Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Double blow as big guns turn against Lloyds-HBOS merger

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.

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: 24 September 2008
PLANS for a £12 billion takeover of Halifax Bank of Scotland suffered two huge blows last night as an influential Scots financier called for a complete rethink of the deal and a leading analyst warned shareholders' interests would be damaged.
Sir Donald Mackay, the chairman of the £1.4 billion Scottish Mortgage Trust, told The Scotsman that corporate functions for the entire superbank should be shifted north of the Border, while the Bank of Scotland should retain a separate legal presence.

He spoke out as JP Morgan analysts warned that the bid was not in the best interests of Lloyds TSB shareholders.

Meanwhile, Sir George Mathewson, former chief executive of Royal Bank of Scotland, told The Scotsman he thought HBOS might have survived if the US authorities and Britain's financial regulator had acted sooner.

Sir Donald, a former chairman of Scottish Enterprise, called on Lloyds TSB to recognise the separate legal presence of Bank of Scotland.

He wants to see Bank of Scotland plc reconstituted within the Lloyds TSB group, with its chairman and chief executive on the main group board. It would be responsible for retail and business banking in Scotland under its traditional name and iconography.

In addition, he would like it to oversee corporate functions across the UK and for the BOS investment arm, together with the £110 billion Scottish Widows investment portfolio, brought together and managed out of Edinburgh.

He said the deal had "dealt a massive psychological blow to Scotland" and, in its current form, meant a serious loss of bank competition in Scotland and threatened new ideas and innovation in the industry.

"Scores of people have spoken to me about it and voiced their concerns," he said. "They are horrified. The great feat of Bank of Scotland is that it has been an innovative bank. It led the introduction of electronic home banking. It has been innovative in its deal-making. And that record must be continued."

He warned "over-concentration of financial power in London" was "not a good thing, for the UK economy or for Scotland" and the deal presented "a serious risk of a diminution of competition".

Sir Donald is a respected figure in the financial community and his call for a recasting of the takeover will have strong resonance across the whole of the business community as well as within the Financial Services Industry Advisory Board and the First Minister's Council of Economic Advisers. If his plan gains support, it could make it tough for Lloyds TSB chief executive Eric Daniels and HBOS's Andy Hornby to persuade enough shareholders to cross the 75 per cent approval hurdle.

Yesterday, shares in Lloyds TSB fell a further 15p, or 5 per cent, to 260.15p, taking the fall since Monday to almost 9 per cent.

JP Morgan analyst Carla Antunes da Silva said the takeover was "not in the best interests of shareholders and creates a UK banking giant as we go into a significant UK economic downturn".

She said: "Looking ahead we would expect meaningful loan book contraction and significant revenue attrition outpacing cost synergies." She has slashed her earnings per share estimates for Lloyds TSB by 38 per cent and cut the forecast dividend pay-out ratio to zero. Her assessment of HBOS is even more devastating, with a forecast of a 46 per cent plunge in earnings next year and 53 per cent in 2010, with massive increases in bad and doubtful debt provisions.

She says it has one of the biggest deficits of the UK banks – £9.6 billion – despite the recent £4 billion capital increase.

Also yesterday, Societe Generale cut Lloyds' target price to 290p in the wake of its Friday share price issue.

"We are of the opinion that actions speak louder than words," said the analysts. "If Lloyds had been highly confident of the strength of its capital base, it should not have needed an equity injection."

The concerns were echoed elsewhere. Keith Bowman, of Hargreaves Lansdown, said although the share price drop was down to broadly the same factors affecting the wider market – concerns over the US bad bank proposals – there was "still some concern over the enlarged group's funding".

He said: "There are concerns there is still some reliance on the inter-bank markets and that although, on the surface of it, Lloyds appear to have got a bargain, it's a fine line between whether or not they can weather the short to medium-term difficulties."

Leigh Goodwin, of Fox Pitt-Kelton, said: "There are medium-term execution risks for Lloyds TSB in doing this."

Meanwhile, Sir George, who is also chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to Alex Salmond, the First Minister, told The Scotsman he thought HBOS might have survived with earlier action from authorities on both sides of the Atlantic.

He said: "I have heard it said by people who were close to the transaction that it might not have gone ahead if (the FSA ban on short-selling and US bad bank commitment] had gone ahead a week or two earlier. That was bad luck one way, for HBOS, but good luck for Lloyds TSB.

"There's nothing wrong with short-selling per se in an orderly market. But we had a market where people were obviously trying to make (some banks] fail."

He added that "a degree of indecision" by the government and FSA had contributed to HBOS's likely fall into the arms of Lloyds.

First Minister to lobby managers

Mortgage lending falls from £4.8bn to £2.1bn

Timing of 'summit' defended by Salmond

Bill Jamieson: Congress and public fear US rescue plan

The full article contains 946 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Broughton Resident,

Edinburgh 24/09/2008 00:10:46
First sensible comments I've seen about this.

Mind you, having someone from a supermarket in charge of the BofS was a bit daft in the first place so what should we expect.
2

Stop buy Scotsman,

24/09/2008 00:18:54
Dear Gordon and Darling,

Please read this last sentence of the Scotsman,"He added that "A degree of indecision by the government (that is WESTMINISTER)and FSA had contributed to HBOS's likely fall into the arms of Lloyds".

You have fail again and again and again. Please release us from Great Britian.
3

Guga II,

Rockall 24/09/2008 03:12:03
#4.

Still spouting garbage, as usual.
4

Royster,

24/09/2008 03:29:49
It's such a great deal for Lloyds TSB, there is no way they will walk away from it. They get a quarter of the UK mortgage market and pay no cash only shares - at a third of the price they used to trade at. Who cares what the spotty-faced JPMorgan analyst says? Jealousy I suppose.
5

,

24/09/2008 05:16:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

john z,

edinburgh 24/09/2008 06:02:32
Glad to see that now the dust is settling, even those from the financial world elsewhere can see how this is not a merger, but a right royal shafting of the Bank of Scotland and Scottish financial sector at Gordon Browns london hands.

The truth will eventually come out on this, but by then the Bank of Scotland may be gone. It is a dirty deal. The shareholders are starting to see just how bad it is for them.

If JP Morgan are saying the merger is not good for shareholders, then it's time to put a stop to it. Sadly, our own Scottish Government does not have the full powers it needs to act.

There is one man working endlessly to rescue the situation, and that is former RBS economist Alex Salmond, First Minister of the Scottish Government, whose hands are a damn site more steady than the big buffoon in downing street who has sold out Scotland.

This union with engerland is just great, isn't it.
7

Rufus T. Firefly,

24/09/2008 06:44:28
What is Salmond doing about the British Energy takeover by EDF?

This is another company which currently has its Headquarters in Scotland, but not for much longer, it would seem.

What is Salmond doing about all the staff who are going to lose their jobs?

