Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Official announcement from NWG on above subject confirms that they are maintaining their long held tradition of appointing chairmen who have actually no idea what banking is about.
OK, some will say that area is the domain of the CEO and Executive management and that is true......up to a point.
It's just that if the CEO turns out to be hopeless, out of their depth, tyrannical etc., and Nat West/RBS have had more than a few, then it beggars belief that 'more of the same' is deemed appropriate here, irrespective of the other skills that Rick H may bring to the table. It certainly hasn't worked in the past.
Despite that, I wish him every success.
And, yes, I am that desperate!
....but as we have seen in so many Corporates (especially the really big boys), it never stops Senior Execs being rewarded with ridiculous severance or remuneration packages.
Shareholders inevitably bail out these examples of incompetence time and time again. AGMs are hardly a suitable means of leveraging private shareholder opinion.
Being drip fed with these unsettling bits of news should unfortunately keep a lid on the more optimistic views expressed on this bb recently, and, as a consequence, the SP/Dividend aspirations for the foreseeable future.
With no end in the weakness shown by the SP in recent times, the proximity of the Interim Dividend payment due on 15 Sep offers the Group a new opportunity to plumb record 'lows' not seen since the dark days of 2008.
Perhaps our much criticised BoD will surprise us all with a very positive trading update (in absence of CEO...sic), tease us with the appointment of a dynamic (permanent) new CEO and other radical news.
Or, perhaps not........as they seem blissfully asleep at the wheel and totally bereft of ideas on what to do next.
It's being reported that A Rose could get a payoff of £2.4m .......for disclosing confidential information to a journalist!
This is a disgrace, and an insult to all staff amongst others, who behave in a proper professional manner. Any other member of staff guilty of misconduct would get nothing after all, and rightly so.
Even if she had been an excellent CEO (which IMO she most certainly had not been), her actions have forfeited any severance payment being due.
What more can you get wrong NWG?
D - fairly obvious stuff from Bloomberg, but, of course, there was a lot 'wrong' with the SP well before the Rose/Farage/Coutts debacle.
Despite the (previous) steady reduction in HM Gov's shareholding, it is clear from recent events that despite their Minority holding, they continue to act as 'shadow Directors' and often at complete odds with the Group's BoD.
I'm sure there are many investors who will never view NWG as an independent Company until every last Gov share is sold off.
If that is in fact the case, then even the appointment of a new CEO etc remains 'tainted' by outside control as will future direction of the Group.
It's already 15 years since the Financial crash of 2008 and I wouldn't like to hazard a guess at how long recovery of the SP will take to pre-bailout levels, if ever.
There's clearly a fundamental lack of demand for NWG shares, as despite the Group's much improved financial position (sizeable and growing profits, much stronger Capital etc) together with both the reintroduction of Dividend payments and a backdrop of managed reduction of UK Gov's shareholding, the SP languishes close to the disastrous levels of 2008 (once the ridiculous Consolidation and last year's Capital reduction sleight of hand are taken into account.
It cant all be the fault of a string of very sub-par CEOs and BoD members but I think its going to take a whole more than a change of Broker to reignite this share.
Here's hoping for a miracle!
The Gov are clearly only propping up Mr Davies' continuing as Chairman to avoid the 'witch hunt' getting out of hand and proving to be destabilising to the Bank.
Not a view I agree with, but they certainly call the shots with NWG where both the Chairman and to a large extent, the BoD have shown themselves to be totally inept in their handling of the sorry saga of Rose/Farage.
However, of more immediate concern among the current anti-bank stories once again finding favour, is the apparent refusal of the UK big Banks to pass on the higher rates of Interest payable to savers, commensurate with the BoE's recent Base rate rises despite increasing those rates charged to borrowers.
You have a sense of deja-vu here where the under pressure Tory Gov might seek to earn some extra cash (tax) at the Banks' expense whilst also appeasing the increasing public outcry on the whole issue of Banks' behaviour etc.
It could just be too tempting particularly as Bank profits increase.
Often the posters on bb's are (rightly) criticised for the views/behaviours expressed publicly.
However, almost to a person posting here immediately stated that A Rose's position was untenable and should either resign or be removed.
That our deluded BoD issued their public vote of confidence in her until a number of presentations were made to them pointing out what they should have done, did they belatedly (this morning), take the correct action.
Yet again, the much trumpeted Corporate Governance in corporate Britain fails when the very point of these rules exist in the first place.
As others have already, rightly said, the Chairman and most others need to be removed. Unfortunately, we are beholden to II's and politicians to achieve this on our behalf. I won't be holding my breath.
I have already made my views known on the (basic) attributes any prospective serious CEO candidate should have. Shareholders deserve a true achiever to be appointed after a long line of 3rd rate occupants who also received a ridiculous remuneration for bringing very, very little to the table of dynamic leadership.
And we are going to need radical change at BoD level to achieve it, that much is very apparent.
She has just publicly admitted, 'serious errors of judgement in speaking to BBC about NF'.
'Nuff said; pick up your P45 on the way out the door, Alison Rose.
It looks fairly obvious from the straw poll of posters views, that one Alison Rose should step down, if for no better reason than to protect Bank's reputation, whatever is left of it these days.
Whilst I am not in any disagreement with that view, I am surprised that its a bit of 'gossip' that's would be her undoing and not the fact she has been bloody hopeless as a CEO.
At least, can whichever recruitment agency is instructed with sourcing her replacement, can they be tasked with finding someone with true leadership, acumen, judgement, eloquence etc and more than just a passing notion of what a bank is about!
All the foregoing in my opinion only of course.
The wording of AR's letter of apology (shown in full in the media), is fairly clear and unambiguous.
What's also fairly clear and unambiguous is the serious lack of Executive control over various parts of the NW empire.
