... that this alleged coming PPI redress issue that HMG are discussing will effect Lloyds in any way?
Also when HMG sell their holding in Lloyds will this raise or lower the share price, as a mixed blessing?
And finally do we think that if Lloyds decided to slash the dividend and do buybacks instead, we will all see a rise in 2022, as some are suggesting the board may choose that option.
P.S that China flu thing seems to be a bit of a concern, but unlikely to reach our shores.
We are the 'Mother of the free (loaders)' and until we see a flotilla of small craft leaving, then things can't be that bad here.
As usual for Lloyds if house prices go up, the whinge of 'unaffordability' will echo forth, If they go down then 'all those properties on Lloyds books are dragging the share price down'
So either way, we know which way we are heading, always North, no wonder it's still so cold this Spring.
"What impact would this have on Lloyds etc?"
On profits, plenty. On shareholders returns, zero. Imo
Just more profit to be syphoned off to feed house and increase the UK's ever growing 'alleged' impoverished, after of course the 'board' had taken it's share first.
The loss for shareholders of the PPI 'mis-selling' is imo still an issue.
For whilst the re-payment of such to those whose were mis-sold such may be over, the fact remains that although immoral, was very lucrative for Lloyds.
And since the 'best' they can do to replace such income with, is billions in buybacks, and as we see any gains which 'may' have been added to the puny share price is soon lost within hours on any bad news, then the FUTURE loss of income from having an interfering Government, likely to replaced with an even more controlling Government will never ever allow banks to make money from the public unless fully informed of 'better alternatives'.
Thus easy profits gone now forever, and even the large profits they do make is under observation as HMG are not 'happy' that interest rate increases are not being passed on to savers in High street banks, DESPITE the Gov making it easier to 'change banks' and countless emails or letters INFORMING people of their interest rates paid.
So as I say, HMG have left the building but still hold the puppet strings for banks and will never ever relinquish that hold again.
Lloyds just a buffer zone purse for Gov failures to fund the public, who HMG need to squander as businesses and High Streets depend now on 'tat' purchases such as expensive designer Cups of Coffee, or nail bars, etc etc as we have few manufacturing businesses for HMG to gain tax by now.
So a huge, ever unorgainically growing population 'geared' and needed to spend to keep the UK businesses hanging in there, but merely circulating borrowed money, not creating it anymore.
What could possibly go wrong for the UK and Lloyds? I can't see a problem...
Gewilla
Thank you for your post, and no it isn't rude to suggest what you have re holding onto long term laggards.
The difficulty is doing something about it insomuch as finding a sector or company which has future growth potential of course that is not already had such priced in.
So fear of 'out of the frying pan, into the fire' always prevents the less bold from making such a decision.
As you have proven that is often the right way to improve you finances, but I wager a lot, perhaps less likely to admit, have found the frying pan more comfortable at times!
Sadly never invested in US shares but their Gov doesn't seem to bow to public pressure to windfall tax anything that is making profit as this, and certainly the next likely Gov will do here.
Thanks for suggestions which I will truly consider.
Whilst that is true, there are two points which need to be considered.
Just because the 'company' saves on paying out a divi on those bought back shares, doesn't necessarily mean we shareholders will receive it. They can still pay out what they 'would have done anyway' in future div's and just use the saved sum for wage rises, pensions, expenses etc etc.
Secondly by the company only 'saving' 18p a YEAR on each share they buy back, it would take around 20 YEARS to gain just on the 'saving' made on the dividends to cover the cost of buying back each share.
So hardly a 'blistering ' return on capital for a business imo.
Have had the same argument on Lloyds and BP bb.
Many directors gain far more than shareholders by doing 'buybacks' as often bonuses etc linked to s.p, whereas many private holders would prefer the div to 'reinvest' if they wish, at a time or company of their choosing or to use the div as income. Whereas buybacks means to gain the 'return' you have to sell stock, costly and annoying.
Also buybacks are oft seen by the market as a company who have 'run out' of better ways of growing their business in more profitable areas to invest in.
A no-no from me for as a crash or downturn inevitable comes, then there goes all the perceived 'gain' too, whereas if they paid a higher div, the excess shares would be bought up by income hunters, thus raising the s.p via supply/demand rules anyway, and those div's could be held awaiting a downturn to buy or blow on a hol or car etc.
Lazy, deceitful fooling of investors imo. Others see it differently especially if not isa's and more income pushes them over the tax threshold .
Not so sure I agree that 'bonds are only tending to be a problem if you are a forced seller....' as if you hold masses bought when paying very low yields, and are experiencing double digit inflation, likely to be followed by 'higher' inflation than many of your 'held' low yield bonds provide, then the return in the run up to maturity is dismal, and likely not to breach inflation levels, and by the time they 'mature' then what you get back, will have way less spending power than when you 'lent' the capital.
Of course it would be the dead opposite if buying nearer the 'peak' yields offered, and inflation fell way below that yield.
I have no clue as to what percentage though is in the former group of bonds held, but as we have had low interest rates for years now, rather a lot I would guess.
To me a wonderfully perfectly organised event. I am not an ardent Royalist, but truly believe their existence gives much more in wealth, national pride, world respect and tourism than many give credit for.
As their ancestors 'won' or gained the whole of the UK in battle, then by rights they could be seen to 'own' every piece of land in the UK.
