Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 22nd November 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Cracks begin to show in HBOS buy-out



View Video
Download Video

Video

Gordon Brown gives his views on the shape of the world economy
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 01 October 2008
SHARES in Halifax Bank of Scotland plummeted yesterday, fuelling speculation that its takeover by Lloyds TSB would be killed off.
About £1 billion was wiped from the value of the Edinburgh-based bank and analysts warned that, even if the deal did eventually go ahead, it could be for a bargain-basement price.

HBOS was among the biggest UK casualties of United States legislators' decision to reject a $700 billion (£380 billion) bailout plan. The bank's share price dropped 13.8 per cent to 122.4p yesterday – far below the 181p at which the Lloyds deal values them. Lloyds' own shares rose 4.26 per cent to 226.5p, and analysts said its shareholders would probably now reject the deal, unless the price was cut.

Overall, the London Stock Exchange did not see the type of bloodbath experienced in the US on Monday. And the Dow Jones average opened ahead of Monday's close after George Bush, the US president, insisted the bail-out bill was not dead.

Meanwhile, Alex Salmond, the First Minister, who has been enraged by the HBOS deal, held a series of talks with ministers, eventually flying to London to meet Alistair Darling, the Chancellor.

Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, held talks with Gordon Brown. A Downing Street spokesman said the meeting had been "routine" and "they discussed the present situation, among other things".

Last night, Mr Brown said he was confident the HBOS takeover would proceed. The government will be desperate to ensure it does, as Downing Street was closely involved in its conception, relaxing competition laws to smooth the passage of the deal.

The Prime Minister said: "This merger between HBOS and Lloyds TSB is a matter of great detail. I'm confident, from talking to people involved, that this merger is going ahead.

"At the end of the day, it is a matter for shareholders, not a matter for government, and I believe that some of the issues that were raised at the beginning are being dealt with. I am pretty confident that both parties want to go ahead with this deal."

Asked if he would bail out HBOS if the deal collapsed, he said: "We have already dealt with this through helping the merger take place. We changed the competition law to make it possible."

Earlier in the day, as HBOS shares crashed, Alex Potter, an analyst with investment bankers Collins Stewart, said: "At the moment, the market is telling you it looks as though it's going to be re-priced in some way, but anything beyond that is speculation."

He said if he were a Lloyds TSB shareholder, he would knock back the deal.

Gurgit Kambo, an analyst with Numis Securities, said: "There are clearly some concerns. The uncertainty is if shareholders vote against it, then it won't go through."

Ian Gordon, of Exane BNP Paribas, said: "Given extreme market volatility, the market is pricing in an increased risk that the Lloyds acquisition either won't go ahead or that there'll be an attempt to renegotiate in Lloyds' favour."

Keith Bowman, of Hargreaves Lansdown, agreed the markets were exerting pressure on Lloyds to re-price the deal. He said concern among traders about weak banks – heightened by the US vote against the bail-out – had hit HBOS particularly hard. It is seen as being vulnerable to lending problems because of its exposure to the mortgage sector. Recent data showing a massive fall in lending had added to this.

Mr Bowman said the deal still had to be voted on by shareholders and was "not a foregone conclusion". He said: "HBOS still needs the deal. You could argue for the good of the UK banking system some deal is needed. It is the confidence factor. The deal, when pieced together, did help restore some confidence and, if we see it unravel, some of that confidence will disappear."

He said the end of the deal could mean the end of HBOS. "Whether the government has anyone in the background to sweep in is very difficult to say," he said. "I don't know whether there are overseas players, but there weren't any obvious ones a few weeks ago."

Roger Lawson, a director of the UK Shareholders Association, which lobbies on behalf of retail investors, said HBOS shareholders were already unhappy with the offer and would be "even angrier" if Lloyds reduced it. "The directors should not sell at that price," he said.

One HBOS investor said: "There is something about this deal that has never quite hung together. It started to look potentially over-ambitious when analysts began to circulate very large numbers for the amount of additional capital that Lloyds TSB might need."

But both banks stood behind the deal and shrugged off the concerns of the markets and analysts. An HBOS spokesman said: "This is the right deal for HBOS shareholders. We are already working on the integration planning process, and it is full steam ahead as far as we are concerned.

"Share price volatility in bank stocks is part of the menu at the moment. These are not normal times."

Lee Calder, of Lloyds TSB, insisted the bank was proceeding with the deal. When pressed on re-pricing, he said: "I cannot comment on any speculation that may be around.

"I am not aware of any changes to any diaries or to any meetings, including those involving Scottish organisations and ministers."

Ron Hewitt, chief executive of Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce, said: "This deal was always going to be over the long haul. It will not be surprising if there are variations in what is finally agreed. Our primary concern remains that, as far as possible, jobs are safe and the banking facilities are secure."

