ianrobo1

Ian, you and I both don't know the full details of the Lloyds takeover, but it wouldn't surprise me if in future years it is investigated somewhat seriously. The losses of 10bn are, IMO, somewhat massively over-exaggerated. I would suggest that before the takeover that figure would be nowhere near (I may be wrong obviously, I'm not at a level to know this). There are a lot of people in this whole takeover who will do seriously well while I suffer on my <20k wage. I have a theory that the banks are doing this to force the government to wipe out their debts that would naturally occur in a recession anyway what has to happen is that the government in the good times gets all the money back plus interest

the deal went through because Lloyds saw a great chance o the cheap to get a market share that they could not have been allowed under 'normal' circumstances it had to be done quick otherwie HBOS was going down, it appears Lloyds never knew the full extent, they have not blamed anyoe, it was their descion, they could have walked away

Trim it is not the government who got you into the mess but the bosses and traders in all the big banks

yes Juju it is so ridolcous and few complained at the time, I uderstand goodwin was hardly popular amongst staff memebers !!

Damn right, even I love Chloe.. Is that cos you'd like to marry her and take her name? Yes :cry: Ian, you could of got a better pic it was the best I could do ... but it is not Chloe

npw she is there, just the one

maybe Snowy and that will be the test, I am interested from a political point to note as you say not many calling for that but it will have to come not heard Osbourne, Clarke, Cameron, Darling, brown come out yet for far stricter regulation those wedded to the free market are still in denial it failed

they were and seemed somewhat trying to brush the FSA of some of the blame, it seems they could have been happy with Liassez-faire at the time. the issue has always been the lax regulation, the markets wanted 'laissez-faire' especially after 9/11 and polticians and head bankers like greenspan were happy to play along with this because the city would have cried excess red tape and poltical intervention. Times have moved on and clearly from now on the Banks will have heavy regulation a philopshy abanoned in the 80's with allowing Building soceities to de-mutalise as an example is anyone one here brave enough to say (apart from Lev) that the free market should have laissez-faire applied to it ?

so say Lord Turner is right, is there any quotes from the FSA over the years stating the approach was wrong or is it all hindsight on his part ?

we we can see exactly why RBS had to be bailed out but the economic question is should they have been or should they have been allowed to collpase and the profitable bits sold off as per normal captialist markets ?

with Trent, long hard games for them, then failure last minute in the final as they need to win it perfect

Kid, I like the idea of limiting to 90% LTV because it encourages people to think about the fact they need a deposit and it will keep house price rises down. as for income not being checked that is plain stupid and both NR and B&B were the two biggest culprits and look what happened to them ... Also you will know if your mortgage is 4 times or more than salary it is unaffordable (unless you do **** all else than work) and this is another area that should be laid down strict regs

yes he does and I think we all agree, the bg mistake was not clamping dow on stupid multiples, un checked wage claims ad LTV of more than 90% not that you heard many calling for it mind you also it appears that byt the end of this week the taxpayer will be the guarntor of £500m of lloyds and RSB debts huge numbers but of course much of this will not be paid but it does beggar the question of whether there is any other possible solution at this stage, i do not hear much of it

then the money does not get borrowed does it ? as for where the money comes from in a way it does not matter mortgages if properly given out make money, from what I have read this is 'proper lending' the LTV figure is between 70 and 90% and that figure by law should be fixed at 90% should it not ?

I would read it as an extra loan and lets face it Snowy it is what should happen when banks get taken public the next big thing is what happens to RBS in the next couple of weeks , I think the size and desperate state of it has shocked everyone in government and beyond

snowy from the BBC report also checked their site and most mortgages are well below 90% whether that will help is another matter

your right it needs explaining especially as it is a public bank but I suspect that new rules would apply because of Brown's comments about 100% mortgages

not if it is proper lending with sound deposits, that is what we are need and I suspect will be the case

tis true Gringobut the big meeting is in April thats where something concrete has to come out but I don't hold my breath

just watched the news and tomorrow NR will have £14bn to lend for new mortgages be interesting to see what they offer and the restrictions as I said before, will they be in force ?

HBOS .... ermm .. you will be lucky eh ? £20bn loss frankly blame your high level peopel they got you into the mess

well who do you work for and will they make a profit ?

and it seems the heads of state of the G20 and going down the route of stricter regulation so it semes if these are tough things will change, the call for 'less red tape' to cut costs will be seen as a false and wrong call

So not what Gordo suggested today? well simple that I disagree with him we have never had rules to seperate the two the US did until it was repealed some years ago, either Bush or Clinton and look what happened times have changed now and if the kind of trades that went on are not to be banned then the seperation has to happen or aybe people should move their bank accounts to better run insitutions like Building societies or building socities it is no coincidence the ones in real shit trouble were the demutalised ones

because AWOL the Tories were in power for 6 years thats why it took some time and yes the FSA shoudl be changed/gotrid of and replaced with much much stronger regulation it would have made the difference you seem to be presuming that regulation in the past was somehow stronger if it was how come BCCI and Barings occurred Do you support the call for less Red tape on other subjects BTW ? thats why it never happened because business screamed it would lose them billions of course the reverse is true the stronger the regualtion the better, hopefully the era of lassisz-faire in all areas is over