Member Info for fleccy

"Never asked for or will ask for a projection. What ever the amount I won't be keeping a penny of it. I already give a lot from my HSBC pension and dividends away."

I'll have it, if you don't want it. Let me know when you're close to retirement, and I'll send you my bank details, so you can set up a monthly transfer lol

"which won't be much having left the workplace after 29 years of work and most of that 'contracted-out' will be given away."

You were only contracted out of SERPS, so you'll still be entiltled to a basic state pension. You need 35 qualifying years to recieve a full state pension of £185.15 a week, so 29 qualifying years at the current rate should pay you £153.41 a week, or £7,977.32 a year. I wouldn't turn my nose up at an extra 8 grand a year. That's assuming you paid National Insurance for each full year, making up the 29 years.

"In reality
and very much the case for LLoyds, share buybacks reduce the share share dilution that is caused by generous stock option plans for its employees at the expense of shareholders."

I absolutely agree, and it's something I've mentioned previously; Although the latest buyback is different, since it should bring the shares in issue down far more than previous buybacks. Under AHO the buybacks were aimed at covering the share issuances for sharesaves, etc, with more of the pot paid out in dividends. What upset me most was Charlie Nunn's indifference to the small shareholders, who might rely on dividends to supplement their income, also restarting dividends at a lower level, after cancelling/suspending the dividend previously, was a real kick in the teeth for many.
All that said, Ive heavily topped up recently, and adding more as dividends land in the ISA's, as I see Lloyds as dirt cheap at the current price.

"Outlook for FY23
Our performance during FY22 has been in line with our expectations and demonstrates the relative resilience of our operating model. We remain focused on the delivery of the next phase of our strategy.
The current macroeconomic climate presents specific challenges, and is likely to have an impact on our financial performance in the year ahead. Whilst our business model is relatively more resilient than many others, there are specific challenges to be managed. The war in Ukraine and energy price increases are contributing to a broader inflationary environment, and these inflationary pressures are beginning to impact customer confidence. Our sector and many others have also experienced increased volatility in supply chains and an increase in logistics costs. We have a number of
initiatives underway to mitigate these macroeconomic challenges. Based on this assessment of the global macroeconomic outlook:
Adjusted EBITDA is expected to be between €15.0 - €15.5 billion in FY23; and
Adjusted free cash flow is expected to be c.€5.3 billion in FY23."

I've found where you were looking, Free cash flow is €3.309 Billion

Free cash flow €3.309 Billion
Adjustments:
Licences and spectrum €896 Million
Restructuring costs €267 Million
Integration capital additions €314 Million
Restructuring and integration
working capital €213 Million
Vantage Towers growth
capital expenditure €244 Million
Special dividend in Egypt €194 Million
Adjusted free cash flow €5.437 Billion

"Free cash flow for the year totalled €3.3bn, all of which was swallowed up by dividends"

Where did you get the €3.3bn from?
Isn't the adjusted free cash flow €5.437 Billion for FY 2022?

"I can't see where any growth will come from. Thinks like 5G just cost a lot in infrastructure but customers aren't likely to want to pay more for it."

5G has little to do with upgrading current retail mobile customers, although much of the hype is centered around that; 4G already offers good data rates, so why role out 5G? 5G is more about IOT, and all the new 5G applications needing reliable low latency communications, like driverless cars, surveilance and control, commercial 5G, etc. 5G will completely replace 4G over time, and although it will offer faster, lower latency services than 4G, upgrading 4G retail customers wasn't the primary reasoning behind the upgrade. 6G is still in the lab, but will be more like Wifi for high population areas, and specialist applications, rather than replacing current mobile services.

"Fleccy, did you see this about electronics firm being given the green light for a takeover from US firm? Could this apply to BT?"

I didn't see it, but I don't think it changes anything as far as BT is concerned. BT is a different animal, I just can't imagine the Government allowing a foreign takeover of the UK's biggest Telecom infrastructure provider.

"thanks for your thoughts, question that we cant answer is will the bt takeover be worth more than what its worth to switch to oil now?"

In my humble opinion there isn't any current takeover of BT on the cards, and if there was the Government would kibosh it on national security grounds.
Domestically there's no UK Telecom company large enough to bid for BT, and if there was it would be stopped on competition grounds, so I just don't see a takeover happening.
There are many other reasons to hang on to BT, like them growing the bottom line as they transform into a much leaner and efficient company. They also own Openreach, EE, a large Enterprise business, and nationwide Telecom infrastructure assets. Jusr because the market narrative is to underate the Telecom sector now, doesn't meant that'll always be the case. If you were to look at the seperate businesses comprising BT Group, the value of Openreach alone probably covers all the debt. In my opinion, BT is worth at least 3 times the current valuation, minus the debt, so around £4 a share.

"vodafone needs to sell turkey before hyperinflation"

Vodafone have already advised on Turkey's Hyperinflation enviroment. I'm not sure why you think it's an issue for Vodafone, since they will account for the inflation in their year ending March 2023 results. It's seems to be more of a problem for the Turkish owned Mobile companies, with Vodafone now apparently the only privately owned Mobile operator in Turkey.

