Will you be buying shares in Lloyds TSB?

Buddy195

sh856531 wrote: »

Well I can see why he's calling for it. We've effectively nationalised the loses but have only say 50% in any upside. The banks are effectively bankrupt and we're picing up the tab anyway - so why not just take them over and be done with it?

I don't agree with him that all banks should be nationalised, but I don't understand why they haven't done it to RBS and perhaps Lloyds. We're dealing with all their loses anyway

:-(

RBS is just about nationalised 95% owned by the state. Lloyds, will end up around 60 to 70% state owned. Hoefully this will give some much needed stablity to the markets. Isn't good reading at the moment, even companies that are doing very well are losing share value day on day. Wonder when it'll turn around?

The_MoneySavingKid

What would a 70% owned bank mean for a share holder?

tradetime

The_MoneySavingKid wrote: »

What would a 70% owned bank mean for a share holder?

Means in essence you own a share of 30% of a bank.

sh856531

What would a 70% owned bank mean for a share holder?

Well, if the government increases its stake, it would mean the value of your shares get diluted because the percentage of the bank in private hands gets squeezed. So in other words - its not as bad as full nationalisation, but its still pretty !!!!!!...

:-|

sh856531

Hi Chaps,

Is anyone else thinking that the government should just take over Lloyds, RBS and any of the other banks that are looking decidely iffy.

It seems to me that we're already picking up the tab anyway so why not just get it done with.

Although clearly it would be (very) bad news for existing shareholders, I would have thought the increase in confidence it would bring in terms of dealing with those banks would more than offset the negative effects of wiping out the shareholders. The banks I'm talking about are worth !!!!!! all anyway. Maybe a few billion altogether (if I'm generous) - in other words, pocket change to the government.

Clearly the government is very reluctant to do this - even to the extent that they are prepared to just keep handing over cheques, but I don't really understand why they don't just do it instead of its the current halfarsed approach. Get the banks back on their feet and then sell them back to the market in 5 years.

Am I being quite mad here? Can anyone tell me why the government seems happy to just keep signing blank cheques with my name on them and sending them off to the banks in return for SFA? I'm a pretty free market sort of guy, but this issue has been !!!!ing me off for a while :-|

Many thanks

S

MoneyTown

Now that it appears the deal is done: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7929820.stm

Anyone care to predict what it will do to the share price?

Stavros_3

MoneyTown wrote: »

Anyone care to predict what it will do to the share price?

According to financial commentators

opinions4u

MoneyTown wrote: »

Now that it appears the deal is done: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7929820.stm

Anyone care to predict what it will do to the share price?

Nothing.

It is more or less factored in already.

What it might (hopefully) do is underpin the bank in a way that allows it to start growing again, buy out the government holdings - to below 50% at first - and then to start restoring some capital value to the shares.

I think it will be donkeys' years before any real value is restored to shareholders though.

Just_landed

Current LBG share holders are going to be offered shares @ £0.38 pence:coffee:

gozomark

yep, it appears the Govt are effectively underwriting a rights issue at 38.4p - any that existing shareholders don't buy, the Govt will