The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring financial educator and author Jared Dillian has been released. Listen here.
67Sam
The point I am referring to re buybacks, is just say Lloyds bought back an entire half of their own shares. The dividend should double instantly. BUT it is the board who 'decide' the portion the shareholders 'get' after doing their creative accountancy, and I would not be surprised that IF there were half the shares left, that shareholders div would not double, as other costs, expenses, provisions and Gov stealth taxes would be 'found' to still limit the amount of div, paid out, to the minimum they can get away with.
So, assuming that is so, then by them buying back far lesser amounts than half, the creative accountancy can be implemented easily to pay a trifling just above inflation increase in div, IF that, and thus find a better more 'personal' use for the potion that shareholders in a lower share environment OUGHT to have had in full.
The board calls the shots re div, not the amount of shares in issue, and unless strictly straight who is to 'say' that shareholders will receive the full benefits of buybacks, when it is so easy for them and their HMG masters to find 'better' places to donate our share of the profit too?
Having less share due to buybacks ought to mean that we have an increasing dividend 'due' to that alone.
And whilst Lloyds have increased the dividend (after severely cutting it, so still poor compared) then who is to 'say' that the increase would not have occurred anyway, due to large profits?
Hence my distaste with the 'image' that buybacks are fool-proof.
For as less shares are in issue, Lloyds could, and maybe do, just allocate less cash from the 'profit pot' to each of the lesser shares than they otherwise would have done, had the buybacks not happened.
Like sacking half your staff due to hi tech or AI, company saves double their money on wages, but will never double the wages of those remaining, but 'find' other more personal pleasing means for the bosses to 'use' that saved cash and in Lloyds case, HMG have plenty of uses for our money to be wasted upon.
Suf, Sid James had a budgie which could predict the results of a horse race every time.
He got very wealthy on it and that was fiction, but a very funny Carry-On film, for once.
As I said, All good news will be overly priced in cometh the day, so if like almost if not every, other year, then wise or informed people imo, will likely bail pre results, but there is always countless hopefuls who think 'this' time it will be different, but with a Labour in no 10 soon, and likely a massive new car PPI, with every case, false or not costing Lloyds dearly, then we can't say 'this time' we haven't been warned.
But hope and a Parrot is not exactly cutting edge shrewd investment advice. Guess Goldman Sachs won't be head hunting you or the Parrot, but Pet's at home might. Watch out for the black and white 'eggs' on the carpet.
I have not said that Lloyds will cut the dividend YET, I said the dividend will be cut if needed to fund the new car PPI RATHER than cutting the CEO or boards bonuses or salary. Or words to that effect, check it out by clicking on my name and previous posts for confirmation.
Still always better to make something up to try to make those who have been calling this 'right' more than wrong, appear silly.
Just remember we are pricing in our results NOW.
So please no 'dumb' questions cometh the day of "How come the results are good, but we have gone down?"
THINK
whilst the realists aka 'doomsters' are absent, it ought be remembered by those 'messing' themselves with excitement that both lloyds and n.w have dropped massively a few short weeks pre the results.
so unless a non holder before that drop, and buying in near the bottom, then akin to just having a 'little' more than you would have had, if selling at the bottom, but still nowhere near where it was pre the long slide down.
uk banks have, imo never been under so much pressure. this 'car thing' will balloon, and will be the new ppi.
remember also that all these immoral but very lucrative incidents not only are paid back, but won't be bringing in that income again for the banks.
so a double whammy.
'profit' is only second down in labour and most publics 'bad word' dictionary, from ******, so imo don't get too excited seen it all before.
as hmg are trying to unload nwg maybe this false dawn will be maintained a little longer until they are out, but as with lloyds still pulling the installed puppet strings, and a little harder when out, as not shooting their own size no.10 foot.
I am thinking that the share price next Thur, will be lower than it will be the day before.
As Lloyds are the last to announce then all the 'good news' is already factored in by our results day, so normally it falls when the results, even if good, are announced.
Also as we see on here by most all, people know that Labour are going to walk the next GE, and rightly people fear the measures that Labour will take to remove profits from banks to fund their delightful policy of ensuring that each family soon resembles a modern 'Christmas 'ad' family'.
Add the certainly of the coming car PPI type thing, and few will not be tempted to avoid until both 'known' future damage can be better seen in the rear view mirror, not the Daily Mirror.
Sadly the Tories have embraced Woke views, so much so, that people like me who would have voted for them won't do so again, as they used to be seen as hard but sensible, and like that strict teacher most of us knew, unpleasant during your term, but only now can you see or reap the gain of enduring such.
Yet the seemingly kinder teacher often did you in the long term far less favours.