Nothing. Why is that?
8

Rob,

24/09/2008 06:50:02
What rubbish is being written on this. In a previous life as an economist in a major bank, Salmond would be dismissed as just another opinionated fat cat. His biased ranting founded on his peculiarly selfish vested interest should be taken for what it is - total nonsense.

The brand name of BoS will undoubtedly endure when the dust settles. It hasn't been a Scottish owned bank for years and never will be again - get over it.

9

Rob,

24/09/2008 06:53:41
Rufus - Salmond and SNP don't do nuclear. So they'll be delighted by this news.
10

Rufus T. Firefly,

24/09/2008 07:05:54
Yes Rob spot on.

1400 British Energy jobs may be lost as a result of the EDF takeover. The Headquarters will undoubtedly move out of Scotland as well.

Because it does not fit Salmonds political agenda, these jobs are dispensable.
11

camster,

E Kilbride 24/09/2008 07:16:03
Having all corporate functions for the mega bank based in Edinburgh is not credible and why would RBS support a move to give £bns of support to a direct competitor. What Alex and the other leaders should be fighting for are 2 things.
1) A good local business bank within the group based in Scotland funding Scottish SMEs. Scotland needs more than just RBS.
2) Fighting to keep a fair share of the retail banking jobs.

Working in manufacturing I can tell you I am sick and tired of the way that banks are considered more valuable than companies making real products. Unlike HBOS we make products that are genuinely innovative and improve people's lives. The only innovation that I can think of recently by HBOS is setting up an e-banking system that is so complicated to use that I never bother to access it and closing down 24 hour telephone banking.

I agree with Rufus British Energy is much more important to Scotland long term.
12

Boy Wonder,

24/09/2008 07:16:59
Nice to see others agreeing with me. HBOS can still operate ... and retain the Scottish HQ.

Don't throw in the towel yet!
13

Robert Mason,

Larkhall 24/09/2008 07:27:11
Check out Mackay's credentials and see if you believe him.
14

Jimmy Le Pie,

24/09/2008 07:37:27
Where is our resident half-wit, Highland Mighty/British Pride these days???

Or is he appearing under yet another guise???

Vote SNP
15

camster,

E Kilbride 24/09/2008 07:53:02
17 No Brown is a traitor for selling out British Energy to the French and Salmond is a numpty for caring more about overpaid useless bankers than nuclear engineers.
16

jtdx,

24/09/2008 07:54:15
"It has been innovative in its deal-making. And that record must be continued."

Hahahaha.

(now how do you remove cornflakes from the back of your sinuses)
17

Rob,

24/09/2008 07:55:59
Bring them on -

Brown is a numbskull, but Salmond who?

Mr Mason - nothing to check out on Mackay really, is there? Another half wit trying to ressurrect his over rewarded career - he and Matthewson are one of a kind.
18

Rob,

24/09/2008 08:06:35
#24. They should kick the French out of the near one half they own of the Scotch Whisky business while they're at it!

The other half is owned by the you know who - but they will of course be sent packing on Independence Day
19

Tynietiger,

24/09/2008 08:11:41
The personal abuse above attacking Scotland's First Minister is disgraceful. He is working his butt off trying to save up 24,000 Scottish jobs which have been sabotaged by Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling who failed to act after two previous attempts to run down HBOS shares and failed to introduce regulations to Financial Sector to prevent crazy financial models, 125% mortgages etc.
20

Ananurhing,

24/09/2008 08:14:35
This one's still got a long way to run.
As MacKay said," we had a market where people were obviously trying to make (some banks] fail."
So was this ordinary short selling, or illegal market manipulation. As always, Brown is left with keech on his hands, and soon to be blood on his shirt.
Unlike Brown, this'll run and run.
21

Am Balach,

Isle of Skye 24/09/2008 08:23:36
I think a distinction has to be made between the Labour Party member unionists who are rejoicing at the demise of HBOS (see posters above) and the rest of Scotland - nationalists and Unionists alike - who are angry that the BoS could disappear.

Even the arch-Unionists Scotsman is doing its best to try and oppose the takeover which will cause untold damage to Edinburgh as a financial centre.

It will be widely noted how these Labour apologists are resorting to personally attacking Alex Salmond and celebrating job losses in Edinburgh and the diminishment of our capital.
22

TWC,

Ayrshire 24/09/2008 08:29:01
Energy is reserved, remember. I am anti Nuclear because of the waste question. I still await the Governments plan for handling waste. I'm retired now and still no statement.
23

Rufus T. Firefly,

24/09/2008 08:48:14
#29 AM Balach, you said

"It will be widely noted how these Labour apologists are resorting to personally attacking Alex Salmond and celebrating job losses in Edinburgh and the diminishment of our capital."

Which posts above have celebrated job losses in Edinburgh? I cannot see one.

As for personal attacks on Salmond, big deal. Watch him the next time in Holyrood. He dishes out personal attacks all day long. So get over it.
24

Dissector,

Stirling 24/09/2008 08:56:05
HBOS is understood to have a wholesale money debt of £100Bn to be repaid / refinanced over 6 - 9 months. I look forward to these "experts" identifying where those funds will come from.
HBOS is up to its neck in debt of its own doing - shareholders should be delighted to get anything or do the "experts" want to go the same way as Lehmans = zero for shareholders ?
25

shivago8,

livingston 24/09/2008 09:01:14
Good on them,with the advent of merging with Lloyds,a useless ,mean interest low rates on savings my a/c.s will be moved out of HBOS
26

Rob,

24/09/2008 09:13:03
#31. I'm so glad you posted that. I too was looking for the Edinburgh bashers - couldn't find any.

#32. I think you may have your Morgan's muddled up.
27

Fairfax,

24/09/2008 09:13:56
danielrober (32): ""He spoke out as JP Morgan analysts warned that the bid was not in the best interests of Lloyds TSB shareholders." Interesting."

Very. This view also ties with rumours from LTSB quants: the potential gain from the bid, if all goes well, is great, but the potential loss is also great, given some £100 billion credit crunch loans to be refinanced at HBOS.

"Has JP Morgan not just applied for the protection of the American Government?"

I don't believe so. Are you confusing them with Lehmans (who have begun Chapter 11 proceedings in the US), or possibly Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley (who are abandoning their investment bank status within US law).
28

Fairfax,

24/09/2008 09:20:02
Royster (6): "It's such a great deal for Lloyds TSB, there is no way they will walk away from it."

That's only so if all goes well. Given the current state of the world, the £100 billion (or so) credit crunch refinancing required to place HBOS on a sound footing is an extremely high risk.

"Who cares what the spotty-faced JPMorgan analyst says? Jealousy I suppose."