So paying a civil list is 'getting off cheap' imo as all land 'ownership' could otherwise be paying a lease to the Royals which would amount to far more expenditure.
What was to me very obvious was the disproportionate amount of people of colour in the crowds, to the commentators on the tv coverage on channels which were covering and commentating on the great event whose ratio was 50/50.
As normally the outside cameras and reporters would make a bee-line to interview such, and also by sight, it was clear to me that very few in proportion attended. Perhaps still celebrating Labours likely victor in the next election.
Least some of us on here are still proud and not afraid to be British for the true meaning of 'being so' not just what we can gain from that 'title'.
God save the King!
It 'may' open higher, but likely to close much lower.
As we know, shares don't go up or down in straight lines, otherwise on a downturn people would just wait until the drop ended before buying in.
So by giving short term rises, fools 'think' the bottom has been found, and this allows those with deeper knowledge to unload more of their stock at a better price than they otherwise would if buyers were more wary.
And a weekend with a bank hol, is clearly not encouraging time to buy with banks failing and interest rate rises adding to, or being used as an excuse to force out the minnows to allow the big buyers to 'wipe out' shareholders to then pick over the spoil for anything of value.
So don't 'trust' what you read from those with vested interests. These 'they' said we would do well holding Lloyds according to brokers.
Don't expect the hoped for continuing rise in interest rates to not come at a price. As I stated, the Gov are threatening to punish, whatever that means, banks not passing on the increase in interest rate rises to savers.
So whilst we 'may' gain a .25 % extra boost, at WHAT price if such is not 'given' to savers?
This is a disgustingly pathetic share price, and imo, just a buffer zone HMG string pulling run outfit, to keep the overly indebted driving, and spending , and keeping the dim who overstretched themselves with large mortgages with a roof over their head, but ALL at the shareholders expense, not the CEO's or other top brass, so they sing to the tune of HMG, NOT shareholders.
The buybacks are not for our benefit but more for the boards. The div is half that of inflation, and the buybacks have not 'supported' the share price, and never will when world events come to the fore, so for most, a large div would have been banked, re-invested here or elsewhere if wished, but it would have been our choice. But as the board decide, then they will always do what is in their best interests first, and only if that 'coincides' with shareholders wishes, will we be 'looked after'.
There is NO catalyst left to lift Lloyds, for if higher interest rates, billions in buybacks, and higher property prices on lloyds books, haven't boosted this, then nothing will.
The huge Elephant in the room is all the commercial property on Lloyds books, as I have said before, not like a 'repo' house easy to sell, or easy to rent, these properties are costly to make safe and secure in this 'sue' culture, costly to insure, and very had to sell on in a slow, sluggish lack luster economy.
The dream is over, reality though will never be accepted by some.
As ONE reason mentioned for the drop was that savers / investors pulled 2b from Lloyds to spend or likely invest in higher paying accounts/ bonds/ isa's etc, then why can't a large bank like Lloyds pay similar amounts to keep business?
Heard that the Gov are going to 'force' banks to limit the margins on what they pay savers and what banks 'make' on the money held, so surely they would have been wise to 'up' the interest before loosing savers and being 'punished' by HMG.
Also re the social housing. A family member named on a rent book, CANNOT and does not have the right to transfer the tenancy to their children, only their partner should they die.
For housing is now allocated on a points system.
Meaning that if as too many are, you have hoards of children, and a few with 'isims', and are classed as a 'single muver' etc this 'ups' your points so you will 'gain' a property before a normal decent family, which causes bitterness, as it is often the most troublesome, large broken families who 'do the best' from the state, whereas a single working person has NO hope of gaining a council or social property.
So this encourages the plebs to 'have a kid' to gain not only a home but a well paid lifestyle not paying rent or c.tax
Bad enough when only the Brits knew the game, now, thanks to the net, the 'world' realise how to 'play the game' too.
For once lti I agree with you re the rtb housing.
It was a good thing, for many people in council houses bought them and moved on, thus providing a cheap first time home for others who could not afford a better family home.
The Gov had the cash from the sale to build new flats or houses, a win win for all.
As you say too many people in the UK and mostly not even British WE have to house, is the biggest but now unmentionable issue with housing for people
Feds like Lloyds share holders were on to a looser either way.
For if they never raised the rate, then the world would see it as a sign of fear that more banks would collapse as being the 'reason' they never raised it.
As they have raised it, then likely more bond holding institutions will suffer, and perhaps add more to the list of failures.
So, either way grim news.
At least this time the 'issue' is more a case of the 'experts' telling banks to hold then perceived low risk bonds, as safe liquid capital, and not just greed of bankers.
But no doubt the regulators will never be blamed.
Unsure how this will end, but imo, we are only just at the start of a new long downturn, as like on an upturn, it takes a long while for each failing business to then effect the next, so I guess eventual high unemployment, soaring Gov debt, having to issue new bonds to gain more, with those interest rates higher as the country becomes seen more at risk, a spiral of misery.
Never a problem with Lloyds.
If going down, then 'we can top up' , 'lower our ave' or the latest, 'gain more from cheaper buy back', whilst we watch our investment ebb away, with a tangible return in divs way lower than inflation and a dire share price.
Whats not to like?