The Result of Lloyds Buying HBOS

#1
Lloyds today announce a pre tax profit of £3.9 billion, which (to quote their press release) is "the highest that we have ever recorded". This due in no small part due to their purchase of HBOS.

There is a subtext to this story, 41% is owned by the government. 41% of the divedend will go to the government. That's if Lloyds don't use the profits to pay back some of the money they owe.
 
#2
Can you elaborlate, who, apart from 'the government', do they owe money to. I bet some high paid finacial director had to work rea zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Sorry I suffer from a bullshit finder disorder.
Still, it could be worse, perhaps whoever you are casting the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune at
or misfortune in your case, perhaps they will champion you. Personally my thoughts are my own, but after eleven years on the sick, you and your tribe epitomise everything wrong with the country that was formerly known as 'Great Britain'
 
#3
Lloyds today announce a pre tax profit of £3.9 billion, which (to quote their press release) is "the highest that we have ever recorded". This due in no small part due to their purchase of HBOS.

There is a subtext to this story, 41% is owned by the government. 41% of the divedend will go to the government. That's if Lloyds don't use the profits to pay back some of the money they owe.

So this is a good thing then because you don't ignore the majority shareholder so the money will go back to the Government.

If you've got a point to make why don't you make it?
 
#4
I thought I had MiT

If the government gets its money back from Lloyds then all to the good, if the government gets its share of the dividend then all to the good. Even if the government is Tory in all but name.

It shows that Cable was right to push the last lot into bailing out the bank.

Incidentally, if, in April, the government had sold its shares in the banks it would have made £9 billion in profit. If it sold them now the profits would be even higher.
 
#5
Lloyds today announce a pre tax profit of £3.9 billion, which (to quote their press release) is "the highest that we have ever recorded". This due in no small part due to their purchase of HBOS.

There is a subtext to this story, 41% is owned by the government. 41% of the divedend will go to the government. That's if Lloyds don't use the profits to pay back some of the money they owe.
That would be the same HBOS which was a total ruin, before Brown persuaded Lloyds to buy it, and he would turn a blind eye to the monopolies issue..... The HBOS that turned Lloyds (a bank that was in no danger of collapse) into a basket case that needed a government bailout to keep it going. Lloyds ended up with 41% taxpayer ownership because of the advice of the then PM.
 
#6
In easy chunks.

Bank of Scotland was: an excellent smallish bank, secure and well run.
Halifax BS was: an enormous 'lump' with a management that had ambitions beyond their competence.

Somehow, a wicked fairy persuaded BoS to 'marry' HBS. The result being the near destruction of BoS.

Enter, stage left, a semi-numerate, socially and economically inept oaf.

Said oaf persuades the elderly chairman of Lloyds TSB to 'buy' the unhappily married couple HBoS.

Old fool complies and all but ruins his bank into the bargain.

Oaf voted out of office, but hangs around No. 10 in case his left wing ally Vince 'Hindsight Rules' Cable can save him.

Oaf only acted if 'Scottish' or 'Northern' is part of the background of the shambolic organisation he determines to 'save' - fat lot of good it did him as he is now an unlamented footnote to modern history - a failure in every way imaginable.

PS:

Chapter 2 will relate to the Royal Bank of Scotland (failed)
Chapter 3 will relate to Northern Rock (failed)
Chapter 4 will relate to Bradford & Bingley (failed)
Chapter 5 will relate to oaf's reaction to a 'southern' organisation failing
Chapter 6 will related to the dreadful mess the aforesaid oaf made of the entire financial system in GB.
 
#7
I thought I had MiT

If the government gets its money back from Lloyds then all to the good, if the government gets its share of the dividend then all to the good. Even if the government is Tory in all but name.

You seem to be separating the British People from our Government. We are getting our money back, it matters not one jot which Party is in power.

However it does expose a rather worrying trait: Clearly Labour see public money as their money instead of their merely managing the Public Purse on behalf of the Nation.