"In addition, it is expected that Turkey will meet the requirements to be designated as a hyper-inflationary economy under IAS 29 ‘Financial Reporting in Hyper-Inflationary Economies’ in the quarter to 30 June 2022 and that the Group’s financial reporting relating to Turkey during the year ending 31 March 2023 will be in accordance with IAS 29. Under IAS 29, Turkish Lira results and non-monetary asset and liability balances are revalued to present value equivalent local currency amounts (adjusted based on an inflation index) before translation to euros at reporting-date exchange rates"

https://investors.vodafone.com/sites/vodafone-ir/files/2022-06/2022-vgplc-form-20-f.pdf

"TWF, which already owns 6.68 percent of the operator, had been negotiation the deal with LYY Telekomünikasyon – the group of Turkish banks that owns the majority stake following the company’s debt default in 2018 – since December. TWF outlined in a statement that the acquisition demonstrated its trust in the long-term outlook of the country’s telecoms market and the overall sustainability of Türk Telekom itself.
While the deal marks the latest twist in Türk Telekom’s ownership, it also raises questions about the future direction and composition of the country’s telecoms sector. TWF also hold a controlling stake in market leader Türkcell, leaving Vodafone as the sole privately owned MNO. While renationalisation of the sector hasn’t yet been mooted, the role of TWF and its plans for Türk Telekom and Türkcell, will be one to watch with interest."

https://www.totaltele.com/512781/Turkey-now-left-with-one-privately-owned-operator-following-Trk-Telekom-buyout

"Share price up nearly 4% - nearly 30m shares traded and share price closes up 0.05p
Strange"

Not really, stock prices are gamed by the market makers, and big players, in my opinion. As I've said before, they can move prices On Exchange, using Algo's, and make deals Off Exchange based on the On Exchange price, or use other financial instruments like derivatives. I'm just holding, and topping up my picked stocks as funds become available, Lloyds is my favourite at the moment. I'm not sure human Psychology regularly moves stocks any more, which is why I question the use of charts.

"You didnt appear to understand that you disposed of your 'primary' residence, yet, presumably as you didnt say otherwise, had another residence that you clearly lived in."

You misunderstood what I was saying, me and my wife were living in Cornwall when we sold the MCR house, we'd previously lived in, to our son. If we'd sold the house in Manchester as a primary residence, then there'd have been no CGT to pay anyway. Since we'd lived in the house in Manchester, before moving to Cornwall, the years accrued living there was included in the calculation toward reducing our CGT bill. That's why we employed an accountant, as I wanted the calculation to be correct.
In summary:
We sold the house in Manchester as a non primary residence and payed the required CGT. As our Son was purchasing his first home, which then became his main residence, and owning no other property, there'll be no CGT when he sells at some point in the future, under the current rules.

"Super fit healthy non smoker me developed a cancer generally found in old people aged 70+ @ 48 years old. It happens you know and your no more ondestructable than me."

I understand what your saying, but I've read the guidance and it states that someone healthy, with no underlying health condition, wouldn't be subject to Deprvation of Assets should they later become ill; Also the guidance talks in terms of months, and it's been four years since we sold the house to our Son.
Someone who's healthy at the point they gift money, or assets, can't be accused of Deprivation of assets, especially years later.
Obviously if someone dies the 7 year gift rule applies, as far as the HMRC are concerned, but that's tapered and the tax liability reduces to zero after year 7.

Forgot the link:

"Case study: Yusuf
Yusuf is in his late 70s. He has lived on his own since his wife died from cancer 10 years ago. When she died, he downsized from their family home in Hastings to a smaller property worth £180,000. As a result, he has £70,000 in savings. Yusuf develops dementia, can no longer cope at home and needs to move into residential care. His underlying health is good and he ultimately spends 8 years living at the residential home. Yusuf’s care home costs £700 per week.

Under the current system, Yusuf would spend about £293,000 on his care from his assets and his income, and as a result only have £35,000 left in assets. This does not factor in any additional income he may receive from state benefits, such as Attendance Allowance, which he may be entitled to.

Under the new system, Yusuf hits the £86,000 cap after 3 years and 5 months. He no longer needs to contribute for his personal care from either his assets or his income. Beyond this, he will only have to contribute towards daily living costs. He is now left with £152,000, or 61% of his original assets.

Over his whole care journey, Yusuf spends £118,000 less than under the current system.

Case study: Mary and Bob
Mary is a pensioner living in Burnley with her husband, Bob. Together, they own a home worth £90,000 and have joint savings of £10,000. They both worked hard throughout their lives, planned carefully for their retirement and have a joint weekly income from pensions of £470. Mary has dementia and receives care in their home, but Bob is her main carer. Sadly, after a year Bob suffers a severe stroke and both Bob and Mary need to enter residential care.

