We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Lloyds TSb Llimits - No Wonder they nearly went bust.
Comments
-
The bailout funds were issued to LloydsTSB and HBOS prior to the merger taking place.Lloyds required bailout funds to a similar level to HBOS if the takeover didn't proceed.
The amount LloydsTSB was tiny in comparison to the HBOS need. I can't recall the exact figures, but in the great scheme of things LTSB's own difficulties were insignificant.
It has been clearly stated quite recently that HBOS would have ceased trading had it remained independent.
Most of the massive losses announced since the formation of Lloyds Banking Group have been attributed to HBOS Corporate - predominantly bad loans to property developers, a rather stupid place for a mortgage heavy entity like HBOS to exapnd in to.
HSBC has had a massive rights issue since. Their Household subsidiary has written off more than any UK bank has lost over the last 5 years - including some obscene amount just before the phrase Credit Crunch was invented.HSBC was the only major bank that didn't.
It didn't. You are ill-informed if you believe that.No Wonder lloyds tsb nearly went bust!!!
There's not a cat in hells chance that a risk assessor has had any involvement in this. Your piddling little £250 here and £700 there is not something that requires human intervention.What sense does that make??? If a risk assesor thinks that a individual with money in his savings account is a greater risk than a individual without any savings then obviously they ought to go bust!!.0 -
I used to love my local tsb. Looked forward to making deposits in my blue savings book, where they recorded transactions in ink, and then used a blotter.
Some of the entries were really neatly done - and that encouraged me to try to be as good with my own figures and writing.
Then it changed to those horrid machines who couldn't even print in a straight line, sometimes, and transactions would be printed over a previous entry.
Now, some accounts dont even have a savings book. You are given a card instead and expected to interact with a machine instead of a live person.
It's called progress. Ah, well.0 -
I used to love my local tsb. Looked forward to making deposits in my blue savings book, where they recorded transactions in ink, and then used a blotter.
Some of the entries were really neatly done - and that encouraged me to try to be as good with my own figures and writing.
Then it changed to those horrid machines who couldn't even print in a straight line, sometimes, and transactions would be printed over a previous entry.
Now, some accounts dont even have a savings book. You are given a card instead and expected to interact with a machine instead of a live person.
It's called progress. Ah, well.
Aye, we 'ad lottsa fings 'en ya don't get now .... dyptheria ... rickets ... hitler"A child of five could understand this. Fetch me a child of five." - Groucho Marx0 -
Lloyds required bailout funds to a similar level to HBOS if the takeover didn't proceed. Part of the reason that the government allowed it to proceed was that the combined bailout (of the enlarged group) was lower than for 2 independent companies.
HSBC was the only major bank that didn't.
Barclays got theirs from the middle east rather than the UK government.
Source? That is wrong I am afraid. Lloyds would have required some capital, but nowhere near as much as HBOS. Lloyds as a single entity was nowhere near going bust.0 -
I used to love my local tsb. Looked forward to making deposits in my blue savings book, where they recorded transactions in ink, and then used a blotter.
Some of the entries were really neatly done - and that encouraged me to try to be as good with my own figures and writing.
Then it changed to those horrid machines who couldn't even print in a straight line, sometimes, and transactions would be printed over a previous entry.
Now, some accounts dont even have a savings book. You are given a card instead and expected to interact with a machine instead of a live person.
It's called progress. Ah, well.
Are you 102? It's mostly old people that wait in line at branches with their books. Do you expect a bank to pay decent interest on an account, and let you use a branch with a passbook?0 -
Are you 102? It's mostly old people that wait in line at branches with their books. Do you expect a bank to pay decent interest on an account, and let you use a branch with a passbook?
To be fair, the onus is on the bank to provide the same level of interest regardless of how you choose to access your account. I've got mixed feelings about higher rates of interest for internet-only accounts. Fine for me, but my gran (who's 89 as she reminds me every time I see her, or maybe she's changed her name and decided to become a number in tribute to the late Patrick McGoohan) hasn't a chance of negotiating a website.
I think older savers should get extra interest, because they make the otherwise mundane working life of the teller so much richer, usually by offering them a handful of Murray mints along with their passbook. That and the fact that these older savers have been lining up every other week to make their deposits, supporting the banks for the past 50 years regardless of good/bad/indifferent times. They're the old-fashioned "sticky customers" that banks have made their money from for the past half-century.
The only sad truth is that the older members of my family still have a nostalgic notion that banks are somehow there to help them and naively take their advice (despite my regular sermons on how to exploit the banks and get your retaliation in first) on anything you care to mention.
