Given how this country is so quick to sell off everything.......

deadendwaterfall

Howcome no foreign banking companies have tried taking over say Lloyd's Banking Group or Barcklays for example like what Sabadell did with TSB in 2015? I'm aware they'll have shareholders based outside the UK, but what I mean is say for example Lloyd's becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of say for example a French banking company.

Not that I'd want it to happen of course, the more companies that stay British owned, the better.

Zanderman

deadendwaterfall wrote: »

Howcome no foreign banking companies have tried taking over say Lloyd's Banking Group or Barcklays for example like what Sabadell did with TSB in 2015? I'm aware they'll have shareholders based outside the UK, but what I mean is say for example Lloyd's becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of say for example a French banking company.

Firstly, how do you know they haven't?
Secondly, why do you think they would?
Thirdly, why do you think someone on this forum has the answer?
Fourthly, why would it be an issue anyway, a bank's a bank?
(and UK-operated banks hardly have an outstanding record in morality and competency, so there's no reason to be overly fond of them just because they're 'British')

ValiantSon

deadendwaterfall wrote: »

Howcome no foreign banking companies have tried taking over say Lloyd's Banking Group or Barcklays for example like what Sabadell did with TSB in 2015?

I think you are somewhat confused. Neither Barclays nor Lloyds are "British owned" in any meaningful way. They are both publicly traded companies and have many owners from all over the world. They are both listed on the London Stock Exchange, but that doesn't mean that they are "British owned".

TSB was a relatively small player (total assets of around £42.5 billion) and therefore more easily bought by another company. Barclays (total assets of around £1.133 trillion) and Lloyds (total assets of around £812.109 billion) are huge banks and the cost of buying them out is a disincentive to do so. (Barclays and Lloyds are both FTSE 100 companies, while TSB is a long way off that market capitalisation).

deadendwaterfall wrote: »

I'm aware they'll have shareholders based outside the UK, but what I mean is say for example Lloyd's becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of say for example a French banking company.

See above.

deadendwaterfall wrote: »

Not that I'd want it to happen of course, the more companies that stay British owned, the better.

They aren't "British owned" in any meaningful sense.

I think that you are also confusing the privatisation of nationally owned industries with the sale of private companies.

jonesMUFCforever

I have often asked this question myself to be honest.
Bearing in mind that after next year when the PPI bill will be over and the Lloyds capital in such rude good health it must be an attractive target for one or two of the world's biggest banks?

Might be a fillip to the share price if somebody tried?

eskbanker

deadendwaterfall wrote: »

the more companies that stay British owned, the better.

What makes you say this? There are clear advantages to the UK economy if banks operating in the UK pay their business taxes here and employ plenty of UK residents, but, especially given the regulatory requirements to operate via UK-registered entities, what difference do you believe the location of ultimate corporate ownership makes?

le_loup

eskbanker wrote: »

what difference do you believe the location of ultimate corporate ownership makes?

Well, it could be a long post but that's not my style.

A British registered company, generally, will pay tax, will worry about political pressure on keeping jobs, will do it's R&D in Britain and, if it invest abroad will bring profits home and improve the balance of payments.

I'm sure there are people who think only the market should be followed - because it knows best - and want companies to do whatever they want unencumbered by interfering busybodies like government.

What other country allows all of it's silverware to be sold to the highest bidder? None as far as I know - but they are wrong and we are the country that knows best?

I doubt it.

eskbanker

le_loup wrote: »

A British registered company, generally, will pay tax, will worry about political pressure on keeping jobs, will do it's R&D in Britain and, if it invest abroad will bring profits home and improve the balance of payments.

But in the context of the difference between Lloyds Banking Group plc being listed on the London stock exchange versus being a wholly-owned subsidiary of Johnny Foreigner Inc, which of those aspects are likely to differ in any meaningful sense, given that the latter scenario would still entail the creation of Lloyds UK Holdings or similar? I'd already covered the taxation and jobs angles but R&D (in the specific context of the UK market) would still need to be here and the balance of payments would already have been boosted spectacularly by a massive sale....

le_loup

eskbanker wrote: »

the balance of payments would already have been boosted spectacularly by a massive sale....

That is presenting the same problem as privatisation for it's own sake. A quick short term boost instead of a steady, long term, annual income.

eskbanker

le_loup wrote: »

That is presenting the same problem as privatisation for it's own sake. A quick short term boost instead of a steady, long term, annual income.

Sure, that's true but it's still largely a hypothetical concern because as far as I can see LBG doesn't have particularly significant income streams from abroad....

k12479

deadendwaterfall wrote: »

Howcome no foreign banking companies have tried taking over say Lloyd's Banking Group or Barcklays...for example Lloyd's becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of say for example a French banking company.

When most bank's existing IT systems appear to be terrible, TSB being only the latest example, trying to integrate two major banks in different countries to make savings would seem hugely expensive and doomed to failure. And, given the national nature of retail banking, there aren't many other obvious synergies where savings could be made or opportunities for growth.

Plenty of foreign banks have entered the UK market from Sweden, Nigeria, India, France, etc. It appears a strategy of organic rather than acquisitive growth is the preferred approach.

eskbanker

k12479 wrote: »

When most bank's existing IT systems appear to be terrible, TSB being only the latest example, trying to integrate two major banks in different countries to make savings would seem hugely expensive and doomed to failure. And, given the national nature of retail banking, there aren't many other obvious synergies where savings could be made or opportunities for growth.

Plenty of foreign banks have entered the UK market from Sweden, Nigeria, India, France, etc. It appears a strategy of organic rather than acquisitive growth is the preferred approach.

Acquisition has also been used - apart from Sabadell's purchase of TSB, other examples that spring to mind are Santander's acquisitions of Abbey National and Bradford & Bingley, and National Australia Bank's purchase of Clydesdale/Yorkshire.