Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

I'll do better than read my own post, I'll quote it: "Impeachment vote".

Your misapprehension that it was I who raised the "non issue" of an impeachment TRIAL seems to be rooted in your apparently ongoing misunderstanding of the difference between the "impeachment vote" and the TRIAL which you keep bringing up. I can only refer you to the lengthy explanations already given, with apologies if they were not comprehensive enough.

If markets are lower due to US manufacturing data, then why is the UK market down more than the States, or any other stock market? It seems logical that there must be local factors involved, wouldn't you agree?

Lombard's increasing short position doesn't seem to be deterring buyers, but it looks like it put a temporary brake on the rally.

By the way, I don't disagree that the most likely conclusion of the proceedings are impeachment, eventually followed by no conviction in the senate - similar to what happened with Clinton - my point is, if the senate trial is a "non issue" then why do you keep bringing it up, because nobody mentioned it before you did. I think both the the House vote and the Senate trial could be indirect but relevant drivers of Pru's share price - in previous impeachment proceedings, the anticipation has been worse than the actual event, in terms of stock market reaction.

A senate trial over impeachment was not included in the timetable, because there is none currently scheduled. If it happens, it will probably take place next year. Assuming what it's outcome will be seems bold, without knowing all the facts, but whatever it is, the whole process is likely to affect markets. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell allowed the whistleblower's case to proceed, the first time he has not blocked Democrat requests for information during this administration - that suggests there may be cracks in the Republicans blanket support for Trump.

The House vote, a related but separate event, is what is was originally under discussion here, because that is the specific item listed on the timetable. This vote itself is not certain, but was included because it is likely, but the outcome of it is also unknown, pending investigation. Continuing to insist it is a non-issue doesn't change the fact that the whole process, and especially the vote (assuming it happens), surely affects US markets, may well affect US-China trade negotiations, and is something business leaders will be paying attention to when planning ahead. Arguably, those considerations justify it's inclusion on the timetable, because they all potentially impact Pru's share price.

UK market down, probably Brexit related, with Boris spinning a designed-to-fail deal, and the prospect of further constitutional crisis ahead. Pru down more than most, possibly overhang from the fine: the damage to M&G potentially runs into a much larger amount than the fine itself, and given M&G's relative size, it could take a big bite out of profits, making them a less appealing prospect at launch. No word from the non-execs yet on corporate governance issues - it is unhealthy if this failure of management resulted in false achievement of targets and payment of bonuses - hope they are not just sweeping this under the carpet, because rewarding failure is bad business.

It's slightly worrying that you didn't pick up on "US civil war" as a non-issue?

The impeachment vote happens in the House, not the Senate. Your view that it is a "non issue" is a brave assertion. If the House votes for impeachment, a trial in the senate follows. It's true Republicans have a majority there, but they are not all absolutely guaranteed to vote for Trump. He is basically accused of election rigging, a much worse crime than any in previous impeachments. Pompeo, who earlier claimed on live TV that he knew nothing about it, was revealed today to have listened in on the phone call. Who knows what revelations will follow. Republicans may start to cut their losses. Things are moving fast, the vote could happen a lot sooner than December.

Pru Drivers political timetable:
daily - random tweets from the POTUS, revelations from the impeachment investigation
weekly - HK democracy protests
Oct 15 - 5% additional US tariffs on China
Oct 19 - legal deadline for Brexit extension (if no deal)
Oct 21 - rrrrrrrip!
Nov - UK election (likely), Labour government "appropriates" 10% of Pru's equity and 10% of M&Gs equity (potentially)
Dec - Impeachment vote / twitter storm / US civil war

Hong Kong police shot live ammunition at protestors for the first time today. They have once again made a bad situation worse and the likelihood of Chinese intervention increases. Pru price kneejerk reaction was immediate but limited.

In the analyst presentation Nic Nicandrou (I think) confirmed that they have every reason to believe that Chinese mainland buyer sales were merely postponed because of the difficulty of travel during the troubles, and that overall sales in the region were still up during the summer, despite everything. Meanwhile, M&G have set up their own small Asian group, with representatives planning to be based in HK and Singapore. I think Pru Asia will be even stronger alone, like a tiger unleashed, but M&G will take a while to find their feet, and may even be vulnerable to takeover.

Back on topic to the initial M&G share price: another obvious method for guestimating it would be using relative operating profits from the latest results (H1 2019): £687m attributed to M&G, £2024m to the Pru. That indicates Pru generating almost exactly 3 times as much profit as M&G during the period. Splitting today's closing price on the same basis (both companies will have the same number of shares in issue) gives split prices of about £3.74 for M&G, and £11.01 for the Pru - not too far from the results of jatw's excellent yield comparison idea. Market cap would be £9.72Bn and £28.63Bn respectively, easily qualifying both for inclusion in the FTSE100 index.