But be in no doubt. The banks exist to create wealth. Just not wealth for you or me
"A child of five could understand this. Fetch me a child of five." - Groucho Marx0 -
To be fair, the onus is on the bank to provide the same level of interest regardless of how you choose to access your account. I've got mixed feelings about higher rates of interest for internet-only accounts. Fine for me, but my gran (who's 89 as she reminds me every time I see her, or maybe she's changed her name and decided to become a number in tribute to the late Patrick McGoohan) hasn't a chance of negotiating a website.
I think older savers should get extra interest, because they make the otherwise mundane working life of the teller so much richer, usually by offering them a handful of Murray mints along with their passbook.
The only sad truth is that the older members of my family still have a nostalgic notion that banks are somehow there to help them and naively take their advice (despite my regular sermons on how to exploit the banks and get your retaliation in first) on anything you care to mention.
But be in no doubt. The banks exist to create wealth. Just not wealth for you or me
Why? It costs a bank around £1 to process a transaction involving a cashier, and around 7p to process an internet transaction. What incentive does the bank have to provide high interest on a passbook account when they have to pay £1 a transaction? I agree that an Older person may not want or know how to use the internet, but they can't expect a seriously high interest rate if they have to use the branch.0 -
Why? It costs a bank around £1 to process a transaction involving a cashier, and around 7p to process an internet transaction. What incentive does the bank have to provide high interest on a passbook account when they have to pay £1 a transaction? I agree that an Older person may not want or know how to use the internet, but they can't expect a seriously high interest rate if they have to use the branch.
Why not?
Banks make a big deal out of re-opening branches all as part of their marketing mix, in particular to retain mindshare in the public conscience.
Who will use these branches and justify their existence? I can count on one hand the number of times I go into a branch in a year. So clearly, as an internet user, I'm not their preferred customer.
Allocation of costs isn't a useful exercise when the decision has already been made to incur the cost in the first place - a large element of the actual cost has to be offset by the marketing benefit obtained from it - branches aren't run for a profit in these circumstance, and profit-per-transaction becomes meaningless.
Or are you suggesting that banks should be seeking to maximise their profits regardless of customer service levels? Wouldn't that just mean more and bigger bonusses for the retail banking sector?
A long-term customer of a bank, the sticky customer I spoke of before deserve exactly the same "best-rates" as anyone else (as poor as they are just now). At the end of the day it's only the technology that changes. In 50 years time, us internet guru's will be lampooned as luddites because we haven't embraced the latest neural interface technology. So we can either create a climate where the long-term customer gets the same access to higher interest rates or we suffer from it in future years.
Did I miss anything out? "A child of five could understand this. Fetch me a child of five." - Groucho Marx0 -
Why not?
Banks make a big deal out of re-opening branches all as part of their marketing mix, in particular to retain mindshare in the public conscience.
Who will use these branches and justify their existence? I can count on one hand the number of times I go into a branch in a year. So clearly, as an internet user, I'm not their preferred customer.
Allocation of costs isn't a useful exercise when the decision has already been made to incur the cost in the first place - a large element of the actual cost has to be offset by the marketing benefit obtained from it - branches aren't run for a profit in these circumstance, and profit-per-transaction becomes meaningless.
Or are you suggesting that banks should be seeking to maximise their profits regardless of customer service levels? Wouldn't that just mean more and bigger bonusses for the retail banking sector?
A long-term customer of a bank, the sticky customer I spoke of before deserve exactly the same "best-rates" as anyone else (as poor as they are just now). At the end of the day it's only the technology that changes. In 50 years time, us internet guru's will be lampooned as ludites because we haven't embraced the latest neural interface technology. So we can either create a climate where the long-term customer gets the same access to higher interest rates or we suffer from it in future years.
Did I miss anything out?
We are going of the OP's original topic here! Anyway, whilst your sentiments are what would be good if it could happen in theory, in practice a bank is not a charity. They are businesses which wether you think is right or wrong exist to make a profit.0 -
We are going of the OP's original topic here! Anyway, whilst your sentiments are what would be good if it could happen in theory, in practice a bank is not a charity. They are businesses which wether you think is right or wrong exist to make a profit.
You're right about the OP. And you're right that a charity is a body that receives substantial amounts of public funds. Though strangely, a charity doesn't necessarily receive funds directly from the government.
EDIT: And as a full-time stoozer I do my best to ensure they make zero profit from me, while I tend to make fairly substantial profits from them
"A child of five could understand this. Fetch me a child of five." - Groucho Marx0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards