Will Lloyds' chiefs resign?
For the original shareholders of Lloyds TSB, the takeover of HBOS has been an almost unmitigated disaster.
The slight mitigation is that in three or four years, the cleaned up, enlarged group just might be a formidable force in retail banking, able to exploit to its profitable advantage an unrivalled share of the market.
But that's a way off. Right now, the salient fact about the deal is that it hobbled Lloyds - because of HBOS's massive losses on loans to companies and potentially big losses on its massive exposure to the mortgage market.
And to prevent HBOS destroying Lloyds, the battered bank has had to pay a substantial price to us - to taxpayers - for insurance against future losses.
And it has also had to raise additional capital from us, which means that - barring an extraordinary turn of events - the state will end up owning somewhere between 65% and 77% of the bank (up from 43% now).
So many would say that Lloyds is effectively now under state control. And Lloyds has had to give away a vast amount of future profit to its new public-sector owners (that's us) to secure a rescue from us.
If you are a long-standing Lloyds shareholder and you're feeling a little miffed, then I wouldn't be at all surprised.
You wouldn't weep, probably, if Blank and Daniels were defenestrated. In fact, you might give them a little nudge through the vitrine.
But just under half of Lloyds' private sector shareholders were HBOS owners. And - quite frankly - they should be enormous fans of Blank and Daniels.
Because it's quite clear from the details that have been released this weekend on the assets insured by taxpayers - with 83% of these loans coming from the "HBOS legacy book" - that HBOS would have been 100% nationalised were it not for the Lloyds takeover.
Or, to put it another way, HBOS shareholders would have suffered the same ghastly fate as investors in Northern Rock and in Bradford & Bingley: they would have got nothing, not a bean, instead of the bits of Lloyds paper which are worth a few pennies each and are an option on future recovery.
It would therefore be a bit churlish of HBOS's erstwhile owners to call for Blank and Daniels to be guillotined - unless, that is, they have no confidence in their management ability.
But the lesson of recent history is that Daniels and Blank ran Lloyds significantly better than HBOS was managed (until, that is, they made what appears to have been the calamitous decision to buy HBOS).
In a way, of course, this examination of what private-sector shareholders think is irrelevant - because Lloyds is controlled by the state.
And since the prime minister has signalled that he wants Blank and Daniels to stay, that should be a done deal.
Except for one thing.
Daniels and Blank, as a point of principle, did not want state ownership to go over 50%.
And they fought hard to prevent that.
So, some would say, it would be a bit rich - the height of hypocrisy, perhaps - for them to protect themselves from the boot by falling back on the support of the prime minister.
Which is why, some might say, they should take a leaf our of Barclays' book and offer themselves up for re-election - while asking HMG to abstain.
Such a gesture would be an impressive - and unusual - manifestation of bank chiefs putting principle before personal advantage.
I guess it might happen, but why are you looking at me as though I've taken leave of my senses?