You might have had some problems by downloading from the link posted in the previous message.
Therefore, I posted it on another shareware-site.
You can download from the following link as well:
http://www.sendspace.com/file/4ulsqz
maandag 7 december 2009
zaterdag 28 november 2009
Lloyds shareholders to sue over HBOS non-disclosure
The Lloyds-shareholders are asking for a judicial review in the High Court about the takeover of HBOS last year.
There has been set up a private shareholder campaign group called Lloyds Action Now. This because there has come to light that the Bank of England has offered the British banks RBS and HBOS a large amount of money to finance their activities. This event happened 13 months ago, the same period that Lehman Brothers went bankrupt and when Fortis had to be financially supported by the Belgian Government.
The shareholders are very angry that they knew nothing although certain interested parties did know what was going on. The Government, the chairman of Lloyds and the directors of HBOS knew about it and the Financial Services Authority and the Bank also knew all about it.
Alice Beer, the former BBC Watchdog presenter and now campaigning for shareholders, said: "The only people who didn't know were ordinary men and women whose savings were put at risk in order to secure this shabby deal."
The British bank governor Mervyn King stated Tuesday that if this deal did not came through it could have been much worse then it is today. That is why the Bank of England kept their activities secret, according to them the shareholders would have panicked and the whole market would have fall down.
In my opinion I think it is not fair that the shareholders knew nothing. What if there was a capital injection of the Bank of England but it had no influence? Then the shareholders would have lost all their money and Bank of England would have invested for nothing. After all it is the shareholders’ money and they have the only right to do with their money what they like. But on the other side I am happy that the capital injection turned out to be a success and that nobody lost money and the companies are doing fine.
Ruth Blommaert
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/6672692/Lloyds-shareholders-to-sue-over-HBOS-non-disclosure.html
Panasonic launches Sanyo takeover bid
Today, 5 November 2009, Panasonic launches a friendly takeover bid on Sanyo. The bid isn’t a surprise.
It was known that since 2004, Sanyo got into trouble. A 2004 earthquake destroyed its main chip plant and it had to be rescued by Goldman Sachs and two Japanese banks.
In 2006 Sanyo was forced to issue preferred shares to advantage of the three financial institutions after a sharp downturn in earnings. An accounting scandal forced Sanyo to discharge its president.
Panasonic, the world’s biggest maker of plasma TV’s, being in search of expertise in the rapidly expanding “green” businesses such as solar panels, rechargeable batteries and energy storage for hybrid and electric cars, expects an important synergy in the takeover. Sanyo is the leading global supplier of rechargeable batteries and has some clients in the car industry.
The takeover bid is expected to be successful because Sanyo’s three major shareholders have already agreed to sell their shares at the offered price and the Chinese anti-monopoly authorities and the US’s anti-trust watchdog are expected to give their approval.
The tender offer to the small shareholders would last until 7 December at the price of Y 131 per share, nearly half Sanyo’s current share price.
Personal opinion
It’s clear that financial and economic crises has made some victims. Companies with heavy debts cannot survive a long period without earnings.
It’s a usual course of things that the strongest companies try to annex their weaker competitors. A merger or a takeover can be forced by banks if they are the major shareholder. If they are preferred shareholders they are in a comfortable position to save their invested capital. In the case of Sanyo it seems that the small shareholders will be the victims because they will only receive half of the current share price.
By : Elise Van Praet
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/05/panasonic-launches-sanyo-takeover-bid
It was known that since 2004, Sanyo got into trouble. A 2004 earthquake destroyed its main chip plant and it had to be rescued by Goldman Sachs and two Japanese banks.
In 2006 Sanyo was forced to issue preferred shares to advantage of the three financial institutions after a sharp downturn in earnings. An accounting scandal forced Sanyo to discharge its president.
Panasonic, the world’s biggest maker of plasma TV’s, being in search of expertise in the rapidly expanding “green” businesses such as solar panels, rechargeable batteries and energy storage for hybrid and electric cars, expects an important synergy in the takeover. Sanyo is the leading global supplier of rechargeable batteries and has some clients in the car industry.
The takeover bid is expected to be successful because Sanyo’s three major shareholders have already agreed to sell their shares at the offered price and the Chinese anti-monopoly authorities and the US’s anti-trust watchdog are expected to give their approval.
The tender offer to the small shareholders would last until 7 December at the price of Y 131 per share, nearly half Sanyo’s current share price.
Personal opinion
It’s clear that financial and economic crises has made some victims. Companies with heavy debts cannot survive a long period without earnings.
It’s a usual course of things that the strongest companies try to annex their weaker competitors. A merger or a takeover can be forced by banks if they are the major shareholder. If they are preferred shareholders they are in a comfortable position to save their invested capital. In the case of Sanyo it seems that the small shareholders will be the victims because they will only receive half of the current share price.
By : Elise Van Praet
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/05/panasonic-launches-sanyo-takeover-bid
zaterdag 21 november 2009
Reed Says ‘I’m Sorry’ for Role in Creating Citigroup
John S. Reed helped realizing the merger that created Citigroup Inc. He now apologized for his role building a company that needed $ 45 billion of U.S. aid!
Citigroup came into existence in 1998, when Citicorp, a commercial bank, merged with Sanford I. Weill’s Travelers Group Inc, this group owned the investment firm Salomon Smith Barney Holdings Inc. The new company lost $27.7 billion in 2008. 34% of the company is now owned by the Treasury Department, this because they needed help in times of financial crisis.