I've heard Lloyds staff making similar comments. Fundamentally, this is a big punt for Lloyds, with the potential for enormous gain, but there are two problems: (i) HBOS legacy debt might doom the new bank, and (ii) political volatility in Scotland might doom the new bank.
29

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

24/09/2008 09:23:07
#37 JP Morgan has just lost its status as one of the USA's last independent investment banks - it is now a commercial bank like any other. This was all due to its own problems within the financial markets.

Perhaops the alst peopel we should be taking advice from are analysts at JP Morgan.
30

Calum10,

24/09/2008 09:25:22
We had Tony Blair's Dodgy Dossier.

Now we have Gordon Brown's Dodgy Deal: "Only 45 minutes to save the HBOS"

We are simply being lied to, once more, by a Labour government.
31

Rob,

24/09/2008 09:30:47
I think the Morgan banks are being confused. JP Morgan is a regular bank that bailed out Bear Sterans at the Feds's request. Morgan Stanley is Merchant/Investment Bank in need of a serious capital injection and became a Fed regulated bank on Monday
32

Fairfax,

24/09/2008 09:33:32
Federalist (40): "JP Morgan has just lost its status as one of the USA's last independent investment banks - it is now a commercial bank like any other."

It didn't lose this status: it decided to give up this status, as did Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. There are now no investment banks in the US technical sense.

"Perhaops the alst peopel we should be taking advice from are analysts at JP Morgan"

Their bank is still functioning, unlike Lehmans, for example. However, the opinion given is a common one: it's a big risk for Lloyds. To recall a comment from one of my former students, now a quant at LTSB: "Why should we take the risk? It would be better to keep our heads down. Even if it works, what happens if the Scots take their ball away?"
33

Fairfax,

24/09/2008 09:35:55
43: "There are now no investment banks in the US technical sense."

I should have added "amongst the big players". I believe there are still some smaller financial institutions which still maintain investment bank status.
34

Fairfax,

24/09/2008 09:40:56
Rob (42): "I think the Morgan banks are being confused. JP Morgan is a regular bank that bailed out Bear Sterans at the Feds's request. Morgan Stanley is Merchant/Investment Bank"

I agree. As I recall, JP Morgan was once an investment bank, but gave up this status years ago (long before consuming Chase Manhattan, Bear Stearns, etc).
35

livilion,

livingston 24/09/2008 09:44:20
11 Rufus T. Firefly,

The bill currently for cleaning up the first generations of nuclear sites is approaching £100bn, that's without taking into account the costs for policing the sites or for storing their nuclear waste for centuries.

Sellafield/Windscale pile number 5 which came within minutes of making northern europe uninhabitable back in the 50's is still too dangerous to go near. It will be another 20 years yet before they even try to tackle that radioactive mess.

Now explain to me why the First Minister should want to lumber us in Scotland with that and more of the same?

If its the nuclear jobs your worried about, then I suggest giving the staff say £1m each to keep them happy, it would work out much cheaper.
36

Rob,

24/09/2008 09:47:34
Fairfax. Amen. But I think JP Morgan had to dump investment Bank status when it bought Chase Manhattan. I hope that Lloyds know what they're doing on this transaction - they are very conservatively managed and that's why I have banked with them for most of my life. I wonder about RBS though - I have a horrible feeling that they'll be next up.
37

Fairfax,

24/09/2008 09:49:27
Livilion (45):

"Sellafield/Windscale pile number 5 which came within minutes of making northern europe uninhabitable back in the 50's is still too dangerous to go near."

It was a serious accident, but this is enormous exaggeration. See, for example,

http://www.lakestay.co.uk/1957.htm
38

Auld Twa,

Edinburgh 24/09/2008 10:05:21
#18 Robert Mason,Larkhall 24/09/2008 07:27:11
Check out Mackay's credentials and see if you believe him.
Here are his credentials, we think that they are sufficient for us to believe what he says -
Sir Donald MacKay, is an economist with an extensive record in advising governments, organisations and companies. He was Professor of Political Economy at Aberdeen University and Professor of Economics at Heriot-Watt University. He is a former chairman of The Malcolm Group PLC and Scottish Enterprise and is currently a director of Edinburgh New Income Trust plc.
39

Nevsky,

Moscow 24/09/2008 10:05:51
Seems alll of the leading bankers and financiers are of the opionion of most of the nationalists on this one.

This is a bad deal for Scotland and shows that most of the posts from the usual suspects over the past few days were in fact in defense of the union and had nothing to do with the actual consequences and the circumstances of the takeover.

Where are all the unionist economic experts today to contracdict people who actually know what they are talking about?

40

Nevsky,

Moscow 24/09/2008 10:09:46
11 Rufus#

Whose brother works for EDF...yes Gordon Browns. Keep it in the family as they say, a few back handers and brown envelopes will no doubt pass hands in the Labour ranks.
41

Fairfax,

24/09/2008 10:16:10
Nevsky (51): "This is a bad deal for Scotland"

As I've posted above, there is a strong City view that it's probably a bad deal for Lloyds: I hope and suspect Lloyds will step back from this deal; see my post at 43 for a rumour from LTSB.

"Where are all the unionist economic experts today to contracdict people who actually know what they are talking about?"

I'm not a unionist, but the view given by analysts in the article, namely that HBOS is really not a good bet, is one which you opposed quite strongly a few days ago. Do you now take the view that HBOS is in problems, or do you still accept the FSA's claim that it is solvent?
42

Rob,

24/09/2008 10:20:07
Peter - your second title betrays your wisdom! Lloyds Halifax will be small fry in the consolidated banking world even if the takeover goes through. Prey indeed.

Auld Twa - so an academic at best. As we concurred earlier - no credentials: when I see Scottish Enterprise listed I just laugh. Sorry.

Hen Broon - did he give Alex the same advice on Lehman Brothers?

Nevsky - I think you need to read some of the posts again.
43

Auld Twa,

Edinburgh 24/09/2008 10:24:58
#56 Rob
Didn't you notice that he is a former chairman of The Malcolm Group PLC and is currently a director of Edinburgh New Income Trust plc ?
44

Fairfax,

24/09/2008 10:29:31
Hen Broon (52): "The fraud returns, gibbering and incoherent."

You're being far too harsh on yourself: you're not incoherent. I'm also very glad you're taking my advice on brevity, at least for the moment.
45

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

24/09/2008 10:39:41
#9 This whole situation has brought forth the nastier elements within the nationalist movement - those who like to blame the English for everything. Did they complain when foreign companies took over other Scottish businesses?

But when it is an English company taking over a "Scottish" business - they go nuts.

Where were they when the Spanish Iberdrola took over Scottish Power?

Or how about when the French Pernod Ricard took over Chivas Brothers?

Or when the Dutch Heineken took over the Caledonian Brewing Company?

Or when the US private equity firm First Reserve Corporation bought the Abbot Group?

Or when India's United Breweries Group bought Whyte & Mackay?