If the deal goes ahead, it will create a "superbank" with nearly a third of the UK mortgage market and more than £300 billion of deposits.

• Administrators at the British operation of the bankrupt investment bank Lehman Brothers last night announced 750 job cuts.


The full article contains 1007 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

subrosa,

01/10/2008 00:10:58
Wouldn't surprise me if the 'pals' of LTSB are forcing down the price of HBOS to get it for nothing.
2

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 01/10/2008 00:23:48

subrosa ~1,

Ok you started, lets talk speculation, instead of the usual boring commennts from the 'Victor Meldrews'

Wouldn't surprise me if the Spanish Bank that took over Alliance&Leister, makes a Move on the HBOS, making them the most Powerful Bank in Europe.
3

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 01/10/2008 01:26:39


bring them ~3,

How are you,?

You must, or should I say,..'Please' forgive me, if my posts are different or strange at the moment,

This is due to a 'unbelievably' event, that I am finding hard to 'cope-with', the event is one of disgust and of a concern to me.
4

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 01/10/2008 01:51:07


bring them on ~5,

That would be nice and very UK, soo to speak!

Tell you something! I will be glad to see the year MMVIII (2008), GO!

A Very Bad Year indeed!! (for many, inc me) but my,..
.."Bad Year" don't concern the "Banks"!
5

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 01/10/2008 02:18:43


bring them on ~7,

Ta! I will remember that.
6

Neil Waugh,

Old Strathcona 01/10/2008 02:37:36
Excellent work. Scotland the Brave. Now for Part B.
7

William of Liberton,

EDINBURGH 01/10/2008 03:33:19
"We changed the competition law to make it possible." says Brown. When would that be then? And how? Surely that change is still to be made, whether by subordinate legislation or ministerial decision, either of which is vulnerable to attack and reduction either at Westminster or in the courts by judicial review.

And the shareholders' decisions which would make the merger possible, and require the change in the law, have not yet been taken.
8

Embra Don,

01/10/2008 04:14:32
Presumably Brown is also intending to waive, retrospectively, the requirement that a proposed merger should be announced to the stock-market and shares suspended. This should have happened when the deal was first, allegedly, under discussion two years ago. That was "pre-crunch" and in defiance of the MMC. What has been going on here?
9

Sierra Foothills Scot,

Diamond Springs 01/10/2008 04:50:26
bring them on and Charles Linskaill -

Why don't you guys conduct your inane private conversations by email or text instead of hijacking threads for your personal use?
10

Boy Wonder,

01/10/2008 06:20:38
Chuckles @#8. Take your inane friend @#13 and go away for a lie-doon and your meds.
11

Rufus T. Firefly,

01/10/2008 06:56:09
Nobody has to worry here.

Alex Neil will come riding to the rescue with his 6 Scottish bankers and save the day.

Or at the very least that great Scottish leader Sir Alex Salmond will step in with a £100 million bail out from the newly formed Scottish Central Bank (well newly formed in his head).

They can never take away our FREEDUUM, as that other famous Scotsman Mel Gibson once said.
12

Walter Ego,

Durness 01/10/2008 06:57:35
This was inevitable. The Lloyds TSB offer valued HBOS higher than HBOS is actually worth. There is now every likelihood of HBOS having to be nationalised.
13

Rufus T. Firefly,

01/10/2008 07:08:04
#16 Walter, spot on. If that happens it would be bad news for everybody.

Over the last 2 weeks however, Salmond and Neil have been mouthing off about how the Lloyds takeover should be stopped and what they would do to solve the problem.

So this may be their big chance.

Lets see if they are all talk or whether they will be spotted furiously back peddling.
14

Evan Owen,

Snowdonia 01/10/2008 07:32:27
Scratch, scratch.. what's that? Oh, dandruff from my irritated scalp. Well scratching my head doesn't answer the questions racing around in it.

Q1. In this particulat case does it matter what value is placed upon a HBOS share by the 'market'?

Q2. Should both parties to the merger have their share prices valued according to the truth, does it matter?

Q3. What is the point or regulation? "For hundreds of years banks and building societies have been able to manage their own business affairs and it is only because of the intervention of the regulators that we are in the predicament that we are in." Mike Lazenby, chief executive of Kent Reliance Building Society.

Q4. What haoppens when all those fancy financial instruments mature?

Q5. Why won't Gordon Brown guarantee ALL deposits in the same way that the Irish Government has and will we see a run on all UK banks if he doesn't?

Q6. Could someone stop this Clapham Omnibus, the man wants to get off....
15

Linda,

Edinburgh 01/10/2008 07:35:49
A great idea from SNP and this must be put in place to-day to save HBOS from further meltdown.

