LloydsTsb/HBOS Merger?

sabretoothtigger

No theres no direct note of ownership which does suck, I dont think you get annual reports or anything though you could probably request them

hippobottomus

As a shareholder of both TSB & HBOS, I hope the deal goes through and will be voting in favour of it.

Lloyd's has always been a well-run bank and I have the utmost confidence in it. It has been the 'boring' bank - conservative (small c) being its watchword.

(I hesitate to use the word "prudence" - a word which has been purloined and defiled by Labour).

fatpig_2

hippobottomus wrote: »

Lloyd's has always been a well-run bank and I have the utmost confidence in it. It has been the 'boring' bank - conservative (small c) being its watchword.

.

Exactly. Lloyds is all the things that hbos isn't. Which is why Lloyds shareholders should run a mile from hbos.

sabretoothtigger

Or you could say so long as lloyds is the stronger partner, there is alot to be gained from reforming hbos business into theirs

Hbos has twice the assets of lloyds and its still being rated at half the price of lloyds

Toastie

HBOS does seem to be the bank to avoid. Personally all the 'toxic' banks that need to be nationalised should stick together.

I'm not a fan of Lloyds TSB nor Halifax however if Lloyds can fund there own way and not need the government then they should for the principle that it will be greedy and they got themselves in this mess.

Considering RBS also need govt money surely stick HBOS with them and merge them, cut costs and all the other ways of improving the finances.
They did it with the Bradfod and Bingley debts which were toxic that were placing in Northen Rock, why not merge RBS and HBOS to form another cesspit.

On a ligther not Bank of Scotland / Royal Bank Of Scotland would be an easier name merger. :rolleyes:

opinions4u

Toastie wrote: »

HBOS does seem to be the bank to avoid. Personally all the 'toxic' banks that need to be nationalised should stick together.

I'm not a fan of Lloyds TSB nor Halifax however if Lloyds can fund there own way and not need the government then they should for the principle that it will be greedy and they got themselves in this mess.

Considering RBS also need govt money surely stick HBOS with them and merge them, cut costs and all the other ways of improving the finances.
They did it with the Bradfod and Bingley debts which were toxic that were placing in Northen Rock, why not merge RBS and HBOS to form another cesspit.

On a ligther not Bank of Scotland / Royal Bank Of Scotland would be an easier name merger. :rolleyes:

I think it's important that the government avoids full scale nationalisation of any business.

The partial nationalisation of banks is a necessary evil though.

The case of Bradford & Bingley was one of a dreadful mortgage book that was doomed to failure.

The cases of HBOS and RBS are different to that. The main reason for not nationalising them is that they have a future - HBOS in the hands of Lloyds and RBS as an entity of its own (although don't be too surprised if HSBC does its sums at some point). B&B didn't. The underlying assets of RBS and HBOS are better quality than B&B.

The loss of HBOS as market innovator will cost us all money in the coming years. That's the price of reduced competition.

Neil_G_2

Hi, further to an earlier post of mine this week, I work on behalf of Lloyds TSB and having read these latest posts I wanted to direct you to the section of the Lloyds TSB website which has recently been set up to answer consumers’ questions about the proposed acquisition of HBOS: www.lloydstsb.com/hbosacquisition. I hope it gives an overview of the situation. Neil

Toastie

opinions4u wrote: »

I think it's important that the government avoids full scale nationalisation of any business.

The partial nationalisation of banks is a necessary evil though.

The case of Bradford & Bingley was one of a dreadful mortgage book that was doomed to failure.

The cases of HBOS and RBS are different to that. The main reason for not nationalising them is that they have a future - HBOS in the hands of Lloyds and RBS as an entity of its own (although don't be too surprised if HSBC does its sums at some point). B&B didn't. The underlying assets of RBS and HBOS are better quality than B&B.

The loss of HBOS as market innovator will cost us all money in the coming years. That's the price of reduced competition.

Very true, i take what your saying and i think a lack of competition has allowed foreign banks such as icesave and kaupthing, ICICI etc... to come in an offer there products here with such a good response.

My reasoning was simply that why not move the bad debt over to the same areas? As far as i can tell the stake the govt. have of RBS is very large and almost nationalisation in a sense, if HBOS is in such a rut aswell (according to the media) then surely putting both of the banks which lost our money and needing more of our money to help themselves should be merged for the simple principle to cut your loses (Lloyds TSB say they can save £1billion in a merger then surely an HBOS+RBS take over could save the save whilst keeping Lloyds a competitive option.

Lloyds say there are other options to get the money but HBOS and RBS needed a cash injection from the govt. My view is that this should be done but as one firm (like the Lloyds HBOS merger).

Although i admit that any nationalisation (seen in Northen Rock) has stopped compeition as people are to scared of loosing there savings so are opting for 'havens'

justaquickie

Anyone care to speculate who the rival bidder for HBOS is? (should a bid materialise in the next few days)

The 'keep below the compensation limit' game is hard enough without another unforeseen merger undoing all your hard work.

sabretoothtigger

Nobody wants hbos not until the recession is over. They want hbos assets, all the companies it holds are worth more then the mortgage side