Member Info for fleccy

"My experience with most shares is that they fall back after a period of being in favour, especially with the FTSE100 where I normally do my fishing."

I don't disagree, going off recent history, but you could come out with a small profit and miss out on a breakout to the upside. I've previously sat on shares, that appeared to be marking time for a sustained period, and within days of selling half my holding the stock started climbing in short order, moving up over 16%; What made that experience worse, is that there was no news accounting for the rise and no apparent reason, so in the abscence of reason it felt personal lol. The only defining action accounting for the rise, as far as I could tell, was me selling my shares. Of course it was just a coincidence, but you get my point.

"I've also noticed recently that we appear to have attracted a few anti Lloyds Banking Group posters"

That's because we're coming close to the Banks reporting. I'm not sure if they're paid trolls, or just individuals looking to make mischief and scare some investors.
The market analysts appear to be very short term in reporting profits, and generalise when discussing figures. I've read that Lloyds profits are forecast to be down 25%, at £1.43 Billion, but things like the release, or not, of loan loss provisions should be seperately highlighted, and not reported as though it's part of a banks normal Quarterly/FY earnings. The Financial media, will present things in such a way that it suits the interests of their vested interest paymasters, in my opinion.

"British banking is in unstoppable decline."

Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but explain how the big 4 banks are under threat? It's well documented how the challengers are struggling to progress, since the more successful they become, the more stringent the regulatory environment.

https://www.moneyguru.com/insights/would-you-make-the-switch-to-a-challenger-bank

http://fmlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Final-FMLC-Bank-Ring-Fencing-Paper-1.pdf

I've recently noticed a ramp up of articles, negatively targetting UK value dividend paying stocks. I only invest in dividend paying "value" stocks, and have seen all of my dividends suspended, and cut, during the pandemic. Another symptom of the Pandemic has seen the value of my investments drop dramatically, from their pre-pandemic levels, so I've also been sitting on big capital paper losses. Some will say my example shows that dividend stocks are a mistake, and growth is the way to go, I've taken a different view.
From the last paragraph, you'd think I'd be much worse on income and capital, but instead of changing my investment strategy, I've doubled down and invested heavily in topping up my stocks. Pre-pandemic, across my wife's and my accounts, we were earning a total dividend income of around £14,000, but over 22/23 we're looking at dividend's just under £20,000, even though the companies we're invested in have rebased their dividends lower. During the pandemic, we've topped up like mad, and we were even showing a capital gain back in February, so our investments aren't that far away from being in the black, and our income is going to be up around 42% of pre-pandemic income. Because our stocks took such massive losses during the pandemic, the top-ups were much less than our initial investments, but bought a large amount of shares, and has increased our total income even with rebased dividends. It's up to everyone to decide on their own investment strategy, but I remain convinced that our strategy is the right one for us.
Anyone invested in Netflix? down 67% since Nov 21 and no dividends.

"signalling it will resist industry and political calls to keep the financial sector competitive by easing standards."

It isn't hard to see who's pushing for change.

"Four banking industry sources said these so-called “challengers” have stepped up lobbying in meetings with the central bank and finance ministry officials in recent months to ease requirements for holding special debt aimed at shielding taxpayers from bailing out troubled banks.

Smaller banks have long-argued that rules are stacked in favour of the “big six” lenders - RBS, Lloyds, Barclays, HSBC, Santander and Nationwide. These same six have held 70% of the mortgage market since 2009, according to data from UK Finance."

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-banks-regulation-idUKKBN1YF0LI

"Why is overnight funding charged and how is it calculated?
If you hold a short-term trade and want to keep it open overnight, you’ll be charged a daily interest fee.

This charge will be applied to Daily Funded Bets (DFBs) as well as cash CFD positions held through 10pm (UK time).

