Member Info for Broomfielder

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.

Today's RNS must be welcomed by any lth's still alive after all the years of dwindling prospects for their investment.

It does seem very much of 'too little too late' however welcome some 'return' will be made here (on basis it completes as outlined).

Whilst I sold out at considerable loss a while back, I do wish any remaining shareholders all the very best. This has been a shameful exercise in the plethora of 'risks' associated with an AIM investment. In addition to the obvious geo-political risks are those that appear to border close to criminal and at the very least unethical; we have witnessed most!

B

There's so much 'nervousness' (in the wider Markets, be they stock, bond or capital/money itself) around Banks and Finance dependent businesses that's never come close to being truly assuaged since 2008.
In my recent post below, imo its greatly exaggerated by the many 'players' in the Market who make firtunes from instability and volatility. The long term investors, again imo, suffer increasingly with every year that passes.
It truly is hard to believe that in the UK at least, the Bank's etc were once considered so safe that they were known as 'widows and orphans' stocks. Quite a change in 30 years or so.
So I think we can expect some serious volatility in the near future as Central Banks wake up to impact caused by so many years of cheap money has wrought. Too many commentators focused on the domestic or retail markets seemingly losing sight of some Banks changing their entire business structure.
Deutsch Bank have been on a roller coaster coming close to disaster around 2008 and a couple of times since. Their latest turnarounds have been underwritten by Investment bank growth which is proving illusionary in terms of profit sustainability.
PS apologies for my last post where my painful experiences somehow mixed up Enron when it should have course been Lehmans...only excuse is a bit too much alcohol!

With the latest Domino to fall in this (so far) latest mini global financial crash, the panic merchants and gamblers which dominate worldwide stock and bond markets will ensure more losses appear against just about any entity remotely connected to finance/banking in the coming days/weeks. Needless to say, British Banks will likely not escape irrespective of the perceived capital strength etc.
And that for me really is the 'rub' here. It's not that necessarily, institutions which fail deserve to. Just as a revisit to 2008 would disclose that Enron should have been shored up if, for no other reason, but to protect other institutions which then became casualties.
Today is no different I suspect. I am not privvy to the internal Management Accounts pertaining to the distressed/rescued Banks, but any concerted 'run' on a bank will quickly challenge its (Central Bank) imposed liquidity ratios which in turn quickly push distress toward (credit) ratings and gradings being challenged and then downgraded. In this relatively short time, capital adequacy becomes academic.
Yes, banking IS that fragile if enough shorters/hedge funds and other gamblers set off a wider panic among a Bank's customers (and these can of course include sovereign exposure, other banks etc) and that's before the wonderfully expert media spread their sensationalist headlines.
I believe NWG are as well placed, if not better, than any UK bank from a number of perspectives, so hopefully the 2008 crash is not repeated and the many people who lost jobs/cash/both etc who lost out needlessly will not see a repeat this time around.
Central Banks/Governments have both played significant roles in creating today's banking issues but, as always, these simply provide the gamblers with the chips to play with. The notion of an open, free market is a fallacy.
After that.....let's hope for better days for our investment!

Having got the Bondholders off our backs, I am really staggered that this 'offer' represents best value to shareholders.
The discount to recent SP coupled with the deferred payment of the bulk of the agreed consideration, itself contingent upon factors totally outside of Hur's control smacks of deal more reminiscent of a distressed sale.
If this deal manages to complete, withbthe conflicts of interest jumping out everywhere, then AIM is a disgrace that merits being closed down.

You are right m1n3r........l.but, at least it's a nice shade of blue for a change.

Russia's announced production cut this morning is almost certainly a sign of their future intention to disrupt the oil market in retaliation to the West's previous price cap etc. on Russia's Black stuff.
Of course, what they say and what they actually do, are likely to be entirely different things but if they get the expected result in the price of oil (ie increase), they are likely to play all sorts of further games in future.
That, coupled with any big gains from their latest Ukraine offensive, if achieved, are only going to push oil prices strongly upwards.