Lloyds shareholders "Furious" - why?

Wookster

SamIAm wrote: »

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?

I don't think they (as a group) were against the acquisition, didn't it get passed by a fairly high shareholder vote?

Some might have been more cautious having seen Northern Rock shareholders be left to the dogs...

Rochdale_Pioneers

Of course they are angry. Their board decided that they had as Daniels put it "a once in a lifetime opportunity" to dominate the High Street. And they still do - just now in government ownership.

SamIAm_3-2

Wookster wrote: »

I don't think they (as a group) were against the acquisition, didn't it get passed by a fairly high shareholder vote?

Some might have been more cautious having seen Northern Rock shareholders be left to the dogs...

So, these would have been to ones who would have sold their shares? Credit for them to have been so foresighted then.

I guess my point is that the shareholders themselves are equally responsible for the position of their own share portfolio. They can't just start complaining about the value of their stake - they could have sold up at any time they liked, no?

MrFonzerelli

SamIAm wrote: »

So, these would have been to ones who would have sold their shares? Credit for them to have been so foresighted then.

I guess my point is that the shareholders themselves are equally responsible for the position of their own share portfolio. They can't just start complaining about the value of their stake - they could have sold up at any time they liked, no?

Had shareholders been told the truth, more may have sold.
Shareholders trust management to carry out due diligence, maybe this was their undoing.

SamIAm_3-2

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Of course they are angry. Their board decided that they had as Daniels put it "a once in a lifetime opportunity" to dominate the High Street. And they still do - just now in government ownership.

So, I understand this as the last section of my original post states.

It's quotes like this that confuse me:

“People bought Lloyds shares because it was seen as a safe, plodding company and no one thought they would do anything risky,”

If I bought some shares in Lloyds 12 months ago blindly believing the above without doing research or keeping an eye on what the board at Lloyds were doing, then as ithas gone bad I wouldn't be blaming anyone but myself.

SamIAm_3-2

MrFonzerelli wrote: »

Had shareholders been told the truth, more may have sold.
Shareholders trust management to carry out due diligence, maybe this was their undoing.

So, this is a fair point.

I take it from your post that the shareholders were not told all the facts at the time of the acquisition. If this is the case I can understand the shareholders anger - it's impossible to know whether to sell your shares without knowing all the facts.

mewbie_2

SamIAm wrote: »

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?

Well that's one view. But when banks have been a fairly safe 'bet' for several hundred years you could forgive people for assuming it would just continue. After all - the brightest and best minds (yep), of the treasury, FSA, government, and the banks themselves could not see what was happening, so how could a typical small shareholder have any better idea.

There is another twist to this story. A while back I believe there was a rights issue, where the bank took more money from the shareholders while at the same time not giving them the full sorry picture. You could possibly call that fraud, and I would be very annoyed if it had happened to me.

On another note I wonder what has happened to me? Defending shareholders in a bank. Many, too many, years ago it would have been "smash the capitalist system".

Dan:_4

I think a lot of shareholders thought the HBOS merger would be a good thing. infact people quickly started to purchase Lloyd's shares believing they would increase following the acquisition.

No point in crying now just because it didn't work out as planned

tomterm8

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.

No one forced the Lloyds shareholders to vote yes to the deal. They have only themselves to blame. Everyone could see HBoS was a zombie bank.

1echidna

Dan: wrote: »

I think a lot of shareholders thought the HBOS merger would be a good thing. infact people quickly started to purchase Lloyd's shares believing they would increase following the acquisition.

No point in crying now just because it didn't work out as planned

Crying OK and perhaps healthy but anger?