And another thing - Karl Loomes, the author of that Fool article, doesn't even seem aware that the company is demerging in just three weeks time, not even mentioning it: it's an astonishing omission of staggering proportions!

The fine is now surely a matter of corporate governance and the non-exec directors need to intervene. The incentives encouraging the rule breaking did not come out of nowhere, somebody instigated them. Who? Any bonuses received by those responsible are tainted, and should be repaid to help pay for the huge financial liability they have created.

Although relevant, this article is dire. Firstly, it skims over the reasons Pru were fined, ignoring everything except the headline, even suggesting that they were not valid reasons, mere infractions of bad rules. That seems lazy, uninformed, complacent and uninterested. Secondly, it discusses the planned dividend in a reasonable manner, but goes on to imply that future dividends will continue the trend, completely missing the rebasing of dividends after the split. In an piece purporting to assess the prospects, that is seriously misleading, imo. https://www.fool.co.uk/investing/2019/09/30/the-pros-and-cons-of-buying-prudential-shares-right-now/

National news now: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49878284
Turns out there were incentives, but no answers in the Pru apology about who is responsible for them.

More details in this report: https://www.lse.co.uk/news/PRU/fca-fines-prudential-23-9m-over-annuity-sales-pd7v6226uhwgcjh.html

It seems there were several internal failures here, although no journalistic analysis of the reasons for them. Were they caused merely by ignorance or incompetence, for example, or were they motivated by financial incentives? If the latter, then questions should be asked about who put those incentives in place, and what they gained from it personally. Fixing the problem is one thing, but the FCA don't seem to have considered the underlying cause. We, the shareholders, indirectly pay the fine and the reparation costs - through reduced profit, reduced funds available for dividends, and reputational damage affecting the share price.

"Britain's markets watchdog has
fined insurer Prudential 24 million pounds ($29.39
million) for failures related to non-advised sales of annuities,
it said on Monday.

The FCA said Prudential failed to make sure customers were
consistently advised that by shopping around they could get a
higher rate on their annuities, which pay pensioners a fixed
income for life.

The fine relates to the period between July 2008 and
September 2017, the FCA said, adding that as of Sept. 19, 2019,
Prudential has offered around 110 million pounds in redress to
17,240 customers."

https://www.lse.co.uk/news/PRU/markets-watchdog-fines-prudential-24-mln-stg-over-annuity-sales-vu7gr7w3qz7cg8f.html

Why what? And which comment are you referring to? Please add more meaningfulness, if possible. Thanks.

You appear to be talking about the existing Pru share price, RR, whereas this thread is trying to determine the opening price for M&G Prudential when it is launched (hence the title?).

But never mind, let's go with it: you are not the first person to see no downside to the existing share price, nor to predict buying ahead of the split. However, disappointingly, you give no reasoning. I envisage a bumpy ride before the split, but the price moving generally upwards. My reasoning is, firstly - trouble in Hong Kong: it has happened again today for the 17th weekend in a row, and will put downwards pressure on the price tomorrow. On Tuesday there will almost certainly be a lot more, because it's Happy Commie day in China (pretty sure that's the official title?), and the opposite in HK.
Also: political pandemonium in the US and the UK virtually guaranteed up to and beyond the split. Markets surely won't just sail through it all.

The upwards pressure on the price MAY come (if my many assumptions are correct) from institutional buyers. The new companies will have different profiles from the existing one which may give them characteristics which qualify them for inclusion in pension funds and various other collective investments from which they are currently excluded. Analysts universally value the company higher than it's current price, so they ought to be advising their clients to buy now, ahead of the split, if they are expecting the split to cause an upwards revaluation (if they aren't, then the split seems fruitless). The institutions will want to take meaningful positions, which usually necessitates buying in tranches, rather than all at once, but there is limited time. Therefore, there could be substantial, spread out buying, right up to the split, enough to absorb most selling and to create slow upwards momentum. It's just a theory - what do you think?

Sources of debate JJ, how very dare you! Why would you want to go anywhere else but here?
Seriously though, a lot of recent discussion here was based on information from the analyst presentations:
https://www.investis-live.com/prudential/5d70dd976dc5c40a00c76416/omer
https://www.investis-live.com/mandg-plc/5d834be79eecb71000b90c87/lqme

Resistance points prove meaningless again. Shame. Perhaps try wearing lucky pants? You know when you've been Bango'd.

I stripped out the planned £100m M&G special dividend because it is a one-off payment, thereby reducing the £410m to £310m. In deriving the relative sizes of the companies, and thereby their potential prices, it doesn't seem to make much sense to include the cost of an unsustainable special dividend, which has no bearing on the size of the company, hence the adjustment. Hope that makes sense, JJ.