Or when the National Australia Bank took over the Clydesdale Bank?
46

livilion,

livingston 24/09/2008 10:45:30
#48 Fairfax
Enormous exaggeration?
Don't take my word for it, here's the pdf of the government's own declassified report:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/05_10_07_ukaea.pdf

Pile number 5 was compromised in the efforts to produce plutonium and tritium for the UKs first H bomb that's why the pile caught fire in the first place.

They progressively filed away the cooling fins on the fuel rods in order to pack them ever more tightly to produce enough plutonium to make a workable bomb in time to impress the Americans into sharing their nuclear secrets with us in an attempt to maintain Britain's place with the postwar big boys.


Then they in effect tried to blow the fire out by blasting air through it, clearly nuclear physics at the time had forgotten what every housewife making up a coal fire at the time knew.

The biggest danger was in trying to extinguish the blaze using water, because in doing so they risked producing huge quantities of explosive gases which if detonated inside the nuclear reactor would send a cloud of plutonium and tritium into the atmosphere.

Chernobyl gave us an idea of the sort of areas likely to be contaminated. There they too had the same scenario when the pile went into meltdown and was heroically and tragically, narrowly prevented from dropping into water filling the void below the reactor. Estimates of the effects to the immediate blast radius range as far as 100Km from the epicentre.

Unless you are one of those advocating the health benefits of exposure to plutonium, then you would agree that water and food production -at the very least- would've been compromised by plutonium and other fission products blowing all over Europe and beyond.

47

Rob,

24/09/2008 10:57:43
#57; so? He's a parochial academic with a couple of company directorships - one of them isn't even a plc so we don't know what he contributes to that and the other's a small investment trust wrapped up in Aberdeen Group. All academics relish a couple of cosy directorships and why not? I'm sure he's a very nice man, but not someone you would take any notice of in banking circles.

48

Queen D,

Glasgow 24/09/2008 10:59:58
I see the FBI have been called in to investigate AIG.Lehmans, and the company that this paper will not allow me to name and Fred following up on insider trading in the States and here.
49

Queen D,

Glasgow 24/09/2008 11:02:56
I have had several rejections of posts from this paper accusing me of using possibly the most offensive four lettered word.
I have not used and never would use this word, and I wonder if someone uses the message as a way of NOT printing that with which they do not agree.
I did try to cut and paste it back to them last night because I find their post offensive.
50

Nevsky,

Moscow 24/09/2008 11:06:07
55 Fairfax#

'I'm not a unionist, but the view given by analysts in the article, namely that HBOS is really not a good bet, is one which you opposed quite strongly a few days ago'


Perhaps you could point out in the above article anyone who has said that HBOS is not really a good bet.

So i can't really contradict an opinion that is not stated in the article.

My opinion a few days ago is the same that it is today...i have never said HBOS was a 'good bet' as i have no idea what traders are thinking (neither do you unless you are one).

What i said was that waiting for the market to become more stable and with bacing from the Bank of England there was no probably need for this bank to fall into the hands of Lloyds/TSB...an opinion which does seem to be shared in the above article by Sir George who knows more about it than you or me i would imagine.

What does seem to be panning out is that it was..possibly wrong for Lloyds to buy, wrong for HBOS to sell, wrong for the government to aid the 'possibly illegal' sale in the first place..could all be a complete disaster!
51

Rob,

24/09/2008 11:07:42
#63 I'd call in the FBI if I were you.
52

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

24/09/2008 11:25:31
#55 LTSB are not doing this out of the goodness of their heart. They are doing this for their own benefit. They will have done the number-crunching and already made key decisions regards jobs etc.

The analysts at JP Morgan will have carried out their analysis based on the information they have available. However, such analysis will not be privy to LTSB's own internal information - the analysis may be correct based on the available public information, but may be flawed because it is based on incomplete information. It perhaps explains why JP Morgan and LTSB have such differing views as to the success/failure of any merger.

One thing is for sure, the analysis that JP Morgan has carried out says that HBOS is a bad bet - it does not say that a merger would be bad for HBOS nor does it analyse if the merger is the best option for HBOS. All it does is analsyes it from LTSB's point of view not HBOS's.

Which brings us back to my original post yesterday - what are the best available options for HBOS? We certainly cannot afford to let HBOS sink but neither is there a limitless pot of cash to bale out HBOS - HBOS is on a much bigger scale than the likes of Northern Rock. Like it or not, unless another buyer comes in to play, the merger appears to be the only realistic option on the table.

Where Alex Salmond is correct is to make sure that the merger takes place in the correct manner - especially to save as many jobs as possible and at least maintain a high level presence senior management function in Edinburgh.
53

Fairfax,

24/09/2008 11:27:20
Nevsky (64): "Perhaps you could point out in the above article anyone who has said that HBOS is not really a good bet."

Certainly. Carla da Silva, an analyst at JP Morgan, is quoted as follows: "Her assessment of HBOS is even more devastating, with a forecast of a 46 per cent plunge in earnings next year and 53 per cent in 2010, with massive increases in bad and doubtful debt provisions.

She says it has one of the biggest deficits of the UK banks – £9.6 billion – despite the recent £4 billion capital increase."

In summary: avoid like the plague!

"i have no idea what traders are thinking (neither do you unless you are one)."

I'm not a trader: I'm a mathematician, but with many former,, and current students in finance and, from time-to-time, a consultant in the numerics of option trading. Since traders gossip, their view is not hard to ascertain, but I admit my sample is small. However, you're wrong to say we have no idea of general trader opinion: LTSB's shareprice has shown a marked decrease since news of the bid arose. The general trader view is clearly negative.

"there was no probably need for this bank to fall into the "hands of Lloyds/TSB"

Possibly. Clearly HBOS thought otherwise when their share price hit 88p last week -- it must have concentrated the mind. It really was difficult to believe it would pull through last week -- I still cannot see how it will survive without some form of merger, even if LTSB withdraws: refinancing a £100 billion credit crunch legacy debt is not simple.

"What does seem to be panning out is that it was..possibly wrong for Lloyds to buy, wrong for HBOS to sell"

I'm pleased to say that I had given the opinion that it was a bad deal for LTSB two days ago:

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/LloydsHBOS-merger-still-not-a.4513566.jp#3259957






54

Nevsky,

Moscow 24/09/2008 11:32:44
66 Fed#

One solution is for the Bank of England to secure HBOS. HBOS was not in the situation of Northern Rock where it could not finance the short term, this has been continually stated by HBOS and the FSA.

Back it and wait for the markets to stabilise, if the US market stabilises so does HBOS.

55

Fairfax,

24/09/2008 11:37:42
The Federalist (66): "The analysts at JP Morgan will have carried out their analysis based on the information they have available. However, such analysis will not be privy to LTSB's own internal information"

That's correct. As for LTSB, they have certainly been thinking of this for some time -- I had been surprised that they were hiring staff to deal with credit derivatives some weeks back (not an easy field for jobs since last year), but this is now explained: they will need to work out precisely what's been going on in HBOS. However, I think you're wrong to say that LTSB is particularly sure of its decision, not least because of political volatility in Scotland -- there are strong rumours of doubts. Ultimately, of course, it's a punt: they might make lots of money and dominate the UK mortgage market during the next upturn, but they might also destroy their own bank.