Just how can 40 page reports produced for some unnamed Committee to legitimately consider, possibly exist (and perhaps they dont) within a SubCo which appears to share none of the values expressed in AR's letter.
Even if we set aside the particular recipient, it is fairly clear that there have been many other customers receiving similarly unacceptable treatment.
And it is unacceptable, as even AR admits in her letter.
So she needs to sort a few things out in Corporate Governance but, at least, thus far the impact on NWG business/sp appears minimal but the impact of these types of news headlines can be slow burning as well as living long in peoples' memories.
And today's very modest increase in SP (thus far), increases our Market Cap to a 'heady ' £16m!
Fairly ridiculous realoy given the dynamics of Iog, and I'm fully accepting the Bond issues etc. which are relevant.
Apologies Smeagol.........didn't notice spell check correction in my previous post!
B
Smeaton- Wow! Even by DL's recent rapacious renewal 'behaviour', that sort of increase sounds outrageous.
As you may have seen from many posters' comments below, inc my own, people simply aren't going to tolerate that sort of ruse in cost, particularly, as everyone is struggling with the spiralling cost of just existing, far less living (despite today's apparent reduced inflation figs).
DL's reliance on 'retail' insurance business could therefore prove costly and loss of market share is one thing, but the concern must be the extent to which the haemorrhage of business really starts to uncover costs etc.
Next trading figs could be (unfortunately) very concerning unless they are equally ruthless at pairing back overheads as they are at pricing new/renewal business.
As I have conceded previously, any progress in SP/Dividend income would be welcome from my perspective, although never likely to make any real impact on the life-changing losses I suffered with this share in the past (and I appreciate I am not alone in that etc).
I don't disagree with Dinoken in his views of last year's Special Dividend and the whole manner in which the partial Return of Capital was communicated ....or not as it transpired.
Given NWG's crusade-like move toward a community Bank in recent years makes that SD episode all the more surprising.
As always, all PIs need are trustworthy BoD members who can transparently communicate actions and performance, justifying in simple terms why certain decisions were taken etc.
All rather simple Alison R!
That's certainly not unreasonable now Enfin and is largely reinforced by the 'opportunities ' highlighted within today's latest Corporate Preentation (for investors) posted on their website.
If there's an upside for PIs here (not much recompense for many's extensive losses etc), it's the Company's monthly cash-positive position even at current depressed gas prices. Seasonality's increased demand should improve the position as we get closer to Autumn.
However, it's all a bit underwhelming, with a major financial restructure being required next year to deal with the Bond maturity, quite apart from addressing just how future development value can be unlocked.
A simplistic solution perhaps, but a 'takeover' of Iog is looking more and more as its most feasible option. That, of course, brings it's own unpredictability assuming there's appetite out there.
All deeply disappointing in my view .... a view that could apply to all too many of my AIM investments these days!
GLA.
I suppose IC have detailed financial information that gives credence to their 'buy' rating.
As far's as PIs are concerned, the lack of any credible road map, restructure, financial projections etc etc make any investment at this stage, close to a punt IMO.
The reinstatement of any form of Dividend is far from the only remedial action required by the Co. A radical review of the Senior Executive should be added as well as a fundamental review of the Company's business model.
Its over reliance on retail insurance could still bite deeper yet. For one, simply hiking its charge for new / renewal business simply won't wash in today's environment when everyone's focus is their financial outgoings.
Loss of business could be significant....but, of course, we don't know and won't for some time.
I have already made losses on my DL investment more of the scale I would expect with more risky AIM investments and I'm honestly not sure if these will ever be recovered unless perhaps consolidation within the Sector gives rise to DL being acquired.
Recent Press comment in the Guardian etc certainly supports the anecdotal evidence on hefty increases mentioned by previous posters. In fact, the research seems to indicate DL (along with Saga) are the 2 companies hiking premiums the most.
I can understand their need to underwrite profitable business but the 'increased costs' argument trotted out by DL Call centres is difficult to swallow when they are looking fir increases way beyond any UK inflation figures be they RPI or CPI etc.
For my own part, an increase of c40% on my Home insurance was reduced somewhat nominally after raising the scale rise. However, my car insurance was hiked 45% despite more than 30 years+ and no changes etc on a longstanding connection with DL and despite discussing matters, they were not prepared to reduce the increase by a penny!
They have now lost the business (and as Toplink states, comparing line by line is the important bit, to ensure no dilution in terms etc).
Firstly, I acknowledge the contributions made by many posters to this bb; they truly add value for the less informed.
For my part (as a 'medium' term holder), it is certainly a relief to receive 2 very positive RNS in short order, together sufficient now to provide stability and a road map (of sorts) for the way ahead.
Sensible strategy building cash flow given all the recent Co events and wider geo-political and market driven issues.
The SP has a lot of recovery to undertake but now it has the fuel to do so.
I am no technical expert, but I would have thought a 'mechanical blockage' was preferable to a structural or geological fault that may have proved terminal for the well. Time will tell.
As far as the imminent and likely financial covenant breach (testing date 30 June 2023) is concerned, imo this is likely to be a re-pricing event rather than an Event of Default. The Bond T & Cs will or at least should detail the scenario for 1st breach (given extent and nature etc of breach). In the volatile market of raw material/commodity trading (product not instrument), I cannot believe Iog would sign up to any 'trigger happy' terms within their main finance doc.
Provided medium to longer term viability can be demonstrated, covenant breaches (provided any increased levels are subsequently not also breached), are likely to be a further adverse drag on profits (as well as the lower gas prices/margins etc).
Iog do however require to give themselves headroom (for fincial liquidity) and they really should have had standby facilities already negotiated given the lower gas price projections evident to the wider Market for some time.