HSBC chief telling it how it is - second downturn inevitable.

Thrugelmir

Wookster wrote: »

Isn't that because they see a shift in the balance of economic power from west to east, the east being an area where their will be considerably more growth over the next decade than the west?

Thats why the CEO himself is being based in HongKong. No further HSBC CEO's are to be based in London.

mewbie_2

Jonbvn wrote: »

I wouldn't disagree with that premise. I'm certainly angling some of funds towards China, SE Asia and possibly even India.

Beats riding a roller coaster. Especially if you are a sad internet nerd with no friends, or life, like me, whose only pleasure is logging on here. Ooohh the excitement of watching my Chinese shares.

Thrugelmir

Alan_M wrote: »

Was it worth it to simply obtain the market share they now enjoy?

Or do you think when all this is shaken down in however many years or decades it takes...they'll be obliged to reduce their size or split from what was previously HBOS?

LlloydsHbos is under pressure , along with RBS , to reduce its size by the EU. The fundamental charge being that they are at a competitive advantage from receiving Government funding.

Llloyds reversed its decision to close C&G. Presumably in the hope that selling this off could form part of the reduction in size. But appears not to be enough.

Appears now that IF (intelligent finance) is no longer offering new mortgage deals to existing borrowers other than to put them onto SVR. IF is a subsidary of Halifax. Borrowers however are being offered deals with Scottish Widows (subsidary of Llloyds). So maybe Lloyds is tidying up its brand portfolio in order that Scottish Widows can be sold off to appease the EU regulators.

Scottish Widows a target for Tesco's maybe?

Expect another rights issue son as well from Llloyds.

Generali

Alan_M wrote: »

Was it worth it to simply obtain the market share they now enjoy?

Or do you think when all this is shaken down in however many years or decades it takes...they'll be obliged to reduce their size or split from what was previously HBOS?

If it hadn't basically bankrupted them then it would have been IMO. The trouble is, many shaeholders at the time will never see the benefits of the merger (if there are any). Also, given what has happened, when you include the missed dividends it will be a very long time before shareholders at the time of the merger break even let alone see a profit.

Later buyers (after the share price fell) are clearly more likely to see a profit but presumably you don't enter into a merger for the benefit of future owners of the company, you do it for the benefit of the current owners!

It is also looking very much as if the EU competition people won't wear the size of the bank in relation to the UK financial services markets the bank is strong in so will force through some sort of partial de-merger.