"Which brings us back to my original post yesterday - what are the best available options for HBOS? We certainly cannot afford to let HBOS sink but neither is there a limitless pot of cash to bale out HBOS"

HBOS depositors must be protected, but otherwise I see no reason why it should not be allowed to sink -- or pull through, if it's very lucky. If this is Scotland's reaction to an English bank (as LTSB is perceived) taking control of HBOS, what would nationalization produce?
56

Nevsky,

Moscow 24/09/2008 11:39:32
Fairfax#

With due respect to Carla:

'Meanwhile, Sir George, who is also chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to Alex Salmond, the First Minister, told The Scotsman he thought HBOS might have survived with earlier action from authorities on both sides of the Atlantic.

He said: "I have heard it said by people who were close to the transaction that it might not have gone ahead if (the FSA ban on short-selling and US bad bank commitment] had gone ahead a week or two earlier'

Sir George says from those 'close to the transaction'...

Again i presume he knows what he is talking about.
57

Fairfax,

24/09/2008 11:42:35
Nevsky (68): "One solution is for the Bank of England to secure HBOS."

Are you suggesting nationalization or a further credit-line?

"HBOS was not in the situation of Northern Rock where it could not finance the short term, this has been continually stated by HBOS and the FSA."

It has and, by the current definitions of solvency, both are correct. Unfortunately the whole reason the Credit Crunch exists is because no bank really believes in those guarantees of solvency any longer -- HBOS certainly doesn't, given its Board's behaviour.
58

Fairfax,

24/09/2008 11:52:49
Nevsky (70): "With due respect to Carla:"

She has not claimed that HBOS will fall, simply stated its situation, in JP Morgan's view.

"he thought HBOS might have survived with earlier action from authorities on both sides of the Atlantic."

He's correct: it might have survived. It might also have failed. However, his view describes what might have happened, whilst Da Silva's view is of HBOS' situation now -- they're not inconsistent.

"I have heard it said by people who were close to the transaction that it might not have gone ahead if (the FSA ban on short-selling and US bad bank commitment] had gone ahead a week or two earlier"

Again, he might well be correct. None of this contradicts the view that HBOS has serious problems.

"Again i presume he knows what he is talking about."

He's clearly an educated observer, and he might be correct -- we'll never know. However, educated observers have failed to predict the future many times. I can recall Robert Merton giving a seminar on the low risk of Long-Term Capital Management's failure only 6 months before its utter collapse...

59

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

24/09/2008 11:54:20
#68 If HBOS were not willing to use the existing credit failities provided by the Bank of Engalnd then why on earth would they want to use any new credit facility?

Do senior managers at HBOS know something that the rest of us don't?
60

Nevsky,

Moscow 24/09/2008 12:00:28
Fairfax 67#

Here is your statement on the matter:

'I believe Lloyds thinks it's worthwhile because either (i) it will work, leaving them in an extremely strong position, or (ii) it won't work, in which case the world financial system is probably going down in any case'

Good to see you have now made you mind up after the events (always easier) although your first point seems to be completely wrong and the second point was was way off the mark as Lloyds seem to have over-extended themselves not the failing of the 'world system' (unlikely really).

I am suggesting a credit line offered to the bank might have staved this off just as Sir George and many others have put forward on these forums, an option that does not seem to have been entertained by the government but WAS entertained by the bank of England.
61

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

24/09/2008 12:03:20
I have read the article again and fail to see anywhere that Sir Donald Mackay is actually against the merger per se - he appears to be making the case for a restructuring of the new LTSB.

I don't particularly have a problem with what he is suggesting - in fact from a purely organisational position alot of what he is saying makes good sense.
62

Nevsky,

Moscow 24/09/2008 12:07:01
Fairfax#

I say this as someone who is looking at the facts, not someone who claims to have expert knowledge on banking, markets or international economics.

However, i think the central question is whether or not the bank would have failed if Lloyds had not come in; no-one knows but an extended credit line would have at least re-assured the jittery market regarding HBOS, if it would have been enough i don't know but i suspect it would.

Seems to be that there were alternatives but the situation now is that Lloyds are now in a tricky position and are subject themselves to speculation.

63

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

24/09/2008 12:07:38
#74 Nevsky - they already had a line of credit available with the Bank of England but did not use it.

One possible explantion I have heard is that if they had used the facility it would have caused a run on the bank that would have made Northern Rock look like a tea party.

64

Calvinist,

24/09/2008 12:09:58

Isn't Sir George Mathewson, the same Sir George that head a business concern that deals in er um...Short Selling? Is he one of the spivs that AS was referring to? There's real danger the Salmond and his big business cronies will scupper this deal and that HBOS will disappear into the black hole we call free market capitalism.
65

Rasco,

Inverness 24/09/2008 12:11:14
I see FBI to investigate the the America side of things when is Scotland Yard going to investigate the bank fiasco over here.
66

Fairfax,

24/09/2008 12:12:08
Nevsky (74): "'I believe Lloyds thinks it's worthwhile because either (i) it will work, leaving them in an extremely strong position, or (ii) it won't work, in which case the world financial system is probably going down in any case'"

I still hold this to be true: I'm giving my view of the decision logic of the LTSB Board, not saying it's my view -- that's why the sentence begins "I believe Lloyds thinks". Even here, my view that it's risky is encapsulated in (ii).

"Good to see you have now made you mind up after the events (always easier)"

I first gave my view of the risk for LTSB two days ago, as I reference in my earlier post. Why do you believe I have been inconsistent?

"although your first point seems to be completely wrong and the second point was was way off the mark as Lloyds seem to have over-extended themselves not the failing of the 'world system' (unlikely really)."

You have misunderstood the sentence: it's a postulated either-or. As for the failing of the world system, which you believe to be unlikely, it's good to hear optimism. As you may have noticed, Bernanke and Paulson explicitly referred to the possible failing of the world financial system when posing their deal to Congress.
67

Nevsky,

Moscow 24/09/2008 12:12:26
77 Fed#

As possibe as the other scenario, we will never know i guess.
68

WL,

livingston 24/09/2008 12:13:03
I don't remember having seen what the Competition Commission says about the proposed takeover; or have they been silenced by the politicians?
69

Fairfax,

24/09/2008 12:16:06
Nevsky (76): "have at least re-assured the jittery market regarding HBOS, if it would have been enough i don't know but i suspect it would."

