Lloyds TSB taking the ****?

[E31Shrew]

Just got home after a hellish day. Sat at the table reading the Daily Telegraph [Daily Mail in disguise] On the back page is a 1/4 page ad from lloyds TSB Telling us about , and I quote " A money saving website everyone can benefit from" It then goes on to say " For useful money saving tips, everyone is welcome at www etc etc"

Oh how I laughed....Tossers. Perhaps they might like to look it up for a few money saving tips.

[T5SOR]

To be fair, Lloyds actually are profitable, it's HBOS that have driven it down.

[E31Shrew]

Shows how dense I am then! Didn't Lloyds take over HBOS and discover massive accounting issues?

What I meant to say was " Aren't they now all part of the same group?"

Edited by E31Shrew on Monday 9th March 18:20

[Dracoro]

Thing is, up until they took over hbos (either by choice or force depending on if you believe the govt. or not!) they were one of the, if not THE, best run of the banks. All their losses etc. come from hbos and so forth and not from how L-TSB was run.

Most the staff (from all levels) have probably done a good job and deserve bonuses etc. but all these losses been caused by stupid political bullcrap.

Really they should have stayed well away from hbos but I bet there was some HEAVY pressure at top levels for them to take over hbos. Now the govt. have a convenient scapegoat.

[E31Shrew]

I get so confused with this whole issue of banks taking other banks over. There was a documentary on last night re RBS stake in ABN. It would seem that the takeover \purchase occurs before all of the facts are known, as to whether the company they are buying is worthwhile.
How do the powers that be authorise such huge investments without due diligence being taken into account?

[Fittster]

Dracoro said:

Really they should have stayed well away from hbos but I bet there was some HEAVY pressure at top levels for them to take over hbos. Now the govt. have a convenient scapegoat.

The managers responsibilities are to shareholders not Gordon Brown. I feel they saw the chance to increase market share without any competition law problems and jumped without checking it out first.

If the thought it was a bad deal they should have come out saying that and got the Government to back off.

[Dracoro]

Fittster said:

Dracoro said:

Really they should have stayed well away from hbos but I bet there was some HEAVY pressure at top levels for them to take over hbos. Now the govt. have a convenient scapegoat.

The managers responsibilities are to shareholders not Gordon Brown. I feel they saw the chance to increase market share without any competition law problems and jumped without checking it out first.

If the thought it was a bad deal they should have come out saying that and got the Government to back off.

All depends on what the political pressure was though. They may have said, buy hbos or else (more regulation, other sticks etc...).

Maybe this is something to come out in the wash sometime.

But yes, if there really was no political pressure, they should have said it was a bad deal (if indeed this wasn't hidden from LTSB anyway!!).

Anyway, that's just down to the top level of LTSB, the rest should still have their bonuses honoured etc. just scrap if for the one that said yes to hbos.

[Fittster]

Dracoro said:

Fittster said:

Dracoro said:

Really they should have stayed well away from hbos but I bet there was some HEAVY pressure at top levels for them to take over hbos. Now the govt. have a convenient scapegoat.

The managers responsibilities are to shareholders not Gordon Brown. I feel they saw the chance to increase market share without any competition law problems and jumped without checking it out first.

If the thought it was a bad deal they should have come out saying that and got the Government to back off.

All depends on what the political pressure was though. They may have said, buy hbos or else (more regulation, other sticks etc...).

Maybe this is something to come out in the wash sometime.

But yes, if there really was no political pressure, they should have said it was a bad deal (if indeed this wasn't hidden from LTSB anyway!!).

Anyway, that's just down to the top level of LTSB, the rest should still have their bonuses honoured etc. just scrap if for the one that said yes to hbos.

I don't agree. Even if there was political pressure (for instance, buy HBOS or we pass a law stating, anyone working for a bank starting with the letter L has to come to work with a pair of pants on their head) the management should have come out all guns blazing to protect the shareholders. To my mind either they were weak to be forced into a bad deal, or incompetent and went for a bad deal. So either way the management could have avoided the destruction of shareholder value and trying to blame Gordon Brown now is pretty lame.

Although from a shareholders point of view its to late now one way or the other.

Edited by Fittster on Monday 9th March 18:40

[stemll]

Oh how I want to post my opinion of the LTSB board but, as an employee (and shareholder), it's probably best that I don't.

[E31Shrew]

stemll said:

Oh how I want to post my opinion of the LTSB board but, as an employee (and shareholder), it's probably best that I don't.

Oh go on!

[Ed.]

stemll said:

Oh how I want to post my opinion of the LTSB board but, as an employee (and shareholder), it's probably best that I don't.

Could you repeat what you heard some bloke say down the pub

[RedLeicester]

Ed. said:

stemll said:

Oh how I want to post my opinion of the LTSB board but, as an employee (and shareholder), it's probably best that I don't.

Could you repeat what you heard some bloke say down the pub

Yep, like everyone else does. Or you could just believe the words of overhyped documentaries, wikipedia or better still, the Daily Mail.

[Mello]

Putting my neck on line, but I still believe this will be a good deal for LTSB in the medium term. The bank does need to survive the current crisis, but they are now extremely well capitalised, have a huge customer base, and once they realise the benefits of the merger (i.e. downsize) and pay off the government debt then the share price will go North.

The cost of the government deal is high, but should be repaid in under 5 years I would have thought. Once back in private hands things will get back to 'normal'. I think it is very shoddy that Eric Daniels is under pressure, he has done nothing wrong, infact in time I think he will be proved to have done the right thing. Once this recession ends (whenever) they will be the financial powerhouse that they want to be, which was the reason that the merger was rushed though in the first place.

Have a look at the share price in two or three years time and see what you think then...

[Welshbeef]

stemll said:

Oh how I want to post my opinion of the LTSB board but, as an employee (and shareholder), it's probably best that I don't.

Everyone in the UK is a share holder so I guess its the employee issue thats got you in a tiss.

Also with respect to Lloyds being a good bank - well they have just secured £260billion Govt insurance for toxic debt. That breaks down to £200 billion for HBOS and guess what £60 billion for Lloyds.. so no Lloyds were not that clean and given this disclosure I'd guess they would have needed govt backing in any case to some degree.