But now, the choice and ways are so similar of the two parties, and immigration levels are seen as a genuine threat to the indigenous and the Tories having years but doing nothing about it, then to me major issues like that are more important that a few pence added or taken from VAT, or alcohol, or fuel, pales into insignificance compared.
Hence I think that is what this increase in pension age to 71 is all about, a threat to the public of what 'will' happen 'unless' we give an amnesty to 99.9 % of arrivals, thus then 'using' the numbers of such to fool the public into 'seeing' them as "At least we won't now have to work until we drop" lie.
Think what YOU would 'do' IF you were HMG and not just a 'cog' in society. Could be vastly different from rational thinking.
I never said that they were 'going' to cut the div, I said it will be mighty tempting as can't see Lloyds paying out larger div yield than they 'need' to do to attract buyers, so as the share price falls, the yield on div gets larger, so easy then to trim the div paid out to a ' reasonable level' IF the money is 'in their opinion' not our, better spent elsewhere.
So don't suggest I am starting a conspiracy as I am not.
But with Labour likely to gain no 10, inflation high, wars, high costly arrivals, Car type PPI, then SHOULD Lloyds find margins or default issues have to be subsidised who do YOU think will fund it, the CEO, the boards pay, or the shareholders dividend?
I wish I were so naive, it must make awaiting the pain so much easier, but the shock of when it occurs so much worse.
So swings and roundabouts I guess.
The problems is, as the share price drops to new trading lows, then of course the yield on the div rises.
So likely very 'tempting' then for the canny board of directors to then either slow, end or even CUT the dividend paid out to shareholders to fund their salaries etc, and of course to fund HMG's wishes via stealth taxes or 'fines'.
Then with a lower share price say 40p, they can slash the div to 2p a year and still be said to be paying out 'a healthy' 5%, enough then to keep the few NEW buyers buying in for such a return, whilst us 'old time' holders at higher break even prices have a much lower yield return.
But Lloyds themselves don't care, as it is OTHER private sellers people buy shares from, NOT Lloyds itself.
So I would not be surprised to see the div cut if the share price remains so very low, as for Lloyds, 'WHY PAY MORE'? I am sure both they, and HMG will find a more 'fitting' use for any profits to be spent upon.
See what is likely to happen, not 'just' what you want to happen, the two are likely worlds apart.
As inflation is being more stubborn than perhaps some expected, then if the true inflation rate is running near double digits, then two years should add the 8p to the share price, BUT of course, not it's worth, as the increased share price by inflation, will still mean it is only 'worth' the same as it was in 'buying power'.
But with wars, more impoverished sapping our wealth, Labour soon in power, more hefty stealth taxes on banks, unemployed and riots as living standards plummet, can't see this rising until Labour are voted out and the 'New tories' ride to the UK's aid, but forcing a deal with the EU near to what we had before.
So likely years away unless inflation goes Zim styly with Labour in control of the printing press imo.
But all imo, just because I have been right for 15 years is no certainty that I will be in the future.
I do hope he is alright, or his family are.
As although a frightful, argumentative, arrogant, rude, unsympathetic poster, he does know a lot and the board needs wrong but positive posters, to prevent us all needing the Samaritans on speed dial.
Should see a small rise PRE the results, to allow the last to be informed of the wise to unload their holdings to those with less sense but more 'hope', then, cometh the day, new lows, but nothing to what will happen GE results imo.
Still gotta be wrong, one day. But truly what IS to look forward to for Lloyds, the UK who are symbiotic? Yet we can all list plenty that is wrong with it.
Our last clutching at straws was the interest rates rise, that did nothing positive for long, as nothing does for Lloyds, so imo would be better to end buy backs and have more divs, as at least they can be 'kept' whereas any reason for the share price to rise, is soon lost forever in the wave of gloom constantly bombarding the UKs economy. But buybacks are better for the board so we know which way this will go.
Years of misery yet imo
Likely the email address will be something like: "whingingplebs@wastebin.uk"
Still cheaper and environmentally a better waste of time than paying for a stamp and using paper for the same 'result'.
..... HMG know how to play the game better than the great unwashed realise.
They will 'use' the threat of forcing the retirement age to 71 on the British public, as a lever, to say to the public, " IF we allow a huge percentage of the dingy beings to stay, then we can keep the retirement age at the previous suggested levels for the British people" as they will say that they have enough young then to 'care' for the growing elderly.
Issue is two fold, one being that newcomers aren't immortal so they too will age, adding to the growing need of ever more in a small country.
Second being that many, once firmly safely here and have bred, know they can't be returned so will just take on the young British way, and only work a 16 hours, then claim free rent, c. tax and hundreds a week in U/C, so instead of being a boon for the country and aid our growing dependants, they then BECOME a drain too.