You might be correct, although the HBOS debt is very large. The Federalist's point at (77) is an important one, however: using the lender of last resort is an invitation to share-price collapse. It would be better if such stigma did not attach to use of central bank facilities, but it seems to at present.
70

Stephen_Gash,

Carlisle England 24/09/2008 12:20:32
So, Sir Donald Mackay wants HBOS run in the same way Scotland has been for the past 301 years - bailed out but retaining its identity and in control mismanaging matters.

The MaCakeneatits. I wish Scotland would just go - NOW
71

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

24/09/2008 12:21:33
#81 If the Bank of England had given an extended credit line I don't believe there was the willingness to use it.

I have suggested one reason but there is a more obvious one - pure personal greed on the part of HBOS's senior managers. Why use a line of credit that makes your company look toxic to buyers when you know there is a merger down the road that can give you a nice little £2.5 million payout like Mr Hornby?
72

Nevsky,

Moscow 24/09/2008 12:27:11
80 Fairfax#

Considering as soon as the news Lloyds on the market Lloyds immediately were subject to talk of over-extending themselves you are probably a few days late in stating your view (you have one at last).

Your view then (let's be pedantic shall we) that you 'believe' (ok?) this was Lloyds thinking is that Lloyds would be ok (amazing)..or you thought that they thought if it went t**s up it did not matter as the world markets would collapse anyway..why not put in the source to Bernanke and Paulson then?

Is this your view, that world markets will collapse? If not can you explain how you believed that Lloyds believed it in the first place..in your belief?

Phew..coffee time!



73

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 24/09/2008 12:33:36
14 Rufus

Yes, that's the takeover of the UK's nuclear power stations by the French Government (they own 85% of EDF) encouraged by Brown.

Let's hope there's no political fanatasist in charge of France in the future. (Le Penn?)

Wonder if they'll subsidise French Nuclear from British Nuclear in years to come. Apparently they've already done this with EDF.
74

daveydees,

Edinburgh 24/09/2008 12:34:51
I am sure I am not the only man in Edinburgh who is hoping that we wont have to share our city with so many bankers. Obviously I feel a bit sorry for the folk whose 'safe as houses' jobs are now less secure, but I can only feel pleased that when the smart students graduate, they will be able to enter productive employment rather than wasting their intelligence as money lenders.
This is a fantastic opportunity for Edinburgh and Scotland as a whole to escape the mesmerising but false idea that pushing money around makes us richer. We need to work to create real wealth - useful goods and services - our country is better than just a peddler of loans, insurance & pensions.
75

brianmca3,

edinburgh 24/09/2008 12:37:25
well well now i havent heard scottish labour much on the take over,its always the same,scotland is just a ,or should i say was a voting paradise for labour,for no matter how bad or good liebour were,the voters all went out and voted for them
well now that the kids of thatchers reign are adults,they are angry with the liebour and its oinionists,they cant get get a cooncil hoose cause they aint a refugee,thatcher flogged off scotland,years ago,blair followed suite,and now its broons time
broon in the words of the one and only rufus t firefly (groucho rools)"id horse whip you,if i had a horse"
i hope this is all sorted to scotlands benefit but then again pigs may fly
76

Team Scotland,

FC UK No! 24/09/2008 12:41:56

As an employee of HBOS I have decided not to contribute to these threads due to the low level of understanding and debate. I do not think anyone who has an understanding of this issue will post here. The purile football hooligan style posts have at least helped me identify posters who are not to be taken seriously on other issues.

77

Nevsky,

Moscow 24/09/2008 12:42:51
85 Fed#

Cynical but possible. Quite amazing the while people are talking about jobs one of the first to be negotiated was Hornby's along with what cash he would recieve...in fact that seems to have been concluded with breathtaking pace.

Nice little incentive when you are making decisions 'on behalf of your cutomers of course'...a possible £2.5 milion waiting for you!
78

Fairfax,

24/09/2008 12:50:43
Nevsky (86): "Considering as soon as the news Lloyds on the market Lloyds immediately were subject to talk of over-extending themselves you are probably a few days late in stating your view (you have one at last)."

I've been giving this view for several days.

"Your view then (let's be pedantic shall we)"

To be pedantic, my view is exactly as you have quoted in (74). To summarize again, I think Lloyds is willing to take this risk because either (i) they'll make lots of money, or (ii) the high risk of systemic failure will provide generous funding (or nationalization) from the UK government.

"why not put in the source to Bernanke and Paulson then?"

You can simply Google for this, but here's one of very many most recent references:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hA-KESrqsg3Mxb61kEX9F0NvY2tA

Senior economists and bankers avoid dramatic language, but they are currently petitioning Congress to fund their plan because of the risk of total US financial collapse, together with world markets.

"Is this your view, that world markets will collapse?"

I hope not, but I think there's still a fairly high likelihood of collapse, on the scale of the early 1930s.
79

TWC,

Ayrshire 24/09/2008 12:53:23
I don't think there was a conspiracy in HBoS just greed and incompetence, but the enquiry will expose all the warts.
Where I do think there is a conspiracy is the current strike in Scotland while, in England where the offer is lower, the same unions are taking no strike action.
This I think is the Unions manipulating their members.
I may never vote for Independence, if the alternatives are suitable, but I will change my mind if any organisation tries to control my Country.
Does anyone else have concerns about this?






80

Brian Hill,

Edinburgh 24/09/2008 12:58:59
It would appear that this take over is going to unify Scotland as never before and make people even more pro independence, no matter what the outcome.

One man guaranteed to come out of this smelling of roses, no matter the outcome, will be Alex Salmond who is working his socks of to get the best deal for Scotland.

Alex Neil's reputation is also being enhanced as is that of the leading Scottish financiers wading in to challenge the terms of this takeover, not to mention the ethics behind it.

Margo MacDonald deserves a mention too for her efforts on the legal side, guided no doubt by lawyer husband Jim Sillars.
81

Ewan M,

24/09/2008 13:27:47
#95 Alex salmond has worked the siutation to suit his own and his parties interest above all else.

If the look at the educated comments even from Hornby himself Alex salmond has misled people on the situation with his usual smart references. The problem will lie if people take what he says as fact and vote for this party. Congratulations to the Labour Party who could no more than they did, i'm not a labour supporter. If it unites Scotland it should unite them against Salmonds band exploiting every opportunity to promote their seperist agenda. This is peoples lives and futures and his comments should be based on fact. I'm afraid the blame her lies squarely with the HBOS board strategy for rasing money, simply as.
82

TWC,

Ayrshire 24/09/2008 13:34:38
96.
Smell the coffee man, the Union as we knew it is finished.
Scotland needs to collect all it's own money and run itself. We may still me part of the UK but the Scottish Parliament will have Full fiscal Autonomy. We have different needs from the south west of England so we need diffferent policies. That's what I want.
The only alternative would be Independence.
83

Nevsky,

Moscow 24/09/2008 13:37:16
96 Ewan#

Could you tell us what strategies Brown and Darling have tried to put in place and how many meetings they have had with Lloyds and HBOS, Scottish Widows, Unions and senior bankers in Scotland to date?