I hope those journalists and politicians who mocked Alex Salmond for saying an independent Scotland could not save HBOS (at an alleged figure of £100 billion) will now apologise.

The Irish government has guaranteed all (100%) deposits in Irish banks and all money borrowed by the banks from other financial institutions to the extent of £320 billions.
16

jtdx,

01/10/2008 07:42:36
#11
Firstly the shares don't need to be suspended because of a takeover announcement. If they had suspended HBOS shares "pending an announcement" then there probably would have been mass panic ("withdraw yer money now in case they go bust"). As Bank of Scotland Banknotes are only guaranteed by the Bank of England between Friday and Monday I don't think a suspension of HBOS shares would have done the general Scottish economy a lot of good!

Secondly announcements no longer have to be made through the London Stock Exchange, there are other "Primary Information Providers" that can be used nowadays to make announcements.

17

Anton,

Porto Sant'Elpidio 01/10/2008 07:46:40
Just one stupid question: when am I going to read that CEOs and Boards of all these big Banks and Insurance Companies all over the world have been arrested and put on a diet of water and stale bread, and the keys thrown away?
18

Helmut Smegma,

Edinburgh 01/10/2008 07:54:48
Yesterday`s hero Freddy Goodwin has been remarkably quiet during this current crisis.For someone who paid top dollar for a series of takeovers....

Strip the knighthood off him.
19

BIG EYE,

Paisley 01/10/2008 07:57:53
After a fortnight of being told Scotland was better off being in the big Union and that this would bring great benefits in this crisis, quickly followed up with lots of unionists telling us a wee country like Scotland couldn't do a thing about it.......The UK government spent yesterday trying to establish if they could follow the lead of the Irish Government and guarantee all money in their banks.

Their conclusion?

The Big, strong UK Government can't do so, because?

The UK is too big!

The Union dividend once again...pure fantasy!
20

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 01/10/2008 08:06:28
#18 Evan Owen wrote:

"Q1. In this particulat case does it matter what value is placed upon a HBOS share by the 'market'?"

My first thought when the HBOS Lloyds merger news was broken was 'Lloyds are paying far too much. HBOS shares aren't worth that much'.

If that was my first thought then evidently this must have occured to others. So why has Brown interferred and tried to force through a deal based on such a price? And why were those high up at Lloyds happy with that? LOL people aren't usually happy paying too much for something - its called throwing money away.
21

BIG EYE,

Paisley 01/10/2008 08:08:17
Any problems at HBOS are directly related to the Halifax part of the business so how's this for a scenario?

The shareholders reject the merger, the UK Government have to nationalise HBOS to save the UK Banking system, they then try to sell off the BOS part to recover some cash (remember this is the part of the business that unionists tell us is so interwoven into Halifax that it is impossible to divorce). An overseas buyer purchases the corporate business of the BOS aand the vast majority of jobs are saved.

I know this is the dream scenario but the chances are improving as the city is clearly not sweet on the Lloyds merger.

The main barrier may be the embarassment the Brown/Darling circus may suffer after their fix went badly wrong...again!
22

Linda,

Edinburgh 01/10/2008 08:08:34
There is no Banking Crisis in Norway as Banks were properly regulated by the government.
23

TWC,

Ayrshire 01/10/2008 08:11:03
Right Gordy get the cheque book out and buy the BoS, does that mean that LTSB have to pay £120M reserve to the HBoS. That was the guarantee that they had when they bid for HBoS
24

BIG EYE,

Paisley 01/10/2008 08:12:12
There will be files of people outside banks in the UK in the very near future. It will be outside Irish banks with people wanting to make deposits!
25

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 01/10/2008 08:16:39
27 Cauchy
I don't think Gordon Brown would have had any say of the price of the deal - that would have been settled by the respective boards. Also, I don't think he could have "forced" such a deal. What he did was waiver the competition rules that would normally have applied to such a deal.
26

A Crofter,

Western Isles 01/10/2008 08:17:21
Perhaps the Qataris can bail us out.

I'm sure His Oiliness, Sheikh Lard-bin Al-Salmo will have all the answers, as usual.
27

Duncan in Edinburgh,

01/10/2008 08:24:29
#29 On that and other evidence, I would suggest you go and live in Norway then.
28

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 01/10/2008 08:26:46
19 Linda
If the Irish govt. are guaranteeing bank deposits up £320bn, they are agreeing to put up over twice their annual GDP.

To put this into some perspective, the US Congress rejected the $700bn bail out of US banks but this amount is only about 5% of US GDP.

Also the Irish bail-out is different to the one proposed by Alex Salmond. Alex Salmond's proposal was to make £100bn available to lend to HBOS. This is entirely different to guaranteeing deposits.