Futures and forwards don’t incur overnight funding charges, but they do have wider spreads. These contracts are typically used for longer-term trades."

https://www.ig.com/uk/help-and-support/spread-betting-and-cfds/fees-and-charges/why-is-overnight-funding-charged-and-how-is-it-calculated-

Shares Margin 20% Margin 1:5

Minimum spreads from Shares 0.1

https://www.ig.com/uk/spread-betting-with-ig-lp?CHID=1&QPID=1143547&QPPID=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjw3v6SBhCsARIsACyrRAkGd56_QrddMyRVYZLFKTYGB5EPUIzMHgy-vSw82X8RlX4-zONRLJIaAgAtEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

http://www.marketdatasystems.com/content/files/Current%20Stock%20Deal%20Settings_spreadbetting_retail.pdf

http://www.marketdatasystems.com/content/files/Current%20Stock%20Deal%20Settings_spreadbetting_professional.pdf

"so you must have opened your 45.941p position before the 7th April?''

LTI, do you open your spread bet's as Daily funded, or Quarterly bets?
If it's Daily funded, what's the overnight charges for 15 days open, and what was the spread?

"Fleccy, so what’s your thoughts on the liar Johnson, his government have plunged us all into a dark world where truth does not matter and the minions must do as they are told, but Johnson thinks himself above the law. Law makers cannot be law breakers."

I see labour as economically incompetent, which is why I wouldn't vote for them. They would plough cash, the country can't afford, into public sector employment and building Union strength, increasing their voting base.
The country needs more industry, innovation, and private sector jobs, that contribute to the economy, not public sector jobs paid for by taxes. Making loads of well paid Public Sector jobs does indeed lift the economy, but it sucks that money right back in wages and pensions paid for by councils and Government, making it a zero sum game in my opinion.

"The socialists would mess this country up im their own unique way, even if some of the outcomes looked a bit the same."

I can never forgive Labour, due to Gordon Brown's attack on Final salary pensions. First the company changed the format of the final salary scheme, and it was then ended and frozen a few years later, after the company was taken over; The result is that my final salary scheme annual income is reduced by multiple £1000's, from what it would have been. I've just cashed in my DC pension, that replaced my DB scheme, and invested the money into shares within our ISA's, which are paying more income than the DC scheme would have, and tax free.

"Can you see a problem with your logic given the present day sitution? Will taking money out of people's pockets (if they can find it) reduce fuel costs?"

I'm just stating how they use interest rates to alter consumer attitudes. High interest rates encourage people to either reduce debt, or save, and not spend. In the current environment, I agree that supply chain constraints, the price of oil, gas, and commodities, are all having an impact on inflation, and higher sterling, reducing import costs, may be the only beneficiary of raising rates. If large pay rises are forced through, then the BOE will have no choice but to raise interest rates dramatically, since higher pay rises feeds higher inflation, and vice versa, which is a big problem.

"you cant have low rates and inflation as high as it is. do you realize that back in 1990 interest rates reached 15% ,yes 15% and it could happen again"

I do remember it, I had a mortgage at the time, inflation was running around 8 or 9% then. If the BOE takes the view that inflation is out of control, then I agree they will use interest rates to bring it under control. Because so many people are mortgaged to the hilt, I don't see them needing to raise interest rates to 15% on this occasion; Interest rates are a tool they use to reign in consumer spending, by taking money out of peoples pockets and destroying consumer demand for products, inflation comes down. Higher interest rates also raise the pound, which reduces the price of imported goods, but makes exports more expensive.

"The Bank of England will step back from raising interest rates after May as the UK economy looks set to contract in the second quarter, "

As I stated in my previous post, much will depend on employee pay rises.

"In summary, big pay rises lead to higher interest rates, pushing up debt interest payments, and also forcing companies to cut back staff increasing unemployment."

"Yes, nearly every senior economist is warning that the risk of a recession in the UK has risen sharply, amid the the cost of living crisis."

Inflation might be currently high, but going forward much will depend on wage rises. If employees/unions manage to force through big pay rises, then there's a good chance that we'll fall into a wage price inflation spiral. A wage price spiral would force the BOE's hand in raising interest rates faster, and higher, resulting in big increases in mortgage/debt interest payments, therefore constraining consumer spending power, and resulting in a recession. Whether, or not, the UK falls into recession will depend on negotiated pay settlements over the coming year. High pay increases also affect the ability of companies to employ more staff, which pushes up unemployment.
In summary, big pay rises lead to higher interest rates, pushing up debt interest payments, and also forcing companies to cut back staff increasing unemployment.