We need work visas only, and only give full residence rights after 20 years of FULL time work, otherwise a 'negative asset'.
But HMG and the elite like such as being large property and landowners, more bodies equal more profit, and most of the party funders are glad of more people as keeps wages lower, BUT ONLY because they have their wage, rent and c.tax, paid by the rest of us, along with free education and health care. But bosses and HMG and elite don't care about that, as the working plebs can fund it all, not them.
Re "Lloyds are a house builder through CITRA Living for the rental market. Plan to have 50,000 properties built by 2030."
Yes and once HMG have squeezed private landlords out, and big businesses have taken over the Lions share of private rental, then WATCH what will happen.
For then, the Government who has to FUND a never ending stream of dirt poor arrivals, adding to the growing number of indigenous impoverished which quite rightly our Government has a duty to fund, will then find with the huge extra amount of people, that it cannot 'afford' to pay ever increasing rents, so will then place 'rent caps' on such businesses such as Lloyds.
YET the expenses and 'suing' from the ungrateful, 'World owes us a living as we have breed a child' types will COST us ever more but with a then 'limited' income.
Guess who will take up the slack? THINK, see what is likely to happen, and it may not necessarily be what you 'want' to happen.
Gov can't fund such, and so have to do it slyly, by taking from the few businesses who are making money, and as their CEO's income is never affected, only the shareholders, then they are only too willing to obey the puppet master string pulling.
Continued as hit post button by mistake!
....PRE THE INTERNET would likely not have 'bothered' physically searching for a 'better deal' elsewhere.
Then FCA, FSA or Gov, made rulings than banks HAD to inform customers of better deals may be available elsewhere etc, thus taking more EASY profit from the banks.
Then the crash, then YEARS of HMG and media 'Bank bashing' the former doing so to 'avert blame' from themselves and their FCA chums, and the latter, ie the media, knowing it sells papers to a growing impoverished to blame 'rich bankers'.
Consequence was that the public ((especially the young) hated the 'big high street banks' , that stuffy parents used and embraced new, challenger banks, all online, and on their phones, permanently affixed to their palms.
The old Dinosaur massive banks then had to change to meet the new tech banks, whose overheads were small compared to running huge buildings with out of date technology. So they had to sell these off, and take on the challenger banks, all timely all costly, bad enough, BUT the WORST was then, without almost total dominance of lending money to people, they all had to be so much more COMPETITIVE. So forced to slash their margins to the bone.
Add the fact that like Lloyds several had to be 'bailed out' by HMG, then hardly going to pull in investors from the world, especially when being told by HMG 'That they won't do so again' . So in a worsening world, the banks then have to have massive 'buffers' of cash or easily liquidated assets, which may not be paying the returns less 'safe' investments would be, and in high inflation environments could be costing the banks dearly for that perceived 'safety net' imposed by HMG.
Clearly bit coin type trading takes work thus money away from banks, the fact that the EU will do all it can to take trade from the UK banking system, and the fact that as we see with the car loan issue, that now, banks have to check every loan or letter, or thing they do, or risk their shareholders, NOT the CEO, but us, paying the price, then to me, it is OBVIOUS why few wish to invest in banks, and hence why their share price is not only LOW, but abysmally so, IF you factor in years, not just a year, but years of inflation, and the buybacks.
So it is even WORSE than it looks IF you can bear to face facts, which of course most private investors choose not to do IF already in, for it, to them, is facing admittance YOU have made a mistake, and to some, a step to far to contemplate.
Hardly a 'mystery', as like most things in life, there are plenty of answers if one 'dares' to look for them and face the harsh truth.
As with the PPI saga, easy, lucrative ways of making money for banks is finished FOREVER. People on here were rightly concerned 'when' it was all going to have to be 'paid back'. I however highlighted not only the cost of paying it back, BUT the then 'loss' FOREVER onwards of then 'never again' having this lucrative but apparently 'immoral' source of income.
Will be similar with this car finance issue no doubt.
Then add the fact that other products banks could heavily 'persuade' customers to take on board, such as 'home insurance' with their mortgages, massively expensive, but an easy captive customer, oh so grateful the be given a mortgage after, as years ago one did, seeing and crawling to a 'bank manager'.
Same with loans, bank accounts, insurance, etc etc, all products that were pushed by banks to customers who PRE THE INTERNET
The way banking has changed in a few short decades ago, to gain a mortgage you would have needed to have banked with a local bank, met with the manager, and be 'vetted' on income and personally
....finally 'Seen the light' and sold his holding here?
Rare not to have a few comments from him singing the praises of the lowly performance of this share.