29

Ugly George,

01/10/2008 08:29:47
29 Linda
That remains to be seen. There is still a lot of fall-out from all of this with banka coming into trouble on an almost daily basis and Norwegian banks may yet be exposed. Just a few days ago major banks in Belgium and Germany had to be bailed out.
30

Ugly George,

01/10/2008 08:32:41
28 Big Eye
I don't think anybody has said that it is impossible to split up HBOS. Demergers are always possible. The question is how intricate and hence costly would such a demerger be.
31

Calum10,

01/10/2008 09:21:47
As expected Gordon Brown's Dodgy Deal is beginning to fall apart. It looks like HBOS will be either partly or wholly nationalised to save it from a run on the bank.

Again the UK has shown itself to be stupid and cumbersome in dealing with the problems in the financial markets. Big ain't beautiful in the credit crunch. It is the smaller nations who are dealing with this crisis far better.
32

cabrach loon,

inverness 01/10/2008 09:34:51
It seems criminal that share trading in HBOS was not suspended as soon as this instability surfaced and gross speculation and short selling commenced. Yet no run on this bank occurred unlike Northern Rock!
There is a smell of manipulation here and dare I suggest it corruption as all too often!
Who might be looking for jobs in banking when they are booted out of politics? Connection seem to be well paid for!
33

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 01/10/2008 09:44:21
Well well well the best laid schemes of mice and men.
Looks like the "planned merger" was relying too heavily on the US govt intervention to make it feasible and attractive. Looks like the govt are going to have to step in anyway.
Back tae the drawing board.
Can this government get any dumber?
34

morris,

edinburgh 01/10/2008 09:47:24
The vulnerability that was HBOS (or Halifax to be precise since Bank of Scotland was sound)would presumably become a liability to Lloyds TSB who might suffer the same fate? That seems to be at least a realistic possibility.Why anyone would want to take that risk is beyond my understanding.

Bank of Scotland were crazy to get involved with Halifax in the first place, and brought this upon themselves.I have never been happy since that takeover, with Halifax calling the shots, and in my experience ,a bad move.Its only my loyalty to their staff that stops me closing down my accounts and going elsewhere.The shareholders can go to WOTSIT.

I am no expert in the world of Finance,but it does seem to me that greed is what drives the shareholders, and common sense is a commdodity which they rarely trade in .
Personally I would love to see RBS step in and buy HBOS but that would never be allowed.FOREIGN COMPANIES can buy ,but a Scottish based company would be a monopoly presumably.

The thought of a tie up with an Irish bank has a certain appeal to it.
35

Beergut,

Embra 01/10/2008 09:52:00
Nobody is going to tell me that the Lloyds and HBoS negotiators didn't have all the figures available and that they were not able to value the assets of HBoS accurately to arrive at the price they did. That speculators have since been playing their greedy little games doesn't change that in the slightest. Lloyds know pretty well that HBoS is worth £XXX give or take a few £'s and after dividing that by XXX number of shares, maybe taking off a percentage to make it worth their while (nudge nudge, wink wink) and they come up with a price of £1.81 a share. Simple. And whatever speculators play at doesn't change that one bit.
36

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

01/10/2008 09:55:59
"#29 Linda,Edinburgh 01/10/2008 08:08:34
There is no Banking Crisis in Norway as Banks were properly regulated by the government."

Utter tosh. Try reading these:

http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/09/30/afx5489213.html

http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/09/25/afx5470475.html

http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/09/23/afx5457830.html

Norwegian banks like any other are reliant on short-term money markets - to pretend otherwise is to put one's head in the sand.
37

Beergut,

Embra 01/10/2008 10:00:04
Morris from Edinburgh. I hate to break this to you but unless you have been living on the moon you probably are a shareholder indirectly. Where do you think all the pension funds, insurance companies, unit trusts, trade unions, uncle Tom Cobley and all put all their money? Under the bed?
38

Subbob,

Troon 01/10/2008 10:06:55
No matter what bank merges with what, they are the victims of their own incompetence.How can any bank manager give a £200,000 loan for a house in January, then sold six months later and have another punter come in for a £250,000 loan for the same ruddy house. On top of that, the bank manager gets his £100,000 bonus for lending money. Let the B******s go broke, like all the businesses they wouldn't support.
39

Nevsky,

Moscow 01/10/2008 10:08:50
45 Fed#

From the Guardian on Thursday from the Norwegian Finance Minister:

Halvorsen said global market turmoil felt in the wake of U.S. banking crises had so far little impact in Norway.
"The financial crisis has increased money market rates to a level they would not be at otherwise. Other than that, we see little impact on the Norwegian economy," she said.


Also i am very happy to report that Norway's RESERVE oil fund is expected to reach £500 BILLION by 2020.