I'll take your posts as confirmation I've done the right thing, purchasing £40,000 worth of Lloyds shares on the 6th April. You've appeared out of nowhere, and have been derogatory toward the stock from the outset, it suggests you have motive for talking people out of the stock. Lloyds policy of buying back, at the expense of a larger dividend, is something I'm not happy about, but it doesn't change the fact that Lloyds share price is currently bargain basement. Lloyds is literally cheap as chips, currently, which is why I topped up.
Myself, and the wife, topped up £20,000 in each of our ISA's on the 6th April at around 45.51p, so £40,000 worth of Lloyds stock totalling about 87,400 shares, giving a final dividend of approximately £1,162. Since Lloyds is fundamentally cheap, it stands to reason that the share price will recover at some point, so we'll benefit from the dividend and any capital increase as the price recovers.

"Have to say being sent to Rwanda must be a deterrent and will save lives in the channel but why not use the West Falklands,an overseas UK territory where candidates could adapt to our temperate climate and build useful infrastructure."

Because the West Falklands is an Island, and it would be the UK's responsibility to fly them out at some point, plus the lawyers would have jurisdiction to keep pushing to bring them back to the UK mainland. Rwanda may be landlocked, but there are ways for the migrants to make their own way home, should they not like it there. With it being foreign territory it makes it much harder for the human rights lawyers to plead their case.

"I don't actually believe it is legal or possible to take any of these people to Rwanda: but even if it is, on day two or three they will start the trip back to Calais probably assisted by people smugglers."

They would have to be pretty wealthy to keep paying smugglers on a never ending merry-go-round. First they may have to travel through countries like Sudan, Chad, Ethiopia, or possibly Yemen, depending on their chosen route out of Africa. According to Google, the best route is via the Trans Sahara Highway, which is over 5000 miles, and they'd have to try and cross multiple borders without the required papers. Once they get to Morroco, Tunisia, or more likely Libya, they would then have to pay the smugglers to arrange passage across the Med. Should they eventually make it back to the French coast, possibly years later, they would likely find themselves on a flight back to Rwanda should they succeed in crossing the channel. I suspect this will put a stop to channel migrant crossings; The only reasons it continues at the moment, is that the migrants waiting to come over, don't believe it will happen. I think I'll send an email to my MP, stating that I fully support this policy.

"actually Fleccy -you are wrong.
you can''t just ship people to Rwanda cos as soon as they get there they head back."

And why would they do that? Knowing it would mean they'd never get permission to stay under those circumstances. Nothing else has worked, this probably will. Once a couple of thousands are put on the planes to Africa, the rest will think twice about choosing to risk the UK. I think it's a brilliant idea, since nothing else has worked. In my opinion, anyone coming across the channel in a dinghy are economic migrants, since a desperate refugee would apply to stay in the first safe country they reach. If you want to look at desperate people, look at the Ukraine refugee's who have stayed in Poland, saying they'll return home as soon as the war is over. Most of the channel migrants aren't fleeing to safety, from danger, they are looking for a better life, and for some strange reason they've decided the UK is the land of milk and honey.

"This is nothing to do with left or right or Brexit non-Brexit. It's just a bad idea."

Actually it isn't, the whole point of the plan is to discourage boat crossings, and destroy the business plan of the smugglers. The problem's well out of hand, with some estimates projecting 60,000 migrants crossing during the current year. If you think you'll be shipped off to Rwanda, would you pay a people smugglers £5000 to buy a space on an unsafe dinghy?
My view is that anyone who can afford the high smugglers charges, to transit Europe, and then the Channel is an economic migrant, not a refugee. Countries like Iraq have unofficial travel agents who deal directly with the smugglers, making stage payments for different legs of the journey, with payments made upon successful delivery. It cost a lot of money to pay the various smugglers, shipping them offto Rwanda will put a stop to that business.