Under the current system, if they both stayed in residential care for 2 years, Mary and Bob would have spent around £105,000 in total towards their care. They wouldn’t have got any state support until right at the end when they individually reached the UCL of £23,250, which would be based on half of their shared assets. They would be left with around £43,000 in assets between them.

Under the new system, once they both enter a care home, they immediately become eligible for some state support due to each of their £50,000 share of their wealth being below the new £100,000 UCL. Under the new system, they spend £68,000 in total for their care from their income and assets.

Over their combined care journeys, Mary and Bob save £37,000 from their assets and their income in the new system compared to the current system."

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/build-back-better-our-plan-for-health-and-social-care/adult-social-care-charging-reform-further-details#:~:text=in%20spring%202022.-,Summary,personal%20care%20over%20their%20lifetime.

Just to add to my last post, the way things currently stand for care costs:

"From October 2023, the government will introduce a new £86,000 cap on the amount anyone in England will need to spend on their personal care over their lifetime."

There's also a daily living cost to consider, which would probably be around £200 a week, from Oct 2023.

"The concept of DLCs is not meant to be a precise science. Local authorities and providers are not required to calculate actual daily living costs for each person in a care home progressing towards the cap. Instead, daily living cost will be set as a national, notional amount of £200 per week (in 2021 to 2022 prices), which will apply to anyone who receives care in a care home. Local authority financial support will remain available to people who cannot meet – in full or in part – their DLCs."

By my reckoning, someone going into care from Oct 2023 will have a care cost cap of £86,000, but will also have daily living costs adding up to around £11,000 a year. I'm not sure if the £86,000 would be an upfront payment, or spread out by adding it to the daily living costs. Obviously for a couple, with both needing to go into care, the CAP and DLC's will be double.

"I take it you also examined and learnt about the deprivation and CGT rules at the same time?"

Lol. Selling a house to our son below market value, at 56 years old, could hardly be described as Deprivation of assets. No I didn't see the need to look at deprivation of assets, since I don't see it as an issue at our age; If we were 80 and in bad health, I may have looked into it, but we're both active gym goers and keen walkers, so it isn't an issue. CGT isn't an issue either, since the property is his main and only residence, and there's no Capital Gains payable on the sale of your main residence. CGT on the sale of a property, is only payable if you own multiple properties.

"You do not pay Capital Gains Tax when you sell (or ‘dispose of’) your home if all of the following apply:

you have one home and you’ve lived in it as your main home for all the time you’ve owned it
you have not let part of it out - this does not include having a lodger
you have not used a part of your home exclusively for business purposes (using a room as a temporary or occasional office does not count as exclusive business use) the grounds, including all buildings, are less than 5,000 square metres (just over an acre) in total
you did not buy it just to make a gain"

https://www.gov.uk/tax-sell-home#:~:text=You%20do%20not%20pay%20Capital,not%20include%20having%20a%20lodger

"I was more saying the things that matter to me - footpaths, styles, cycle shops, water sports centres, hiring a speedboat, healthy food /well-presented food, quality wine made by the same decades-old methods - have gone worse, or so it seems. But these things may have been left to decay no matter who was in government."

None of the things you've listed have anything to do with the Government, they're more related to the high street economy in the place you live. There are many reasons for the decline of the high street; Amazon has decimated the business models of small retailers. Businesses that are well run, do well where there's strong customer demand, businesses usually fail where demand doesn't cover costs.

"Furlough was about paying people for doing nothing - and some people never got the money they were entitled to by all accounts."

Furlough was about preserving jobs, even council workers were being paid for sitting at home. Are you saying the private sector should have been allowed to sack all it's workers, and re-employ them at the end of the pandemic?

"No. It's based on my observations of people over my life of 39 years thus far."

But Labour spend more on public services run by local Government, whereas the Tory's are more inclined to allow regulated private companies to run public services, and utilities.

"Only private companies are truly interested in keeping the ship afloat and service standards up to scratch."

I assume you vote Coservative, based on that statement?

"Well you will have to hope that you live another 7 years else hmrc will be looking at IHT for the 'gifted' undervalue amount and will present the son with a substantial bill."

I knew about all that. The house was in joint names, between me and my wife; It's been about 4 years already, and since we're only 60 hopefully time wont be an issue. It was all done above board with the solictors aware of the situation, and using an accountant recommended by our Conveyancer. As I said, i'm really careful with tax matters. I've known people who've fallen foul of VAT, and income tax, issues. One of my ex collegues, from many years back, was previously employed on commercial ships, the Tax man came after him years later and hit him with a massive tax bill, arguing that the ship he was employed on had entered the UK 12 mile limit during a voyage; He employed a solicitor, and tried fighting it, but got hammered in the end anyway. I've never been self employed, always PAYE, but a relative lost his house when the VAT man went after him, and I know of another ex collegue who ran a business on the side and the VAT man got him too; The HMRC appear to be really aggressive on VAT, and efficient at catching businesses who cheat on it, scary stuff.