I think you will find not one! He is trying as i am sure 'some' Labour figures in Scotland are. Might have escaped your notice that Brown and Darling have been trying to save their jobs instead, they are a disgrace!
84

sonofhamish,

edinburgh 24/09/2008 13:56:59
This idea that Salmon is a safe pair of hands is non-sense, he was a run of the mill economist for a bank, it doesn't qualify him to run a country and all his postering and hot air just show what a buffoon he is.

HBOS was and still is a solid company and was not failing the way that Northern Rock did. It simply became a victim of confidence.

If this takeover lends some stability to the financial industry then it should go ahead, it might some job losses in Scotland but better that than what happened at Northern Rock and huge losses UK wide.

85

Nevsky,

Moscow 24/09/2008 13:59:04
99 hamish#

Darling was a solicitor does that make him more qualified to run the UK economy?
86

,

24/09/2008 13:59:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
87

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

24/09/2008 14:00:00
#97 The status quo as it stands was dead long before the events of the last few weeks - the moment the SNP became the Scottish government was when the goalposts shifted.

It is no longer a choice between the status quo and and independence but between further devolution and independence - something that most gradualist nationalists would regard as a win-win situation.
88

Fairfax,

24/09/2008 14:15:27
Jwil (101): "The union is finished, confirmed by Brown's speech yesterday. It was all about England, England, England."

I despise Labour and look forward to Scottish secession. However, Brown's full speech contained no explicit mention of "England" or "Scotland", except for a single use of the compound "Bank of England"; here's the full text:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/sep/26/speeches.labourconference
89

Cuthulan,

approx. 12,000 miles from Earth's core 24/09/2008 14:17:17
IMHO ....This solution will benefit the incompitant HBOS Bosses but do nothing for the workers and HBOS will be asset stripped for the benefit of Lloyds trustees.The HBOS situation was caused by pure unregulated GREED and incompitance. Filling up on SO much American debt ,the result was INEVITABLE ,as an effect of Fractional Reserve Banking ,unavoidable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking
Basically creating money out of thin air. The more DEBT they create the more money they can make charging for services and interest. This artificially drives up Housing prices etc. as there appears more people can afford to bid for the items.
Unfortunately when people default on loans , the banks DO NOT HAVE ANY REAL MONEY to cover this, they loan out 400 for every 100 coming in.So if you have your life saving in a bank , please buy gold or a similar commodity to cover yourself.
In the current economic situation , and all forseable economic situations ,independance is the ONLY solution for Scotland and its enterprises.We(the people) need to have control over our currency and our banking system.
UNIONISM drives business OUT of Scotland and causes unemployment as all the economic rates are set for the South of England.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/198830.stm
So being part of the Union will cripple Scottish industry for the forseable future.
As for the taxpayer bailing out these FAILED banks Northern Rock etc, SORRY NO!! IF you are a capitalist it is quite simple , if the banks fails it goes DOWN and will be replaced by a better more responsible bank/system. The Bailout will NOT solve this situation ,it will only delay it.I pay a lot of tax , and I have no problems with it going to the sick and the elderly and education and general infrastructure. NO WAY should it go to line the pockets of these incompitants , who created the situation in the first place.
I have to get back to work now ,so do not expect a reply.....
90

TWC,

Ayrshire 24/09/2008 14:21:06
102.
Was I mnot saying the same as you - FFA or Independence.
91

Edinburghs only big team,

24/09/2008 14:32:46
Ah yes.

and the government is really going to listen to Mackay.

Wot a lot of rot....
92

camster,

E Kilbride 24/09/2008 14:41:13
According to the Telegraph HBOS has 66% of its tangible equity tied up in toxic US mortgage debt. In comparison Lloyds has 25% and RBS 29%. This is why the bank needs to be sold.

I am sitting in HK today watching long queues forming because there is a rumour that Bank of East Asia lost money on Lehmans debt and its exposure is only a few million not £7bn. HBOS is going under because it made a massive blunder. How does this turn into a English / Scottish fight?
93

Fairfax,

24/09/2008 14:59:53
camster (107): "According to the Telegraph HBOS has 66% of its tangible equity tied up in toxic US mortgage debt. In comparison Lloyds has 25% and RBS 29%."

It's not merely the exposure to US mortgage debt. HBOS is also exposed to UK mortgage debt. The JP Morgan analyst in the article gives her disturbing view: "a forecast of a 46 per cent plunge in earnings next year and 53 per cent in 2010, with massive increases in bad and doubtful debt provisions." and "one of the biggest deficits of the UK banks – £9.6 billion – despite the recent £4 billion capital increase."

Nevertheless, you will still find posters above clutching at the FSA's statement that HBOS is solvent, or at other optimistic comments that HBOS might pull through. Of course HBOS might indeed survive, but the figures do not look good.

"HBOS is going under because it made a massive blunder. How does this turn into a English / Scottish fight? "

I think that's easy to understand: Lloyds is perceived to be an English bank taking over a key Scottish bank. The UK suspension of competition restrictions making this possible is also seen as UK government collusion, rather than UK government desperation in the face of the likely demise of a high-street bank.
94

brianmca3,

edinburgh 24/09/2008 15:11:28
no wonder scots want to get away from theiving westminster,under freedom of information,the figures that follow were released in 1999,and quickly withdrawn
1:london gets £8,404 per head for year/scotland gets£8,623 per head/irish get£9,385 per citizen a year
2 londons civil service jobs,are not counted by westminster as gov spending in london ,that includes mod dept of culture,foriegn office etc
3 museums institutions that are classed as national resources arent counted as gov spending in london
national gallery gets £26 million a year
£45 million a year to natural history museum
£45 million goes to british museum
national museum of scotland which the gov doesnt count as its classed as being only for scotland gets £15 million a year (oh what a surprise there eh)
4 BBC annual budget is £4 billion a year almost half the sum spent on health in scotland
bbc report states that they made 44,234 hours of tv in london compared to 2,495 hours in scotland ,they spent,a tiny £106million in scotland out of just £505 million outside london that leaves a hell of a lot in london and it was a scotsman who invented the tv
5 olympics the millenium dome cost £789 million roughly twice what it cost to build the scottish parliament
lottery is now ready to fund london with the olympics which have been estimated at a cost of £5billion this in 1 city alone
6 london underground new tube line cost £3.5 billion thats 3.5 times what the cost of a new bridge over the forth in scotland
scotlands entire transport budget is £2.3 billion and covers one third of the land mass of the uk

so we see who really are the subsidy junkies yes westminster feeds billions into london and sod the rest of the uk citizens
no wonder scots are wanting away when all our tax money and oil revenue seems to be proping up england,and to add insult bank of england was established by a scot bet hes spinning in his grave
so before you whine about scots again remember we gave the world the tv the phone tar
95

Cuthulan,

approx. 12,000 miles from Earth's core 24/09/2008 15:28:06
Just a quick comment..
#107 camster
I totaly agree with what you say ,but just incase it was my post that caused the
"How does this turn into a English / Scottish fight?"
comment
I agree ,it has nothing to do with an English Scottish fight ,but while Scotland remains tied to England, while England sets the business rates , Scotland and its industries will be sidelined and put at an unfair disadvantage. THUS
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/198830.stm
Especially in this economic climate we need to regain control of our industries. I have nothing against the English or any other European country.These will be our biggest markets!!

