BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Brodick1

Listed below are comments made by Brodick1 between Monday, 10th November 2008 and Tuesday, 18th November 2008.

«Newer
Older»

Darling v Mathewson and Burt 1:01pm on 18 Nov 2008 This is simply scaremongering by an incompetent Government determined to push an unsatisfactory deal through at all costs in order to save face.

As with the "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, when Governments have no case and no evidence, they resort to scare tactics. Most people won't buy it.

It is in the interests of shareholders, employees and the British consumer that HBOS remains independent.
HBOS says independence equals nationalisation 7:01pm on 14 Nov 2008 That HBOS's current management, led by Chairman Lord Stevenson and Chief Executive Andy Hornby, have failed shareholders through risky lending strategies and careless expansion.

That is an allegation of criminal negligence against Stevenson and Hornby. Questions need to be answered:
1:Why is the Serious Fraud Office not investigating this?
2: At what point did the FSA become aware of HBOS's negligence with shareholders funds?
3: To what extent is the Government involved in a conspiracy to cover this up?

The shareholders in HBOS as well as the general public need answers.
HBOS says independence equals nationalisation 6:49pm on 14 Nov 2008 "So for HBOS's case to be taken over by Lloyds to remain totally and utterly compelling, its chairman Lord Stevenson needs to demonstrate that he is right to fear that the FSA would now demand that the bank raise more capital and also that the Treasury would provide this capital on worse terms"

Why does Lord Stevenson not clear off and let some other person not tainted by his failures make the assessment about how much capital is required?
HBOS needs a new board.
Barclays and British investors 12:24pm on 14 Nov 2008 #78
!It is very naive to think that the treasury would give any bank a blank cheque to keep it going without conditions"

That's over simplistic. You haven't understood what the bail out is actually doing. It is not offering blank cheques. It is a Government guarantee with a recapitalisation.

"In the case of HBOS, the condition for the getting the money would be a sustainable and realistic business plan"

ALL of the banks business plans are not viable and that is why they require Government support (and Qatar and UAE are Government funds too), Lloyds TSB included. They are all over leveraged (13 times tier 1 capital, on average). Barclays may not like the British Governments terms, but will they like the constraints the Arabs will put on them either?
Barclays and British investors 11:20am on 14 Nov 2008 Barclays doesn't want to take British Government money because it doesn't want the Government scrutinising its books.
Barclays has become an investment bank with a smaller low profit retail arm and if the truth was revealed regarding its derivatives contracts, the bail out required may be larger than UK Treasury could cope with.

Accepting bailouts from Arab Governments is risky. Their aims are not purely commercial. Their overriding consideration is the Islamification of Britain and they will use Barclays for that end. Wait for Sharia Banking (nothing to do with the Koran, just a 20th Century inventon for furthering Islamic cultural expansion) in Britain and Europe via Barclay's branches.
Barclays and British investors 11:07am on 14 Nov 2008 "That said, Barclays wouldn't be at risk of going bust if shareholders forced it to cancel the deal - because the Treasury has promised that all major British banks can raise the capital they need from taxpayers."

Yes exactly. Why then can HBOS not do the same instead of being forced into an absurd takeover which will create a market dominating bank which will eventually be required to break up?
Bank of China sniffs HBOS 7:33pm on 10 Nov 2008 # 50: "As a shareholder, I would happily wait a bit longer for a cash dividend if it meant less social disruption"

Somewhat naive. The function of a bank is to make a profit, not to act as a tool of social policy. The hypothetical merged bank will almost assuredly not make profits for a long time. If HBOS is in the dire condition which Peston would have us believe (it is not), then the broken black horse may face an accelerated departure from Intensive Care into the mortuary. The cost to the UK tax payer is likely then to very, very substantial.

The cheapest cost to the tax payer is to part nationalise both banks separately until they can be nursed back to health. The alternative is that they get snapped up by foreigners with a huge loss of potential tax revenue to the Treasury.

Furthermore if the Bank of China makes a bid, Gordon and the Government are over a barrel. If Gordon tries to block it, China may not buy up all the Treasury Bonds that Gordon needs to sell to finance his tax cuts and spending plans. Then he would be calling in the IMF faster than he thinks. The UK's financial circumstances are precarious.
Bank of China sniffs HBOS 4:51pm on 10 Nov 2008 This is a piece of Government propaganda intended to frighten the HBOS shareholders into accepting the takeover. The question you haven't addressed is that if HBOS is in such a critical condition, why is Lloyds buying it? And if Lloyds is interested in buying it why not other parties?

The Bank of China is in a substantially better cash position than Lloyds and can offer the HBOS shareholders a better cash deal. It is also better positioned to weather the storms of recession. The housing market will eventually recover and BOC can make a massive profit.

Bankers don't save other banks out of the goodness of their hearts. I would trust Mathieson and Burt over the incompetents in Government and the HBOS board. Furthermore Hector Sants of the FSA,himself confirmed that HBOS could survive independently.

The "nebulous thing in the bush spotted by the duo of banking knights who want HBOS to remain independent" is in fact a serious offer for a much required independent assessment. There is plenty of time. The shareholders meeting is December and all stakeholders in the company deserve to see the current board dismissed and replaced with a board which is open to all options and not merely interested in covering up its misdemeanours.
Will HBOS stay independent? 4:02pm on 10 Nov 2008 #186

BOS was not taken over by Halifax. It was a highly profitable, innovative and well run bank which merged with Halifax, after it failed to beat RBS to buy NatWest. Peter Burt ran it well and it is upon his departure and eventual replacement by Horby/Stevenson that the HBOS started its terminal decline.

The current board have been discredited but depsite this want to hang on to get as much out of the bank as they can. Certainly none are due to take up positions in the hypothetical merged bank but they have been offered lucrative short term contracts which they don't want to lose.

It is manifest that they are not acting in shareholders interests and there is also a possibility that they may have been involved in fraudulent actions. It is thus mandatory that an independent assessment is made and if indicated a forensic assessment with a view to referral to the Serious Fraud Office.
Bank duo pose questions 3:45pm on 10 Nov 2008 The merger of 2 financially unsound companies cannot produce a stable bank. Both banks need to be stabilised individually or sold to other stable banks.

The proposed merged bank will in all probablity require further Government cash later on to weather the storms of recession and integration. Its size will invite demands from the EU to be broken up. It will thus end up as a series of fragmented disparate entities. This is not a means of value creation for shareholders.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

Brodick1