Reed headed Citicorp for 14 years until the merger with Travelers, with this deal, they created the world’s biggest financial company in a stock swap, with a value of $85 billion. Reed and Weill were co-chairman and CEO’s until Reed’s retirement in 2000.
In two years time, Reed received a salary and bonuses of $23. 4 million and on his retirement he received a bonus of $5 million!
Citigroup is still suffering the financial crisis. As the third-largest U.S. bank, they shed $300 billion in assets, this is 13% of its total. They are also selling their non-core properties. Since 2007 100,000 of employees lost their jobs
Reed now pleads for more financial regulations like ordering banks to hold more capital, declining the executives’ compensations. But the most important he pleads for separating the consumer banking from trading bonds and equity.
In my opinion Reed is not the only one who had to say sorry. I think the whole board of directors contributed to the problems of Citigroup. But also the U.S. government affected to it. The control was worthless! If they controlled Citigroup better, they would know their investments and they could have stopped them! Because the major problem were the junk bonds.
I think that the merger was a good idea but they took it on wrong!
By: De Ridder Steffie
Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=albMYVE7D578&pos=12
FSA chief Lord Turner warns splitting British banks could increase risks
There is a law proposal which contains the breaking up of Britain’s banks. The proposal is coming from the Governor of the Bank of England.
Splitting Britain’s banks means to separate retail banking from investment banks. This could cause a rise in risks because of the heavier capital requirements on riskier banking operations. The heavier capital requirements is forbidden by the international Basel Committee.
The chairman of the Financial Services Authority thinks that the law proposal is a bad idea because it could make the financial system even more fragile and so will the risks increase.
The UK government has refused the law proposal of the Governor of the Bank of England.
In my opinion it is good that this article explains why banks should not split up. Because of the financial crisis people have lost their faith into the financial branch, and a lot of them thinks that if banks should had only be active in what there should be active in, there would not be a crisis.
This article shows us that this point of view is wrong, you cannot classify banks. Banks have grown over the years and became stronger by offering several activities. We cannot break-up the banks because of the crisis, we would not recognize our financial system. I think that instead of breaking up the banks, it is better to exercise more supervision over the banks.
Posted by Sofie De Cooman
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/6485229/FSA-chief-Lord-Turner-warns-splitting-British-banks-could-increase-risks.html
Splitting Britain’s banks means to separate retail banking from investment banks. This could cause a rise in risks because of the heavier capital requirements on riskier banking operations. The heavier capital requirements is forbidden by the international Basel Committee.
The chairman of the Financial Services Authority thinks that the law proposal is a bad idea because it could make the financial system even more fragile and so will the risks increase.
The UK government has refused the law proposal of the Governor of the Bank of England.
In my opinion it is good that this article explains why banks should not split up. Because of the financial crisis people have lost their faith into the financial branch, and a lot of them thinks that if banks should had only be active in what there should be active in, there would not be a crisis.
This article shows us that this point of view is wrong, you cannot classify banks. Banks have grown over the years and became stronger by offering several activities. We cannot break-up the banks because of the crisis, we would not recognize our financial system. I think that instead of breaking up the banks, it is better to exercise more supervision over the banks.
Posted by Sofie De Cooman
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/6485229/FSA-chief-Lord-Turner-warns-splitting-British-banks-could-increase-risks.html
vrijdag 20 november 2009
Iberia posts loss as Spanish see BA tie-up as best option for survival
Iberia is the Spanish national carrier. Iberia reported their third-quarter losses of €16.4m. The country was happy when they heard about the possibility to become one with British Airways in order to survive.
Last week, Spanish newspapers announced this message on their front pages. The merger can be seen in the general consensus of a “necessary inevitability”. Analysts believe this is the best option for the airline that is struggling because of economic recession: not only to survive but the merger was also a crucial event for the sector. Next to these facts, passengers will also benefit.
British Airways is a dominant partner for travelling to North America, Asia, the Far East. This in combination with Iberia that’s strong in travelling to Latin America and the Caribbean. This means big benefits for the passengers!
It’s not an accident this 2 companies found each other. Both companies have suffered huge financial losses, so a merger is the best opportunity for recovery. By merging Iberia, British Airways will be able to reduce operating costs. On the other hand, there might be some problems with trade unions. The company will be emerged to fire employees, which is inevitable in any merger.
The airline is not having just financial problems. It is already having industrial disputes with its employees and last month it was forced to cancel more than 400 flights in a two strike by cabin crews over pay.
Investors are very enthusiastic. Iberia’s share price will rise 11.78pc, just because of the announcement of the merger. But not everyone is happy with the merger. Some Spaniards saw a merger with another troubled partner as against the interests of Iberia. They believe it is a marriage of losers.
I am doubting if Iberia made the correct choice by merging with British Airways. Both companies weren’t very successful during the recent past. Just looking to the figures, I would say it was a bad choice. On the other hand, a merger can save both companies when they can recover little by little by executing their core business. The merger will have some contrary wind of trade unions. The fact that over 400 people will lose their job is a main point of interest! The rise of the share price will attract investors that are likely to take some risk because everyone is aware of the fact the merger can’t ensure the survival of both companies...
Posted by Joachim De Zutter
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/6562815/Iberia-posts-loss-as-Spanish-see-BA-tie-up-as-best-option-for-survival.html
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)