Lehman Bros

[Verbal]

any business has to make profit, in the case of both banks and building societies one reason is capital adequacy. The difference between banks and building societies is that the latter doesn't have shareholders who expect a dividend twice yearly, which comes from the profit.

A building society is owned and run for the benefit of its members - savers and borrowers.

With banks, I'd be interested as to your definition of "self interest", as I generally find that when people go off on one about the banks they don't actually know or think that deeply beyond the knee-jerk caused by a few politcians and headline writers.

Basically what seems best for themselves and what will garner themselves the most profit, or best result. I just think that is pretty evident when you think that Barclays pulled out of the deal with Lehman because the Fed wouldn't sweeten it, like it did for JpMorgan for Bear Stearns.

[communistworkethic]

any business has to make profit, in the case of both banks and building societies one reason is capital adequacy. The difference between banks and building societies is that the latter doesn't have shareholders who expect a dividend twice yearly, which comes from the profit.

A building society is owned and run for the benefit of its members - savers and borrowers.

With banks, I'd be interested as to your definition of "self interest", as I generally find that when people go off on one about the banks they don't actually know or think that deeply beyond the knee-jerk caused by a few politcians and headline writers.

Think there is also the option for Building Societies to demutualise, and have done for about 25 years iirc, that means they can take in shareholders..to all intents and purposes that makes them no longer building societies

?? not "to all intents", it does mean they're not building societies if they demutualise, shareholders and mutuality are "mutually exclusive", and no building society has any intention of demutualising as it has been shown to be a move of utter folly. Demutualise and you become a bank
, the Building Societies Act 1986 provided the framework for it.

[Worthy4England]

any business has to make profit, in the case of both banks and building societies one reason is capital adequacy. The difference between banks and building societies is that the latter doesn't have shareholders who expect a dividend twice yearly, which comes from the profit.

A building society is owned and run for the benefit of its members - savers and borrowers.

With banks, I'd be interested as to your definition of "self interest", as I generally find that when people go off on one about the banks they don't actually know or think that deeply beyond the knee-jerk caused by a few politcians and headline writers.

Think there is also the option for Building Societies to demutualise, and have done for about 25 years iirc, that means they can take in shareholders..to all intents and purposes that makes them no longer building societies

?? not "to all intents", it does mean they're not building societies if they demutualise, shareholders and mutuality are "mutually exclusive", and no building society has any intention of demutualising as it has been shown to be a move of utter folly. Demutualise and you become a bank
, the Building Societies Act 1986 provided the framework for it.

There were quite a few that did in the 80's iirc and certainly the 90's. I'm not writing a contract Commie - don't treat it as such.

[communistworkethic]

any business has to make profit, in the case of both banks and building societies one reason is capital adequacy. The difference between banks and building societies is that the latter doesn't have shareholders who expect a dividend twice yearly, which comes from the profit.

A building society is owned and run for the benefit of its members - savers and borrowers.

With banks, I'd be interested as to your definition of "self interest", as I generally find that when people go off on one about the banks they don't actually know or think that deeply beyond the knee-jerk caused by a few politcians and headline writers.

Basically what seems best for themselves and what will garner themselves the most profit, or best result. I just think that is pretty evident when you think that Barclays pulled out of the deal with Lehman because the Fed wouldn't sweeten it, like it did for JpMorgan for Bear Stearns.

yeah, so Barclays should have weakened itself ? There's something called "due diligence" which prevents companies from taking on dead-ducks that'll collapse the buying business. Just taking on Lehman's simply was not an option. Lehmans filed for bankruptcy protection in order to sell some or all of itself, nobody was going to accept that kind of risk without some sort of guarantees.

Self-interest here is about one banking going down not two.

[communistworkethic]

any business has to make profit, in the case of both banks and building societies one reason is capital adequacy. The difference between banks and building societies is that the latter doesn't have shareholders who expect a dividend twice yearly, which comes from the profit.

A building society is owned and run for the benefit of its members - savers and borrowers.

With banks, I'd be interested as to your definition of "self interest", as I generally find that when people go off on one about the banks they don't actually know or think that deeply beyond the knee-jerk caused by a few politcians and headline writers.

Think there is also the option for Building Societies to demutualise, and have done for about 25 years iirc, that means they can take in shareholders..to all intents and purposes that makes them no longer building societies

?? not "to all intents", it does mean they're not building societies if they demutualise, shareholders and mutuality are "mutually exclusive", and no building society has any intention of demutualising as it has been shown to be a move of utter folly. Demutualise and you become a bank
, the Building Societies Act 1986 provided the framework for it.

