebeegeetee said:

youngsyr said:

You're looking at it with the benfit of hindsight and without the benefit of being privy to the discussions between Blank and Brown.

I am, yes, but Blank should have known what he was getting into.

I would imagine he thought he did.

[heebeegeetee]

youngsyr said:

heebeegeetee said:

youngsyr said:

You're looking at it with the benfit of hindsight and without the benefit of being privy to the discussions between Blank and Brown.

I am, yes, but Blank should have known what he was getting into.

I would imagine he thought he did.

And he was wrong, and therefore to blame.

[youngsyr]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

How did the government and the BoE know that HBOS was in a state if it was a solvent plc?

The logic behind that doesn't stack up, either it was in trouble and the government/BoE knew about it or it was not distressed.

Either way Lloyds TSB didn't have the option of carrying out DD, it was either take the deal as offered or leave
it.

[Trommel]

I hear there was some considerable Treasury pressure applied on the FSA over this.

[NoelWatson]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

]


That is my recollection as well. This was based on trading floor rumours that HBOS was in big pooper,

[NoelWatson]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I think the market knew all about it.

[Fittster]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

This would be the same FSA who failed to spot the NRK problems? Would they really have know what the hell was going on?

[Trommel]

Fittster said:

Would they really have know what the hell was going on?

There's a lot of political influence over what they did/do.

[NoelWatson]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Gordon bog flushed/wedgied Daniels and co until they cried "enough" is all I can think of.

[NoelWatson]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I wouldn't have touched it with a fking bargepole.

[NoelWatson]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

We'll talk about it over a beer

[Ozzie Osmond]

History suggests that where conspiracy and intrigue are suspected - all that will be found is incompetence.

It was good of Mr King to mention taday that inflation is set to remain high for a while or even rise. Due of course to "one off" factors. Seems to me that a steady stream of one-off factors eventually amounts to a solid trend. With inflation circa 5% and deposits paying a bit over 2% savers can't have much to look forward to right now.

[youngsyr]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It depends what was on the table; no-one here knows what Brown offered to Lloyds TSB if they did the deal.

Also, what were the published terms of the deal and the valuation of HBOS at the time?

[rich1231]

Don't underestimate "Ego" in the deal.