Member Info for badjob

Pity they can't find another £500m down the back of the sofa to buy a few more

shares are trading ex div so no saving

I agree with you apart from the 'hefty' share buy-backs. i think they are derisory and the market was expecting more which is one reason the price tanked so much after the results. Lloyds pay-outs much higher and even NWG are higher from a much lower profit base which is also partly why NWG's market cap is now significantly in excess of Barc. Once they loosen the purse strings - if they do - this could climb quite sharply i think/hope.

More importantly perhaps a bit of confidence in UK PLC which is very low down in priority for international investors these days. Although it has much higher capital ratios than equivalent US banks and on that basis should be safer, Lloyds barely manages half their value in relative terms. Whatever ones views on Brexit, it has diminished the UK as a place for investing in the eyes of international investors.

Barc's market cap is now nearly 20% below NWG despite materially higher profitability. To my mind that is hard to justify and a gap that is likely to close over the remainder of this year assuming any more banana skins are avoided and the bank puts a little more priority into shareholder returns than previously. Hopefully it will have learnt a lesson from the dismal reception to its results and underwhelming shareholder payouts last time around. I don't think the board will be safe long term if they continue to preside over such a depressed valuation compared to peers.

Casapinos, I agree with what you say. to me, the upgrades are fairly underwhelming. I think a lot of analysts have had a downer on this stock and have seen it as a basket case for so long that they are finding it hard to adjust to the reality of the improvements that are taking place. I think a good update in May showing continuing progress could be a good catalyst here. If there is the addition of a decent dividend I think it will see your SP target pretty quickly.

Comparisons are good on revenue and bad on profits. However, it remains a premium brand, still growing sales and with new products coming to market which are all positive factors. Growth story is quite compelling if you believe it can eventually get better control over its costs. I'm not in a rush to sell but wouldn't add either. My guess is that this will eventually get back to profits growth or failing that will be taken over because its a brand that, with a big market player behind it, could be huge.

Warsaw - I agree but even Virgin Money is up 2% today so Barc is really lagging. I assume that's as a result of its history of dropping unpleasant surprises every so often. Absent any of those, this could be a good entry point.

Reducer that's my fear. Will be happy when we get past 31 March and divi paid. Barclays seems to have a more lowly rating than most US regional banks which have already shown extreme vulnerability and have Tier 1 capital of only around 8.5%. A bit odd. I'm hoping, after the way things dived after the last results announcement that the board will manage to be a bit more upbeat when reporting the first quarter.

Unhappy precedent in many ways as regulators cited 'a risk of the bank becoming illiquid, even if it remained solvent'. So much then for central banks as the lender of last resort. If the short sellers can instil panic, it's game over for any bank they choose to target in concert regardless of its solvency. I would have thought that will only encourage them to find more and more targets. Can't see it encouraging investors in the sector.

Very ugly and I guess the sharks will now just move onto the next target. Last week the Swiss authorities were claiming that CS had tier 1 capital of 14.1% and liquidity of 150% of the required minimum even after large withdrawals. I think it's hard to justify a wipe out of shareholders just because the shorters are baying for blood if the underlying fundamentals are actually ok. Will that really help ease contagion and panic or make it worse by making banks virtually un-investable?

Flashy/LWHL, Fred the Shred was not a fraudster. He was arrogant and made appallingly value destructive decisions for which he has been publicly humiliated and had his reputation destroyed. It's not a criminal offence to make bad decisions like buying ABN Amro. Some bankers did see the inside of a prison cell including those extradited to the US who have lost virtually everything. The board members like Fred liked to take the profits but in reality, never really understood what was going on in the underlying business. They are culpable for that but not criminals.

Reducer - not convinced this is about greed or bankers not learning lessons. I think Fred the Shred was certainly held accountable - no banker wants that. Clearly in 2008, capital levels were grossly inadequate and the banks had made reckless lending decisions plus suffering contagion from the holdings of AAA rated (the rating agencies never get the stick they deserve)- but in reality poor quality - packaged up US mortgages. Banks are always under the cosh when there are fears of contagion. It's all about confidence and I don't think banks can easily fight that. Even HSBC is significantly down and no-one thinks it is in any danger. Smaller banks are vulnerable to runs if there is a panic and until there is clarity about whom is exposed to who or what, the shorters will pile in to make a profit. Not sure there is any evidence that the big UK banks have not hedged their exposure to treasuries and at its last accounts, Barclays had over £200bn of cash and cash equivalents which is a massive amount of liquidity. If central banks are happy with a banks balance sheet, they should provide the liquidity needed to get through these kinds of panics. That is their job after all as lender of last resort to avoid unwarranted meltdowns. I always thought it was notable that Lehman UK, even after hundreds of millions of administrator costs from its liquidation, had a surplus at the end of the liquidation process.

I don't think so. I think it's an attempt to calm the markets and suggests that the Swiss believe Credit Suisse to be creditworthy or else they may have needed to take more drastic action.

The bigger UK banks have massive amounts of liquidity with many billions of cash and cash equivalents held in reserves and ultimately, assuming they have not messed up like SVB, should be able to rely on BOE as lender of last resort to pump in more liquidity if there was any threat of a run on deposits. Confidence is key with BOE backstop. Unless they are hiding something, it should take a massive shock to bring one of the big UK lenders down.

Yes Reducer - sounds about right. A little over a year ago, SVB's market cap was materially more than Barclays at $44bn which suggests the market is not that good at pricing risk.

Not entirely sure why Barclays which is already more lowly valued than the other main UK banks is taking the biggest hit again. The mistrust in this bank is clearly at extraordinary levels - particularly given that Barclays avoided a bailout by the government in the last crash. I see JP Morgan down only a little over 1%.

Huge falls here. Presumably reflecting greater perceived risk of a run on the bank because of its relative size. Whilst that seems unlikely, I can see why not many buyers are being tempted at the moment even at these prices.

Huge falls here. Presumably reflecting greater perceived risk of a run on the bank because of its relative size. Whilst that seems unlikely, I can see why not many buyers are being tempted at the moment even at these prices.

Knowing Barclays they'll probably postpone it until the price is higher.