40

Publius,

London 01/10/2008 10:14:24
#18 Evan Owen

Good Morning Owen
Here are some tentative answers to your questions:

Q1. In this particulat case does it matter what value is placed upon a HBOS share by the 'market'?
Answer: If HBOS shares fall further, LloydsTSB may either reduce the value of its bid or walk away altogether. If LloydsTSB walks away, then HBOS may collapse altogether...

Q2. Should both parties to the merger have their share prices valued according to the truth, does it matter?
Ideally LloydsTSB (and HBOS because the deal is technically a merger) should have conducted due diligence. Due diligence means getting a third party (accountants, financial advisers etc) looking at the other's books to put a proper value on assets. There is no public evidence of due diligence

Q3. What is the point or regulation? "For hundreds of years banks and building societies have been able to manage their own business affairs and it is only because of the intervention of the regulators that we are in the predicament that we are in." Mike Lazenby, chief executive of Kent Reliance Building Society.
Answer: Regulation is not a lot of use. Clever accountants (and spivs) can always find a way round rules. What is needed is supervision. This is what used to happen before Brown set up the present arrangements. The Bank of England was the superviser of banks: the Governor would have a quiet word with the chairman of a bank (or building soicety etc) when they were being naughty but before they got dangerous.

Q4. What haoppens when all those fancy financial instruments mature?
Answer: the banks hope that the US (and UK) housing markets will have picked up, so that foreclosures on mortgages won't lead to heavy losses. This may be a vain hope.

Q5. Why won't Gordon Brown guarantee ALL deposits in the same way that the Irish Government has and will we see a run on all UK banks if he doesn't?
Answer: (a) Brown thinks that only some UK banks (ex-building societies) are vulnerable and
41

morris,

edinburgh 01/10/2008 10:15:31
46

I am perfectly well aware of the money I have invested in Bank of Scotland and Halifax Accounts/investmenets .I did say that I felt a sense of loyalty to their staff, which most people would realise means that its only that which stops me taking my money out of there.
Most people would understand that I think form what I said.

I also always considered the Bank of Scotland to have a special place in that it predates the Union of 1707 (founded by Royal Charter and passed by the Scottish Parliament on 17th July 1695)and is by any measure something that Scotland would wish to retain as much as possible.On jobs alone and Edinburghs remaining no 4 European Finance Centre I would want to see this.

That does not mean that I care for those who would seek to profit and the inevitable loss of jobs is a price they willingly pay.

I think I make my position clear enough?
If not then what can I say?


42

Publius,

London 01/10/2008 10:16:38
Evan Owen continued

The rest of may answer was cut off. If you want more, please ask.
Cheers
Publius
43

Fairfax,

01/10/2008 10:20:54
morris (42): "Personally I would love to see RBS step in and buy HBOS but that would never be allowed."

If Lloyds step away from HBOS, then I suspect the British government would allow any deal to avoid nationalization, so you might get your wish.

"The thought of a tie up with an Irish bank has a certain appeal to it."

Presumably you would prefer this to any predominantly English bank stepping in. Would your objection also extend to nationalization?
44

An Honest Wifie,

01/10/2008 10:41:50
#48 The Norwegians may be better prepared but the point I was making was that they were not immune from any banking crisis. Their own banks are very much reliant on the short-term money markets - that's why the Norwegian government have been forced to pump billions in to the system to keep it going.

They are no different from other financial institutions around the world.
45

morris,

edinburgh 01/10/2008 10:51:41
52

I confess to wishing to retain Bank of Scotland's /HBOS identity as much as possible,and secure the employment of her staff, and what is the best deal available(in this respect) is what I would seek/ prefer.
I will confess that control from South of the Rio Tweed is not my first choice.I was not happy with the Halifax takeover which I never considered was a good move.
If you are asking would I prefer that HBOS go under rather than be part of something then clearly the answer is NO.


I admit that I do not trust WESTMINSTER government and Broon and Darling even less !That does not mean that I would favour risking HBOS survival . If the only deal on offer is Lloyds TSB then so be it. Its not my choice but it may be Hobsons.

Nationalisation was something which in principle I did not support regarding Northern Rock. I prefer to see a merger to another bank,but if thats the only answer then its better than allowing any bank/building society to disappear.I
Whatever ensures survival is the bottom line for me.

This has more to do with preferences rather than ruling anything out.
At the end of the day I want to see HBOS and their staff as secure as possible.
Whatever deal emerges as the one which does this best,I am bound to support.
Choice is a luxury. Decision is a necessity.
Please do not confuse I have a preference, with I object. I seek only what can be realistically achieved,and rule nothing out completely,since it becomes increasingly clear that what I would like and what I will get are far apart and it grows probably!
I don't like Westminster government but I abide by the majority decision,and the control of HBOS is much the same as far as I am concerned.I prefer that the Head Office at North Bank Street remains intact, and Bank of Scotland survives,by whatever means are necessary. Nationalisation is my last choice,but if that's what it must be ,then so be it.
I thought having preferences was normal?
Maybe because my pecking order is diffe
46

morris,

edinburgh 01/10/2008 10:55:33
54 cont.
I thought having preferences was normal?
Maybe because my pecking order is different to others they presume that which clearly I am not.

