Lloyds Tsb Shares

opinions4u

Decadent_Fool wrote: »

Just why IN G*DS NAME WOULD IT BE NATIONALISED?!?!?!?!?

Because their HBOS subsidiary is losing silly money on its Corporate side. +£1bn-£10bn = a loss of £9bn.

It has funding, LOADS of it, it

How easy will it be to renew that with the curse of HBOS on their books and a lower credit rating?

has a good business model ONE OF THE BEST

Running alongside the running down of the HBOS business model.

and there's an insurance policy coming out with the government that will allow them to insure against just the sort of bad debt that HBOS has.

Lots of talk. Nothing there yest though.

It won't be nationialised fully. But 43% state ownership could easily increase if losses worsen.

I wonder what's happening to the mortgage books of Birmingham Midshires and TMB?

Masomnia

Decadent_Fool wrote: »

Why would the government nationalise the bank, and have to take on all that debt directly, when it can let the company handle it on it's own, and own preference/ordinary shares in it to get a return on its investment?

At the moment, yes, it can handle it on its own.

Really, I'm asking for an honest-to-god answer here: Why would Lloyds Banking Group be nationalised? No opinions, let's have cold economic reasons, not just statistics of yadda-yadda-yadda a loss.

To be fair it was you who brought up the profit figures.

I'll give you something to start things off: Nationalising a bank will only occur when it can no longer function. Is that happening now?

No, and that's why it hasn't been nationalized. The loss that I mentioned does go to show however that there may still be skeletons in the closet yet to come out. If investors became sufficiently spooked, investment could evaporate pretty quickly, it happened to Northern Rock and it happened to Bradford and Bingley.

For the record, I don't think it will be nationalized. But I haven't bought shares because I feel the risk that is there is just too great.

Decadent_Fool

Since when has making a loss been a reason to nationalise? I personally distinguish between losing money and making a loss (come on you guys and gals, you know you want to bite at that one!)

The funding is from HM Goernment.

I agree on the likelyhood of an ownership percentage increase, but if it stabilises things, how can it be a bad thing in the short term, especially as LBG will want to buy the shares bank asap - and will have the means to do so (through, in addition to a sound business model, having saved £500 million in preference share payments to HM Gvmnt)

Masomnia

Decadent_Fool wrote: »

Since when has making a loss been a reason to nationalise?

That isn't how I meant it, sorry if I was unclear.

I just mean that it may be wrong to think that the worst of it is over, more bad results could turn up any time. There's no reason to nationalize at this moment (that I am aware of) but a few weeks/months down the line who can say?

Decadent_Fool

Masomnia wrote: »

To be fair it was you who brought up the profit figures.

Ai, fair point

I admit I made my investment based on long term capital gain, and eventual dividend payout when things settle. I really don't care about the figures too much in this current climate., as I know the best time to buy is when there's blood on the streets - even if it's your own.

Decadent_Fool

Masomnia wrote: »

That isn't how I meant it, sorry if I was unclear.

No worries; I've had too much caffeine today tbh :cool:

Masomnia

Decadent_Fool wrote: »

Ai, fair point

I admit I made my investment based on long term capital gain, and eventual dividend payout when things settle. I really don't care about the figures too much in this current climate., as I know the best time to buy is when there's blood on the streets - even if it's your own.

That's fair enough

I just don't want people reading here thinking that Lloyds is a safe bet and you're guaranteed to make money!

Decadent_Fool

Masomnia wrote: »

I just don't want people reading here thinking that Lloyds is a safe bet and you're guaranteed to make money!

I'm only in it as I'm nearly totally grey at 36 anyway so what else have I got to lose (let's not mention the 5k :beer: )

ad44downey

Decadent_Fool wrote: »

Why would the government nationalise the bank, and have to take on all that debt directly, when it can let the company handle it on it's own, and own preference/ordinary shares in it to get a return on its investment?

Really, I'm asking for an honest-to-god answer here: Why would Lloyds Banking Group be nationalised? No opinions, let's have cold economic reasons, not just statistics of yadda-yadda-yadda a loss.

I'll give you something to start things off: Nationalising a bank will only occur when it can no longer function. Is that happening now?

HBOS was going under. Lloyds unbelievably allowed the government to persuade it to try to rescue it. Now 2 banks instead of just one will probably go under. Madness.

Decadent_Fool

ad44downey wrote: »

Now 2 banks instead of just one will probably go under.

Based on...?*

(*clue: just reiterating what you read in the papers isn't enough of a reason)