Lloyds shareholders "Furious" - why?

SamIAm_3-2

I've seen a few quotes recently about shareholders of various companies being "furious" about the actions of their companies. The most recent article I've read with this sentiment is here:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article5864836.ece

Lloyds shareholders are furious, with many demanding the resignation of Daniels and Blank. “People bought Lloyds shares because it was seen as a safe, plodding company and no one thought they would do anything risky,” said Roger Lawson at the UK Shareholders’ Association, which represents the interests of small investors. “The HBOS merger was a total strategic nightmare.”

So, I can understand why they are annoyed and why they are calling for resignations - the board has, in their view, not acted in the interests of the bank. But that's easy to say now, with hindsight.

Surely if you buy shares you understand the risks involved in doing so? If you really don't like a decision that the board makes then sell you shares! So why are all the shareholders "furious"?

Dan:_4

Buying shares is a gamble.....end of.

Wookster

I'd be livid if I were a Lloyds shareholder!

9 months ago I would have owned a bank that didn't need taxpayer support. Now I would be proud to have taken part in a disastrous 'acquisition' that forced government support which has wiped out shareholders on Lloyds.

Disaster! This is what comes of government interference.

SamIAm_3-2

Dan: wrote: »

Buying shares is a gamble.....end of.

Well, my thoughts exactly.

I was wondering if I'd missed something and that they had a valid reason for being furious - mainly because there seem to be a lot of furious shareholders around at the moment.

mewbie_2

Dan: wrote: »

Buying shares is a gamble.....end of.

You are right of course. Except that buying bank shares was generally considered a dull income stream, you wouldn't get rich but your investment would pay a dividend and keep up with inflation. So for most small shareholders - who would not have been the gambling betting type of player - I expect they are furious.

Dan:_4

Wookster wrote: »

I'd be livid if I were a Lloyds shareholder!

9 months ago I would have owned a bank that didn't need taxpayer support. Now I would be proud to have taken part in a disastrous 'acquisition' that forced government support which has wiped out shareholders on Lloyds.

Disaster! This is what comes of government interference.

Nevertheless, buying shares is still a gamble.

1echidna

I wonder whether 'anger' at something which adversely affects one is ingrained into the British psyche? Perhaps a long history dating from the Corn Law riots means that anger, and the hope of achieving something or at least making a bloody nuisance of oneself is in our blood?

MrFonzerelli

Dan: wrote: »

Buying shares is a gamble.....end of.

What asset isn't a gamble?

SamIAm_3-2

Wookster wrote: »

I'd be livid if I were a Lloyds shareholder!

9 months ago I would have owned a bank that didn't need taxpayer support. Now I would be proud to have taken part in a disastrous 'acquisition' that forced government support which has wiped out shareholders on Lloyds.

But no one forced the shareholders to keep their shares 9 months ago.

If they were so dead against the acquisition why didn't they sell their shares?

Dan:_4

Hopefully Lloyds will come back stronger in a few years time, and they will be happy shareholders again.

SamIAm_3-2

mewbie wrote: »

So for most small shareholders - who would not have been the gambling betting type of player - I expect they are furious.

Isn't that a little bit of a contradiction? Shareholders large or small are taking a gamble whether they think they are or not. If they had bought the shares expecting a regular guaranteed income stream more fool them, surely?