Lloyds Banking Group PLC Discussion Board http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:LLOY.L&display=discussion http://www.iii.co.uk/icons/logos/uk_logo.gif http://www.iii.co.uk tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.5554655 ')" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article6907889.ece

please copy and paste to read article . opinions appreciated on possible impact on sp please By knightuk1 ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:LLOY.L&display=discussion&id=5554655&action=detail Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:40:00 GMT knightuk1 tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.5554555
Prag By pragmatist ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:LLOY.L&display=discussion&id=5554555&action=detail Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:25:00 GMT pragmatist tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.5554552
The losers are going to be those who are attempting to avoid dilution by injecting more cash at the full rate. In other words, the losers are going to be PIs and those IIs who decide to take up the RI fully.

HMG are getting the RI at a very significant discount of £2.5Bn for nothing. I no longer hold LBG but
if I did, I would be paying 50p for every share held before the ex-rights date assuming I took up the
RI fully. HMG on the other hand are paying just under 29p compared to my 50p.

The institutions underwriting the RI are, I'm sure, hoping that the remaining £7.7Bn of the RI will only be partially taken up. Why? Because they get to pick up the residual shares at 0.50p without the commitment of having to hold an equivalent number of shares at the ex-rights date. Assuming a 1:1 RI, they stand to make a killing even if the ex-rights SP falls to say 60p. Everyone else gets to pay for these concessions given to HMG and the underwriters.

ED and Co must of course be fully aware of all of this but what do they care. They are guaranteed to raise the money they need because of the HMG involvement and the underwriters. They must know that everyone else is on a loser and are ripe to be shafted once again.

For these reasons, I decided a few days ago that I'm out - my holding at the time was in excess of 120K. I fully expect to be able, should I choose, to buy back in again after the dust settles and achieve parity without having to shell out the sort of money (£60K) involved in signing up to the RI.

As a long standing LLOY/LBG shareholder, I am not prepared to be shafted yet again.

Prag By pragmatist ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:LLOY.L&display=discussion&id=5554552&action=detail Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:24:00 GMT pragmatist tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.5554528 40-45p,then will be the time to go in......I know I will! By golden ponderer ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:LLOY.L&display=discussion&id=5554528&action=detail Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:05:00 GMT golden ponderer tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.5554508
http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?
type=reutersnews&articleid=TRE5A60L2&feed=Bus&action=article

Tim Geithner wants to stimulate the banks to recovery.

http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=reutersnews&articleid=TRE5A61M0&feed=Bus&action=article

By nest-egg ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:LLOY.L&display=discussion&id=5554508&action=detail Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:53:00 GMT nest-egg tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.5554478 http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:LLOY.L&display=discussion&id=5554478&action=detail Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:17:00 GMT hopeinhell tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.5554476 ')" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.researchrecap.com/index.php/2009/11/05/lloyds-banking-group-better-positioned-to-recover-than-rbs/
By si2040 ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:LLOY.L&display=discussion&id=5554476&action=detail Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:12:00 GMT si2040 tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.5554358
hopeinhell - sorry you're wrong.

If there is a will you need to apply for PROBATE or in some cases LETTERS OF ADMINSTRATION.

If there is no will you apply for LETTERS OF ADMINSTRATION.

(although, there are circumstances where neither is necessary).

I have certainly not broken the law and in anycase I was only commenting on the post made by Son of a tiger - see the thread.


By Davey Baby ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:LLOY.L&display=discussion&id=5554358&action=detail Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:46:00 GMT Davey Baby tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.5554324 By Spain Fund ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:LLOY.L&display=discussion&id=5554324&action=detail Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:22:00 GMT Spain Fund tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.5554261
Great post

SB By santabarbara ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:LLOY.L&display=discussion&id=5554261&action=detail Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:30:00 GMT santabarbara tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.5554246
I beleive LBG were blackmailed by the Government into paying this Extortionate amount in order that HMG would free them to leave the APS and raise capital from its existing shareholders, this is illegal.