NOBODY wants to see HBOS go under.
Certainly not moi!
Ive got my life invested in it!
47

Beergut,

Embra 01/10/2008 11:06:37
Morris you said "The shareholders can go to WOTSIT.
" and I took that to mean an indifference to their fate. I was just pointing out that nearly all of us will share that fate in one way or another. As to the whole HBoS thing, the sell-out of Bank of Scotland by Peter Burt and Gavin Masterton to the Halifax was an absolute disgrace and an affront to their fellow countrymen. Whether it was personal greed, a dislike of the Bank or just simple short sighted stupidity I do not know but it does disturb me greatly when these two characters are then dredged up by the Press to pontificate. The two of them should be villified for the scoundrels they were.
48

morris,

edinburgh 01/10/2008 11:17:07
56 We sing from the same hymn sheet then !
I agree completely. Those who seek to make a gain with disregard for the consequences I share your disdain of.
Bank of Scotland is a national institution which has survived WORLD WARS and is not only our oldest bank,but one of precious few identities which survived after 1707,only to be reduced to we witness this!
Whatever is required to save HBofS haws my support without question, (but I pour scorn on those who care not what happens).
Perhaps I could have been a bit clearer in who and what I attack. I apologise for that evident lack of clarity.
49

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 01/10/2008 11:21:30
55 morris
If you have invested in HBOS shares over the past year you must have lost a packet. Or did you invest in investment products issued by HBOS.
50

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

01/10/2008 11:23:13
#54 There are no real easy choices at the moment - any decision made is between one evil and another.

Some have made the point that NR and B & B were treated differently from HBOS - but that is a flawed argument. Each bank has to be treated as an individual case, with each having its own individual unique circumstances. A blanket policy is not the answer.

In the case of NR merger/takeover was on the table but the buyer (Virgin Money) wanted additional government monies to sweeten the deal not to mention not give any real commitment ot repaying monies already lent. Nationalisation was the only feasible option to keeping NR going - the alternative was to let it go under.

For B & B the situation was slightly different - here only a part nationalisation was required because an acceptable buyer was available for part of the business. The only option for that part of the business not sold off was nationalisation.

For the present, HBOS is a different situation. There is an acceptable buyer for the bank. It is the option that will save most jobs without a major long-term cost to the taxpayer. That is of course assuming the deal goes through. If it fails then I see option but another nationalisation.

The truth is that nationalisation is the last option for any governemnt - when all other options have been exhausted. It is economically the least preferable option because of the long-term implications for borrowing and taxes. But it is an option that is still more preferable than bank failure.
51

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

01/10/2008 11:29:18
#52 A UK-based institution is preferable to a foreign-owned institution - at least some sort of limited regulatory control can be exerted on it.

Whether or not UK-based institutions are regulated well or not is another matter entirely. Just because a governemnt has the power to regulate does not mean it has to use it. That perhaps is the real nub of the whol banking problem - the lack of co-ordination between differnt regulatory regimes.
52

morris,

edinburgh 01/10/2008 11:41:26
58

I have money in various HBOS bank accounts plus money which is invested with Halifax who have invested it elsewhere presumably.I do not have Bank of Scotland shares as such,but of course if the bank goes under....................what guarantees do any of us have? Maybe I wont have a leg to stand on before long!

I have however lost money already in the last 12 months,since this Halifax investment account (no idea what its offical name is offhand)guarantees only to repay the sum invested, and its getting pretty close to that now.The interest generated from previous years has been all but wiped out according to my most recent annual statement.Maybe I should have put it under the bed!AT least that way I can get to sleep.Any suggestions gratefully received?

53

Jay Kay,

01/10/2008 13:05:01
Right thats it I'm orf downt bank to get me savin oot, before there's a que.

Had to watch the Monty Python Office sketch again last night, very apt, "C'mon Parkie"
54

Buckpool Loon,

Cheshire 01/10/2008 13:34:56
The first thing that's needed in this situation is a reality check.

This is not a disaster in the sense of the sea levels suddenly rising by meters but a correction to a system which, while it effects us all to a greater or lesser extent, has used a surreal commodity, enhanced by the use of ritualistic and devious practices, into a religion controlled by tyrannical priests and worshipped by maniacle acolytes.

The present so called 'crises' is merely a skirmish in the Holy Wars of finance to say the god they worship has relevence and does matter.

