I believe that, although not entirely the responsibility of one individual, HBOS was nearing bankrupcy before Lloyds and the government swooped in to save it.
If a bank clerk became bankrupt, they would be unemployable in financial services for the rest of their career. However, lead a multi-billion pound organisation into insolvency, and you can easily pick up a six or seven figure salary with another financial services company.
Is it just me, or does this seem a little inequitable?
The wider issue here is the monopoly position in the UK banking sector that the new group will hold.
Under normal circumstances the takeover/merger would not have been allowed on competition grounds.
The idea was hatched up prior to the massive injection of capital by the UK taxpayer to aid any of the banks that needed it. This merger from that point on, which was little more than a week later, had no justification.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.