#108 Faifax
totally agree.

#109 brianmca3
Too True!!
and penicillin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Flemming
and do not forget it was Adam Smith who invented capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_smith
But maybe we should keep that quiet ;-)
and a few more things as well....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_inventions_and_discoveries
96

,

24/09/2008 16:24:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
97

Active Sassenach,

Luton, England 24/09/2008 16:58:51
Tony Blair is a director of J P Morgan. This could be the continuation of the war between No 10 and No 11 by other means!http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7180306.stm

Put it down to economic changes caused by globalisation. If the two Sirs, Donald and George, would like to join with Alex Salmond in making this a Scottish independence issue, they should note that politics and business make uncomfortable bedfellows. Business and nationalism make disastrous bedfellows as Anthony Eden discovered at Suez. I imagine both men will remember subscribing to the London Stock Exchange for the Rosneft flotation using assets stolen from Yukos.

They are welcome to destabilise shareholder sentiment on the Lloyds/HBOS combination as long as they have a plan B. They are not welcome to use the competition issue as a distraction as the government elected for the purpose has already set competition considerations aside. Nor are they welcome to use loss of innovation as an argument. It is the Bank of Scotland's innovation in following the HBOS method of funding mortgages that has caused the problem.

Hargreaves Lansdown were fined by the FSA for a misleading financial promotion in June 2004 so they have no business making comments.
98

camster,

E Kilbride 24/09/2008 17:15:26
110 I thought the Scottish Parliament set business rates. As a manufacturer our company pays £2k per person per year for the privilege of being in Scotland irrespective of if we make a profit. Oh and if we run short of money they send in the sherrif officer. I have no problem with Alex trying to save the jobs of some poor callcentre employees on minimum wage but I do object to my taxes being spent bailing out some useless overpaid corporate bankers who gambled our savings on the US Wall Street casino and lost.
99

Cuthulan,

approx.12,000 miles from Earth's core 24/09/2008 19:30:58
#114 camster
Business rates ,yes you are right.But what I actually was meaning was the BANK RATES for business are set by the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_Policy_Committee
These guys have the South East of Englands interests at heart. This will mean more business loss and unemployment in Scotland. That's why I said earlier
"We(the people) need to have control over our currency and our banking system."
Hope that clarifys my slightly misleading "business rate" statement,it was a rushed post, BUT I agree with all you say .
100

An Beal Bacht,

24/09/2008 19:38:33
This is the beginning of the end for capitalism and the west. Doomed by their own profligacy. Better start learning Cantonese.
101

An Beal Bacht,

24/09/2008 19:38:35
This is the beginning of the end for capitalism and the west. Doomed by their own profligacy. Better start learning Cantonese.
102

An Beal Bacht,

24/09/2008 19:38:38
This is the beginning of the end for capitalism and the west. Doomed by their own profligacy. Better start learning Cantonese.
103

Cuthulan,

approx.12,000 miles from Earth's core 24/09/2008 20:16:21
A Last Post (pun intended)
I should not respond to such "West is Doomed" nonsense ,but.............
Credit Crisis Breeding Fascism for the "Public Good"
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article6412.html

" The multi-trillion dollar state support of JP Morgan, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and now perhaps soon GM, Ford, and Chrysler is fascism, not socialism.
Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.
Benito Mussolini, fascist dictator of Italy (1922-1943)
[Public Private partnership anyone??]
What is ironic is that China , a self-described socialist state, is increasingly now responsible for the well-being of the US , a nation rapidly transforming itself into a fascist nation right before our eyes; and, while this might be the ultimate resolution of the two competing ideologies of the 20th century, I don't think so. Instead, it could be the end of both."
........he's not the only one thinking that.
It is somewhat similar to the last Fascist coup attempt in the USA in 1934 against Roosevelt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
"The 2007 BBC radio documentary The White House Coup said that Prescott Bush, father of former President of the United States George H. W. Bush and the grandfather of President George W. Bush, was connected with the plot"
104

Ewan M,

24/09/2008 20:50:02
#98 Nevsky it was Brown and Darling that set up the HBOS deal. I find it worrying you think because Salmond is running around meeting everyone he cares more than anyone else, he is Scotlands First Minister that is his job Brown and dDrling govern the whole the UK. Was it not Darling which secured more Scottish jobs?

I find it interesting the influence Salmond has as first minister that the Lloyds boss doesn't even bother to meet Salmond he sent the Scottish Widows CEO. This would not change as an Independent Scotland size and power are the name of the game and although I am sure we would be extended a lot of goodwill that does not go far in business.

I think Scotland will never choose independence because most people understand guys like Nevsky do not convince people it would improve people lives based on the facts a bit like Salmond.

105

truthsleuth,

24/09/2008 23:56:17
Advice from a financier - talk about the blind leading the daft in the pursuit of self interest.
106

The Pict.,

Canada 25/09/2008 03:13:08
Rufus Firefly. Your patronizing of the English is sickening. It's lackies like you who over the years have put Scotland in it subservant role. Why don't you just move to your England so you can bow and scrape to your masters. You can't recover from your ' Ah canny dae that ' mentality so perhaps you should also take a kneeling mat so you won't dirty your knees when you kneel.

It's great to have Alex Salmond as PRIME MINISTER of Scotland. AT least he has the GUTS to stand up for Scots and has given all Scots (except you Lackies) PRIDE in their country.

Slainte mhath
107

The Pict.,

Canada 25/09/2008 03:26:44
Rufus Firefly. Your patronizing of the English is sickening. It's lackies like you who over the years have put Scotland in it subservant role. Why don't you just move to your England so you can bow and scrape to your masters. You can't recover from your ' Ah canny dae that ' mentality so perhaps you should also take a kneeling mat so you won't dirty your knees when you kneel.

It's great to have Alex Salmond as PRIME MINISTER of Scotland. AT least he has the GUTS to stand up for Scots and has given all Scots (except you Lackies) PRIDE in their country.

Slainte mhath
108

livilion,

livingston 25/09/2008 09:01:51
#123 The Pict

Second that!
How refreshing to have Scotland's interests defended at long, long, last by a First Minister who at the first sign of trouble doesn't just grab his ankles, assume the position, and think of England.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.