There were quite a few that did in the 80's iirc and certainly the 90's. I'm not writing a contract Commie - don't treat it as such.

they did and not one has survived on its own if at all. The option is no option as it strips out capital and entres the organisation in to a whole different legal framework, particularly on funding. Northern Rock would not have gone tits up if it had remained a building society as it could not have got its funding ratios so horrendously wrong because it was legally bound to minimum levels to be derived from savers deposits.

Demutualisation of building societies is a thing of the past. Consolidation maybe the future for some but not plc status.

[Verbal]

any business has to make profit, in the case of both banks and building societies one reason is capital adequacy. The difference between banks and building societies is that the latter doesn't have shareholders who expect a dividend twice yearly, which comes from the profit.

A building society is owned and run for the benefit of its members - savers and borrowers.

With banks, I'd be interested as to your definition of "self interest", as I generally find that when people go off on one about the banks they don't actually know or think that deeply beyond the knee-jerk caused by a few politcians and headline writers.

Basically what seems best for themselves and what will garner themselves the most profit, or best result. I just think that is pretty evident when you think that Barclays pulled out of the deal with Lehman because the Fed wouldn't sweeten it, like it did for JpMorgan for Bear Stearns.

yeah, so Barclays should have weakened itself ? There's something called "due diligence" which prevents companies from taking on dead-ducks that'll collapse the buying business. Just taking on Lehman's simply was not an option. Lehmans filed for bankruptcy protection in order to sell some or all of itself, nobody was going to accept that kind of risk without some sort of guarantees.

Self-interest here is about one banking going down not two.

Which is exactly why Barclays didn't take Lehman on, because the Fed refused to sweeten the deal like it did for JpMorgan...

sorry man but you've lost me, it sounds a bit like we're saying the same thing.

[Worthy4England]

any business has to make profit, in the case of both banks and building societies one reason is capital adequacy. The difference between banks and building societies is that the latter doesn't have shareholders who expect a dividend twice yearly, which comes from the profit.

A building society is owned and run for the benefit of its members - savers and borrowers.

With banks, I'd be interested as to your definition of "self interest", as I generally find that when people go off on one about the banks they don't actually know or think that deeply beyond the knee-jerk caused by a few politcians and headline writers.

Think there is also the option for Building Societies to demutualise, and have done for about 25 years iirc, that means they can take in shareholders..to all intents and purposes that makes them no longer building societies

?? not "to all intents", it does mean they're not building societies if they demutualise, shareholders and mutuality are "mutually exclusive", and no building society has any intention of demutualising as it has been shown to be a move of utter folly. Demutualise and you become a bank
, the Building Societies Act 1986 provided the framework for it.

There were quite a few that did in the 80's iirc and certainly the 90's. I'm not writing a contract Commie - don't treat it as such.

they did and not one has survived on its own if at all. The option is no option as it strips out capital and entres the organisation in to a whole different legal framework, particularly on funding. Northern Rock would not have gone tits up if it had remained a building society as it could not have got its funding ratios so horrendously wrong because it was legally bound to minimum levels to be derived from savers deposits.

Demutualisation of building societies is a thing of the past. Consolidation maybe the future for some but not plc status.

Wouldn't disagree that it's unlikely that any further demutualization takes place. A&L is still independent at the moment although that's due to change as its takeover has been recommended by the Board.

[communistworkethic]

ie it has failed on its own, as has B&B, N&P, Northern Rock, Abbey, Halifax, C&G, B&W......

[communistworkethic]

any business has to make profit, in the case of both banks and building societies one reason is capital adequacy. The difference between banks and building societies is that the latter doesn't have shareholders who expect a dividend twice yearly, which comes from the profit.

A building society is owned and run for the benefit of its members - savers and borrowers.

With banks, I'd be interested as to your definition of "self interest", as I generally find that when people go off on one about the banks they don't actually know or think that deeply beyond the knee-jerk caused by a few politcians and headline writers.

Basically what seems best for themselves and what will garner themselves the most profit, or best result. I just think that is pretty evident when you think that Barclays pulled out of the deal with Lehman because the Fed wouldn't sweeten it, like it did for JpMorgan for Bear Stearns.

yeah, so Barclays should have weakened itself ? There's something called "due diligence" which prevents companies from taking on dead-ducks that'll collapse the buying business. Just taking on Lehman's simply was not an option. Lehmans filed for bankruptcy protection in order to sell some or all of itself, nobody was going to accept that kind of risk without some sort of guarantees.

Self-interest here is about one banking going down not two.

Which is exactly why Barclays didn't take Lehman on, because the Fed refused to sweeten the deal like it did for JpMorgan...

sorry man but you've lost me, it sounds a bit like we're saying the same thing.