It shows that Cable was right to push the last lot into bailing out the bank.

I have a lot of respect for Vince Cable but to claim that one member of the minority opposition had any effect on Gordon Brown is as laughable as it is deluded.

Incidentally, if, in April, the government had sold its shares in the banks it would have made £9 billion in profit. If it sold them now the profits would be even higher.
Again, the shares are held on behalf of the British People. A Government is there to see to the long-term good of the People it is not there for short term share dealing for quick profit nor, indeed, for gold speculating.
 
#8
Whet,

You will never cease to amaze me at to the extent of your delusion and ignorance of every subject you elect to post and comment upon.
 
#9
Gosh - another publlic owned bank makes a profit.

Now, what is this 'coalition' government going to spend its money on? defence? *rolls eyes*
 
#10
Gosh - another publlic owned bank makes a profit.

Now, what is this 'coalition' government going to spend its money on? defence? *rolls eyes*
Would you rather the banks made a horrendous loss and needed bailing out again? Each positive event takes us nearer to the day when we become in an economically sound position. Ready for the next Labour Government to plunge us back into the mire.
 
#11
This thread is just a lame attempt by a rather bitter and spurned whannabe pol to imply that Gordon Brown really was a financial genious and not the financial mong he seems to be.


Coming next: Vince Cable is going to kill the first born.
 
#12
Hmmmmmm

How to misrepresent a view in one easy leasson.

Brown, screwed up with the banks. Cable was telling him so for years, told Darling what to do and lo and behold, Brown did it.

Cable is the genius of the resession.
 
#13
Rubbish, in large part our banking crisis was triggered by Browns mong handling of Northern Cockup. If he had let it go bust things would have blown over without spending gazzilions.

Of course Brown bailing out Northern Cockup had nothing to do with it's rather 'interesting' property portfolio and the fact Labour luminaries had mortgages with them.
 
#14
Whet the amount of 'profit' the government stands to make on the ownership of these banks is NOTHING compared to the costs of the interest payments on the loans taken out to prop them up.

Dont be a ****ing idiot please.

You do realise where these huge profits have come from as well I hope?
 
#15
Of course it would. People wouldn't have gone on to cause a run on other banks - especially when the massive losses were announced.

Browns cockup had nothing to do with Northern Rock as an independent bank, but in his failure to regulate hard enough.
 
#16
No it was a poor focus of regulation. The banks were better regulated prior to the FSA by the BOE, the industry regulator set up by the banks in the mid to late 80s was superior to any government regulatory attempts.

Brown's cockup has everything to do with trying to look good economically and protect northern jobs/political brand.
 
#17
Whet the amount of 'profit' the government stands to make on the ownership of these banks is NOTHING compared to the costs of the interest payments on the loans taken out to prop them up.

Dont be a ****ing idiot please.

You do realise where these huge profits have come from as well I hope?
Really?

I already posted showing that if the shares were sold just before the election then a profit would have been made. How much more of a profit will be made given the rise since 26th april (when the Beeb article came out)?
 
#18
It is not just the cost of purchasing the shares. Its the rapid enlargement on spending on the mechanism enacted to prop the failing banks up - a rate of failure which was at the very least perpetuated if not directly caused by Brown.

Or are we forgetting the due dilligence period debacle here?
 
#19
Now that the banks are all shored up and making profit, expect the papers and industry to start pushing for the government to sell the shares back, maybe even give a timeline so that they can get the share price down a bit and make a bigger profit out of the government.

It's sad to see that the people who were at the top during the banking disaster are all still in jobs, weirdly enough a couple of them made it into the government as part of the advisory team to stop something like this happening again, and of course to look after the shares in the banks that the government bailed out. I can see these guys going back to industry within 3 months of the sell off, with a nice cheque in their pocket from their last employer, and a huge cheque from their new employers.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
1 Aviation 7
msr Current Affairs, News and Analysis 13
PartTimePongo Current Affairs, News and Analysis 2

Similar threads

Latest Threads