Take the $700bn bale out proposed by Bush, (as read from his prepared text from the idiot board) We were told the worlds finances would collapse if it wasn't pushed through by Friday last. It was also admitted by its author Paulson, that he had no idea whether the sum was enough or what its effect would have. On Sunday the baleout was rejected Wall Street wailed on Monday but somehow finds it can struggle through until Thursday? Strange that. Makes you wonder if the diagnosis (which after all is a self diagnosis by the financial sect) is correct; and, if it isn't, how accurate can their prognosis be. Are they merely looking for some public financed chemo placebo? One metaphorically speaking, that destroys the body it has thrived in, in order to feed the cancer it has created.

The other effects of this debacle; the reactions by Westmister, Ireland, The HBoS situation etc., are merely knee-jerks to a system which by extending itself beyond its usefull and legitimate function has threatened to poison its host.

Just the 21st Century's version of the 'gods'of the Greeks bearing their gifts.
55

SkeptikScot,

01/10/2008 14:06:18
As I type this HBOS shares are 27% up today. If the $700 billion US deal goes through that may stablise the banking sector for a few months. The FT have said that by HBOS agreeing to be taken over it is a public statement of vunerability. So unless there is another (alternative) deal on the table the merger is almost certain to go through. No one wants HBOS to suffer the fate of Bradford and Bingley.

On another matter - the EU are apparently very unhappy with Ireland's "unilateral action" in guarenteeing all deposits in Irish banks, as it could lead to a flood of capital away from non-Irish banks in Europe. RBS are particularly worried about Ulster Bank (which they own) as it is not covered by the guarentee. I suspect that the EU will ask for some urgent changes (e.g. all banks in Ireland regardless of ownership to be covered).
56

Nevsky,

Moscow 01/10/2008 14:55:22
62 sm753#

Funny i though UK borrowoing next year was set for a defecit of £94 BILLION making a national debt of over £600 BILLION.

Quite how the UK has turned a potential surplus of half a trillion for Scotland into a national debt only the unionists can explain?

57

crashtestmonkey,

Edinburgh 01/10/2008 14:58:09
What they don't tell is HBOS is entrenched in Brown's PFI schemes. HBOS is part of a £420m scheme paying for hospitals up and down the country and 30 odd school projects covering about 20,000 kids places in England.

If HBOS did go knockers skywards the full effect is not known but I would have thought the butterfly effect would be quite serious for education and healthcare for a lot of people.

Member of the LLoyd's board is a large labour donor who coincidentally received a knighthood last year. One of Blair's ex-foreign policy advisers is also sitting on the board.

It's good to see our PM fighting to keep HBOS on it's feet by lining the pockets of Labour donors, creating a monopoly on British banking and mortgages and desperate not to have PFI blow up in his face before a general election.

Go Gordy! Go Gordy!
58

Fairfax,

01/10/2008 15:07:39
SkeptikScot (65): "On another matter - the EU are apparently very unhappy with Ireland's "unilateral action" in guarenteeing all deposits in Irish banks"

Absolutely. Ireland's action is very close to nationalization of its banks -- after all, the Irish state will not accept such responsibility without also requiring some degree of control. It will be interesting if other EU economies now follow suit.

"I suspect that the EU will ask for some urgent changes (e.g. all banks in Ireland regardless of ownership to be covered)."

I really don't know what powers the EU has to compel any changes. However, this particular one would almost certainly be refused without some degree of reciprocation, since any bank active in Ireland would then be guaranteed by the Irish taxpayer.
59

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 01/10/2008 15:11:40
Morris #61

Money held in Post Office savings accounts are actually held by an Irish Bank and are covered by the Unlimited Guarantee of the Irish Government.

UK bank deposits are guaranteed to the first GBP 35,000.

Though in reality the Government would be forced to make good on all the deposits in any failed UK Bank. To do otherwise would create a run on all the other banks leading to systemic collapse of the entire UK Banking sector.
60

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 01/10/2008 15:19:09
#68 Fairfax

The French Government has also guaranteed all deposits in French Banks.

All banks in Ireland are covered. If you have a deposit with HSBC Ireland it is covered. If you have a deposit with HSBC UK it is not. But if you have money in a UK Post Office Savings Account you are covered because all of those deposits are with an Irish Bank.


61

Fairfax,

01/10/2008 15:27:02
KampungHighlander (70): "All banks in Ireland are covered."

I believe that's false -- only 6 named Irish banks are covered. See, for example,

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssFinancialServicesAndRealEstateNews/idUSL170872120081001

or

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2124f8f4-8eb9-11dd-946c-0000779fd18c.html


62

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 01/10/2008 15:28:44
#62 SMS&%#

That may be the value of all assets within the UK but you have forgotten to take away the liabilities. You don't happen to work in the accounting department of a bank?
63

Fairfax,

01/10/2008 15:42:16
KampungHighlander (70): "The French Government has also guaranteed all deposits in French Banks."