Your position seemed to be that self-interest is a bad thing. Here it is anything but. Barclays will buy part of Lehmans now under the Chpt 11 protection arrangement

[Verbal]

any business has to make profit, in the case of both banks and building societies one reason is capital adequacy. The difference between banks and building societies is that the latter doesn't have shareholders who expect a dividend twice yearly, which comes from the profit.

A building society is owned and run for the benefit of its members - savers and borrowers.

With banks, I'd be interested as to your definition of "self interest", as I generally find that when people go off on one about the banks they don't actually know or think that deeply beyond the knee-jerk caused by a few politcians and headline writers.

Basically what seems best for themselves and what will garner themselves the most profit, or best result. I just think that is pretty evident when you think that Barclays pulled out of the deal with Lehman because the Fed wouldn't sweeten it, like it did for JpMorgan for Bear Stearns.

yeah, so Barclays should have weakened itself ? There's something called "due diligence" which prevents companies from taking on dead-ducks that'll collapse the buying business. Just taking on Lehman's simply was not an option. Lehmans filed for bankruptcy protection in order to sell some or all of itself, nobody was going to accept that kind of risk without some sort of guarantees.

Self-interest here is about one banking going down not two.

Which is exactly why Barclays didn't take Lehman on, because the Fed refused to sweeten the deal like it did for JpMorgan...

sorry man but you've lost me, it sounds a bit like we're saying the same thing.

Your position seemed to be that self-interest is a bad thing. Here it is anything but. Barclays will buy part of Lehmans now under the Chpt 11 protection arrangement

Ah I see. Nah man, didn't mean to imply that - I'm aware that self-interest is cut-throat at times but it does work. It'll cause booms and busts (like now) but in the long run they'll be another boom to follow. There's always going to be winners and losers in the market and in tough times it just so happens the losers lose out bad style. But it works out.

[Worthy4England]

ie it has failed on its own, as has B&B, N&P, Northern Rock, Abbey, Halifax, C&G, B&W......

Failed is a particular market view yes. I tink B&B are still independent too aren't they?

[communistworkethic]

ie it has failed on its own, as has B&B, N&P, Northern Rock, Abbey, Halifax, C&G, B&W......

Failed is a particular market view yes. I tink B&B are still independent too aren't they?

particular market view? If it hadn't had a buyer it was going bankrupt.

because they're such a basket case nobody wanted to buy them, and dependent on your definition. It took 4 goes to get a financing package to stop them following Rock down the pan and a third of the shares issued by way way of its £400m cashcall went to HBOS, RBS, LLoyds, Abbey & Barclays.

[David Lee's Hair]

Glad I only work in construction at the moment

[superjohnmcginlay]

Glad I only work in construction at the moment

A construction accountant! Burn Him! When are you fookers gonna start putting stuff in the right place? Bane of my life you lot.

[Worthy4England]

ie it has failed on its own, as has B&B, N&P, Northern Rock, Abbey, Halifax, C&G, B&W......

Failed is a particular market view yes. I tink B&B are still independent too aren't they?

particular market view? If it hadn't had a buyer it was going bankrupt.

because they're such a basket case nobody wanted to buy them, and dependent on your definition. It took 4 goes to get a financing package to stop them following Rock down the pan and a third of the shares issued by way way of its £400m cashcall went to HBOS, RBS, LLoyds, Abbey & Barclays.

Yes success or failure is often a market view. Maybe they were going bankrupt, but is that because they weren't doing ok, or because in the eyes of institutional investors they weren't doing well enough on shareholder value so they removed their investments?

[Lord Kangana]

Aye, 'tis why the word "confidence" is used so often in relation to the market place and individual companies.

[Worthy4England]

Aye, 'tis why the word "confidence" is used so often in relation to the market place and individual companies.

Indeed, don't pretend to know whether the individual Building Societies were "failures" or the legislation didn't allow them to operate in a manner that could work, but there's a whole host of other reasons for M&A activity other than just business A is a failure.

[David Lee's Hair]

Glad I only work in construction at the moment

A construction accountant! Burn Him! When are you fookers gonna start putting stuff in the right place? Bane of my life you lot.

A "supplier to construction" accountant for the next 2 and a half weeks, but then yes a "construction" accountant.

They don't actually let me get involved in the building so I'll take no credit for the mistakes

[Lord Kangana]

Constructive accounting? isn't that illegal?

Anyway, get off bloody facebook and do some work

[David Lee's Hair]

Constructive accounting? isn't that illegal?

Anyway, get off bloody facebook and do some work

Wind down I'm surfing different sites.