Almost miss him. They say hostages gain a sort of special relationship with their tormenting, insulting Captive takers, so I guess it is just that.
Brixton, as with Lloyds, with NWG, perhaps the time to worry, is when the Gov fully exit the UK banks.
For then, with 'no skin in the game' they won't be shooting themselves in their size 10 foot, when, as they will, no matter which party is 'in', impose more stealth taxes on UK banks.
As HMG will already know the likely size and 'outcome' of the Car finance false scandal, then perhaps this is WHY they are selling up NWG before the price plunges to new lows as the 'new PPI' ruse is rolled out to fund the feckless, with 'would be' shareholders money, to keep the high street for total terminal death throws.
Our fate will be worse than theirs as a much larger involvement.
Anyone who buys UK bank shares in such a climate with the past track record deserves loss, at least early buyers then believed there was hope of a recovery, now, with millions of extra impoverished , with small wars possibly about to escalate and the worlds Governments planning for a very 'different' world than we have ever perceived possible, sadly only leaders such as Trump / Farrage type can alter the rot, but, individuals have no hope against the worlds elite, so will be either shamed into hiding, or taken out imo.
Either way, Lloyds with all the lucrative but 'apparently' immoral easy profit making ways gone forever, and the crooked Gov forcing profit to be a dirty word to the ears of the public, we will never be allowed to see much of any, no matter how many shares they 'buy back' the board will imo, just find other ways via their puppet master to ensure that the shareholders percentage is kept pathetically low, as profit is spread out, in a disguised form of windfall social security to the wasters in our society.
Never would believe such would ever happen in the UK and with the Tories, but it has, and likely worse with Labour to pull the puppet strings all too soon.
Whilst there is no doubt that Labour will be in no.10, remember what I have said, that it is all 'Part of the Plan' just a means of the Tories staying out of power, until Labour messes up the economy big style, in a few short years, to then call a pre planned 'Vote of NO CONFIDENCE and 'ride to the rescue, BUT clutching a 'New Deal' with Europe as the 'only' means of saving a battered, broken, and disheartened public, who will readily 'accept' such after three or more years of misery.
British politics is nothing compared to world politics and the Tories have no other way of getting what they really wanted, without losing the trust forever of the democratic 'image' of themselves and the UK.
Remember where you head it, repeated for those who have yet to see or understand it.
Donkeyeyeeyrore
Thank you for post. I have sensed that despite the pre-vote relentless, OTT predicts of gloom & doom which failed to achieve what was 'expected' of it by HMG, that the 'surprised' Government was then 'stuck between a rock and a hard place'.
The 'wishes of the people' had been seen to be carried out, but as they never coincided with the 'wishes of the elite' then what could the elite 'do' to overturn them without killing the flaky image of UK democracy totally and of course their own party image?
Answer was of course to ensure that most of the 'reasons' which the British people had voted against remaining for were then to be shattered, or, as in the case of immigration (which was a huge reason, but being so sensitive was never highlighted as a main reason) was then allowed to become even worse, thus removing as many positive reasons for those voting against HMG's wishes to be belittled or quashed.
Add new problems to the woe such as the latest, that 'you stupid plebs daring to vote against us higher iq wise', will now all have to work until you are 71, is a certain to ensure that the huge number of non thinking public will assume that 'Since we left the EU, we now have more imm's, more expensive food, fuel, cut backs and now we have to work longer too' With of course no mention from the elite of the massive cost of housing, education, treating and day to day cost of housing a never ending supply of a large family culture of newcomers to fund forever being one reason why money is tightened, housing is short supply and hospital, doctors, and dentists waiting lists are longer.
So imo, could be wrong, I think the 71 retirement age, will then be 'used' by HMG to again cause angst to the public, and is just a 'ruse' to then soon give an 'amnesty' to pave the way to allow most of the 'illegals' to stay, under the guise of 'The UK needs more young to counteract the growing elderly, and IF and ONLY IF we allow massive immigration can we then keep the retirement age as it currently is.'
Governments imo aren't stupid as people assume, they are crafty, sly and never to be trusted whichever party is 'in'.
Why would any Gov wish to have masses of newcomers to the UK when only a short while back true Brits having large families were derided ?
I can only assume as imm's will 'age' at the same speed as the indigenous, thus needing even more imms to then care for the artificially swelled UK population, that as with being in the EU, the elite 'gain' from being massive property owners and land owners, from having family involved in well paid jobs in law, and having party funding businesses 'onside' for bringing in more cheap labour for them to create their wealth from'
If I too lived in the Cotswolds in luxury home, miles away from it all, knew I could retire early to one of my other homes on any part of the globe I felt attracted too, then maybe it would not bother me too much either.