There are rumours of this, certainly, but the French government is denying this at present -- see

http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/10/01/afx5493817.html

They certainly haven't passed any legislation to this effect. Sarkozy, like Brown, has stated that depositors' funds are safe, but that's not a guarantee. Checking an Irish site gives further info there:

http://www.itsyourmoney.ie/index.jsp?1nID=93&2nID=100&nID=153&aID=620

The new law has yet to pass Ireland's Parliament, so further changes are possible.
64

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 01/10/2008 15:43:00
71 Fairfax

You are right, Ulster Bank and National Irish Bank which is owned by Danske Bank are not covered.

But I think you are wrong if you think the EU is going to do anything about it.

The European Commission has so far held back on implementing EU state aid rules during the ongoing financial turbulence.

"The European Commission ... is supporting .. the decision of Irish government to guarantee deposits with Irish banks," the commission's chief spokesman Mr Laitenberger said at a press conference in Brussels on Tuesday (30 September).

"This shows that public authorities in Europe can live up to the task of preserving financial stability and protecting savings where different EU countries are concerned."
65

Fairfax,

01/10/2008 16:26:21
KampungHighlander (74): "But I think you are wrong if you think the EU is going to do anything about it."

I don't think the EU will do anything about it -- apologies if I was unclear. My view is that the EU will suspend mention of EU competition laws until this crisis has passed.
66

cabrach loon,

inverness 01/10/2008 17:54:24
why not break up HBOS into its constituents and let BOS go back to being a viable bank in Scotland and Halifax an overstretched mortgage building society that strayed out of its proper place? It should not be too difficult to unravel this.
67

Rami,

Derry, New Hampshire U.S. 01/10/2008 17:57:35
I also agree with # 1 that TLBS will hagle a bit more
to bring the buy out of BOS even way under 122€ per share.
68

Sile,

The Land of Smoke and Mirrors.. 01/10/2008 19:00:21
Moscow 01/10/2008 14:55:22
62 sm753#

Funny i though UK borrowoing next year was set for a defecit of £94 BILLION making a national debt of over £600 BILLION.

Quite how the UK has turned a potential surplus of half a trillion for Scotland into a national debt only the unionists can explain?
**********
The most powerful seats of this Govt, of this dis union are in the main held held by Scottish constituency MPs since the year 2000 under bLiar an brown the economy has been supported by trillions of debt he sold the gold reserves at a BOGOF price the pension funds pillaged, the geeks in Westminster are lobby robots who care only for their own interests, if you want this govt out then do us all a favour and vote them out..
69

Sile,

Thought this might 01/10/2008 19:13:33
Interest all of you just had it sent through to me, another reason to applaud Norway they stayed outside the EU.
***********
Irish government's guarantee to banks may fall foul of EU law

The Irish Times reports that the European Commission has said it will investigate whether the Irish government's decision to guarantee deposits and lending at six Irish-owned banks breaks EU law. The Irish government has pledged a state guarantee of 400 billion euros to cover the key liabilities of banks and mortgage lenders. The Commission has the power to launch legal action if it feels that the guarantee to Irish banks gives them a competitive advantage over foreign-owned banks operating in Ireland or in other EU countries. "If there is any state aid involved, then we will look at this as a matter of urgency", a Commission spokesman said yesterday.



Irish Finance Minister Brian Lenihan has defended the bailout saying, "It is important that Europe protects its financial system but, in the absence of a Europe-wide system, there is an onus on the Government as the sovereign body with responsibility in this State to take action."



The European Commission has so far held back on implementing EU state aid rules during the ongoing financial turbulence and questions have been raised about whether the existing state aid rules may hinder efforts to stabilise the banking sector. However, the Commission defended the rules yesterday, saying they were "part of the solution not the problem" because they gave confidence to banks that rivals would not get an unfair advantage out of the crisis.
70

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 01/10/2008 19:44:30
Smee, various. I see you are on good form tonight. Are you being paid for this? Or is it just part of your office duty? 78 should be a film.
71

Greyfriars Bobby,

01/10/2008 22:40:25
#28

I think you'll find this is not a 'Halifax problem'. The Corporate division is heavily involved in Commercial property and is entrenched in asset growth, with little, if any, focus on deposits. So where do they get their cash from? Halifax savers and the money markets.

Let's be clear, the problem is not limited to Halifax or Bank of Scotland, it is truly an HBOS issue. Oh, and please, no comments about all the decisions being taken in Halifax - London and Edinburgh are the key hubs these days.
72

,

03/10/2008 01:36:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In