Any discount we shareholders would have received from this RI has been gobbled up by the £2.5BN paid to HMG, which constitutes as 18.5% of the total RI.

Therefore is LBG did not have to pay for insurance they did not receive, possibly the RI could have been in the amount of (£13.5bn - £2.5bn) = £11.5bn, which is what was originally estimated and reported.

HMG are desperate for money from anywhere they can extort to fill in the holes left by Labours financial incompetence whilst running the country. This Government will do anything whilst they are desparate and I fear most for the 16% of RBS investors where HMG have greater control.

If Gordon Brown and the Labour government were genuinely concerned about the banking sector and how they can help repair the damage then they would not have charged LBG for an insurance scheme that they never had.

If they genuinely want LBG to stand on its own two feet for the betterment of the UK economy then they would have allowed the RI to go ahead without HMG involvement.

Currently the RI capital raising consists of HMG £5.8bn / Public Invetsors £7.7bn.

Now if HMG let LBG go it alone and did not charge them £2.5bn then they could have raised £11.5bn in the market, allowing LBG to step in the right direction.

For years Gordon Brown has been preaching light touch banking regulation and now he is going to the other extremity and putting shackles on the bank which will prevent them from recovery and consequently prevent the UK economy from recovering. I beleive the USA has got the balance right and US banks are being allowed to pay back Tarp whilst they can. The reason for this is that they know that banking is international and they want to give their banks the competitive eadge.

I do beleive Brown is preaching to other countries to supress there banks through more regulation, and then more regulation and they end bonuses and waive goodbye to their best staff, but behind his back they are taking no notice as they know they will become more competitive than British banks.

I look forward to the May 2010 general election so we can get rid of Gordon Brown and his Labour government.

I do beleive the Tories understand that the banking sector is core to the success of the British economy and it is therefore important to help the banks recover in any way they can. Not necessarily confident in Osborne but his advisers, Kenneth Clark and William Hague.


By nest-egg ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:LLOY.L&display=discussion&id=5554246&action=detail Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:21:00 GMT nest-egg tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.5554201
Assume sp is at £1.00 a share then shares in issue are 27.16 billion.

R.I. is to raise £13.5 billion and that works out at 50p (roughly) per existing share.

At a sp of 80p this works out at a requirement to stump up £2 for every 5 shares held.

Assuming a 40% discount, this would price the RI shares at 48p.

Thus to raise the £2 investors would have to be offered 4.167 shares in the RI for every existing 5 shares held (rounding this would work out at a 5 for 6 RI).

Your existing shares, 20K, would qualify for 16666 shares at 48p would amount to £8000 approx.

Your existing shares at 80p gives an asset value of £16000, thus a total of £24000 for 36666 shares giving an averaging down to 65.5p approx.

I dont hold a degree in maths so my calculation may be bonkers but I dont care as I refill my glass with a single malt, Craggenmore if anyones interested, beautiful stuff. By Son of a tiger ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:LLOY.L&display=discussion&id=5554201&action=detail Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:40:00 GMT Son of a tiger tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.5554178 http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:LLOY.L&display=discussion&id=5554178&action=detail Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:25:00 GMT gj 10 tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.5554177
Banco santander for picking best bits for a sonf from Bradford & B , Alliance and Leicester..etc how and why wasnt nobody kicking fuss up about this.

Barclays for choosing money at commercial rates and not getting too stung loke us lot.

HSBC for braving right issue and getting it off without HMG on their backs
these will be good long term , pay divis and get the divi as extra shares

was paying over 5% in shares and while they are low more shares yipee.

RI if you are a shareholder you probably have to take up , if you dont hold lloyds wait as they may dip and then perhaps dip your toes in , but please do your due diligence dont do a Daniels like the magician and it all see it all vanish
By gj 10 ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:LLOY.L&display=discussion&id=5554177&action=detail Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:23:00 GMT gj 10 tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.5554158 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/cde5a970-cb09-11de-97e0-00144feabdc0.html By sorass ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:LLOY.L&display=discussion&id=5554158&action=detail Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:12:00 GMT sorass