claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
It is to be called Lloyds-Halifax.
That's logical, although I assume they will keep the Bank of Scotland as a trading name, at least north of the border.
It is to be called Lloyds-Halifax.
Apparently not. It'll be Lloyds-Halifax. But "we" get to keep the name Bank of Scotland on bank notes. Which is a nice useful thing, and a comfort to the thousands who'll lose their jobs.North of the border, they can call it The Savings Bank of Scotland.
That's logical, although I assume they will keep the Bank of Scotland as a trading name, at least north of the border.
Not according to BBC Radio Scotland, or the Scottish edition of the Times, or the Scotsman (both of which I have n front of me).BBC is reporting they will continue to print & issue Bank of Scotland notes, which confirms they will keep that name.
Not according to BBC Radio Scotland, or the Scottish edition of the Times, or the Scotsman (both of which I have n front of me).
The name will remain on notes only. (The notes were BoS for the 7 years the company was called HBOS).
It was, yes, in the HBOS years. But that isn't what's being reported this morning.But what was the name on the branch offices, still BoS?
I don't know. The reason that Lloyds were a logical choice was because alone of pretty much all the banks, they have maintained very strict lending controls through the cycle. Consequently, they do not have the subprime problems and they have a lot of liquidity. The whole point of this is that the combined entity is trouble-free.
Apparently not. I haven't seen the books personally, but we're told HBOS was well capitalised, and that the run was a result of short selling. (Traders selling securities they don't own. Effectively betting on the bank in the hope of making money).Yes but now as a consequence they have lots of dodgy loans.
I don't know. The reason that Lloyds were a logical choice was because alone of pretty much all the banks, they have maintained very strict lending controls through the cycle. Consequently, they do not have the subprime problems and they have a lot of liquidity. The whole point of this is that the combined entity is trouble-free.
And it seems up to 40, 000 jobs may be lost. So those people probably aren't feeling very "saved" this morning.
It was, yes, in the HBOS years. But that isn't what's being reported this morning.
The reports could be wrong, but they say Lloyds-Halifax will be the branding on all but the notes.
Because it was losing value in the magnitude of a third its value in an hour.Well now I don't really get it. Just because a banks share price tumbles, why does that mean that it has to be sold? Can't it just wait out the speculation? Or is it purely a question of confidence?
A lack of confidence in the very real issue of whether it can survive its exposure in the property market, no?Well now I don't really get it. Just because a banks share price tumbles, why does that mean that it has to be sold? Can't it just wait out the speculation? Or is it purely a question of confidence?
Well now I don't really get it. Just because a banks share price tumbles, why does that mean that it has to be sold? Can't it just wait out the speculation? Or is it purely a question of confidence?
So what, though? If you own an investment that you believe is fundamentally sound and some stupid bear market decides to temporarily undervalue it, do you sell it at its lowest ebb or do you just wait it out?Because it was losing value in the magnitude of a third its value in an hour.
Apparently so, but I still don't really see why that has to happen.At that rate either the government nationalizes, or a buyer is found.
Not really. The question was its share value, and whether a run would see it worthless.A lack of confidence in the very real issue of whether it can survive its exposure in the property market, no?
But we're now being told that it doesn't actually have any problems from exposure int he property market. The owners of the business who can actually see the management accounts must know this, so why sell it at fire-sale prices?A lack of confidence in the very real issue of whether it can survive its exposure in the property market, no?
That's the illogicality of the market. 2 things are wrong here:So what, though? If you own an investment that you believe is fundamentally sound and some stupid bear market decides to temporarily undervalue it, do you sell it at its lowest ebb or do you just wait it out?
Apparently so, but I still don't really see why that has to happen.
So the real issue is whether its collapse in share price would make its actual customers jittery enough to withdraw all their money?Not really. The question was its share value, and whether a run would see it worthless.
Precisely.So the real issue is whether its collapse in share price would make its actual customers jittery enough to withdraw all their money?

Every time I wake up a new bank is doing the crises-lurch![]()


As a trading strategy that logic is sooooo made of fail. . . logic tells you to hold on and sell on a rising market
