Member Info for fleccy

Hooky my PV isn't generating much at the moment, but it's what I expected when I had the system installed mid November. I did get a couple of days in November when I generated enough electricity to fill my battery and power the house completely over two days.

The PV is slightly west of due south and my roof has quite a steep pitch. My inverter is 3.68Kw to meet G98, so the the array is oversized compared to the inverter and the Battery is 6.5Kwh.

Bloomers, It's far from clear what the Supreme Court outcome will be. If the Banks followed regulation to the letter, then did they do anything wrong? Did the Court of Appeal look at the FCA regulatory advice the Banks were given? After all the Banks and dealerships are rule takers, not rule makers, so is it right to punish the Banks if they followed the rules?

From what I've read there appears to be a disconnect between the FCA regulations and the opinion of the appeal court judges, if they wanted to be fair they could always change the rules going forward and not punish the Banks for following the past rules.

"So Flec thinks that there could have been the possibility, that with shareholders reinvesting dividends (what the fcuk has that got to do with market cap) with 70 Billion shares in issue, that today the market cap could have been £56 Billion today instead of £32 Billion"

In March 2015 Lloyds was around 80p with Natwest around the current price, it's entirely possible that Lloyds could have been in the region of 70 to 80p today had Lloyds performed as well as Natwest over the last one to five years. Before the current Motor Finance issues sentiment was already negative toward Lloyds. So why do you think Natwest is sitting around it's 2015 price, whereas Lloyds is down 35% since then? Especially considering 2015 was in the midst of PPI.

"Time for your bed Flec"

We actually agree on something, goodnight.

LTI there's nothing you, or anyone else on here, could say to embarrass me. This is just a forum where anonymous posters exchange opinions on stocks, in the scheme of things anything you or I post is meaningless. Unlike you I post on here when I'm at loose end, i.e. bored, whereas it appears to be a meaningful part of your existence.

Surprised you haven't done one of your read all about it Todays Highlight posts, it's what you usually do when there's been an exchange where you're clearly wrong.

Don't know what you mean Anthony. Between me and my wife we're pulling over £25,000 a year in tax free dividends, irrespective of the share prices of our holdings. Admittedly we've now made a decision that we'll be making no further dividend reinvestments, and will now be spending money on the house and other things. I still believe wholeheartedly in dividend reinvestment, but we've invested enough and will now be spending.

"Most likely an opportunistic move by incapable store managers"

I actually believe the store managers, Vodafone can be pretty ruthless in their dealings.

"Hi Dan, like many others i was hoping confirmation of the merger would have given this share a good bump up"

That's probably because you view it as a positive event Rob, personally I'm agnostic about it I see it as a better deal for Three rather than Vodafone, since it gives Three an escape route out of the highly competitive UK market.

"The fact is that with a market cap of £32 Billion and with 76,675,953,467 shares in issue, the share price would be 41.73p"

Let me make something clear I'm not against buybacks to cover Block listings, so the 76,675,953,467 figure wouldn't apply. Your 41.73p price also doesn't take into account a possible much higher share price based on sentiment, and many investors may have reinvested their dividends to increase their holdings. Who's to say that the share price wouldn't have been 70 or 80p with 70 Billion shares in issue?

You like giving examples, if you want to see the power of sentiment look at Rolls Royce. They significantly increased the number of shares in issue, dropped the dividend and the share price still climbed well above pre covid levels, driven by sentiment.

So you saying "a market cap of £32 Billion and with 76,675,953,467 shares in issue, the share price would be 41.73p" isn't based on fact, it's an assumption you're using to fit your own narrative. If you really believe that statement, then you're not even close to the intelligence level you seem to think you are at.

"that is where you get confused in your old age, between an opinion and facts"

You're one to talk, if you were only 20 years old you'd be an old man already with your attitude. What is clear is that you're up your own @r5e.

Take analyst opinions with a pinch of salt, there's always a vested interest behind anything they publish. There opinion is no more valid than someone who posts on here, although their opinions may have a short term impact on the share price.

"Once again senile - going round in circles."

Lol, sticks and stones, your insults say more about you than me LTI. On previous occasions when I've had a go at you It's only been in response to insults from you. I'm not sure why you take other posters opinions on stocks so personally, maybe you should find other interests outside of posting on here.

Mick, I've recently had a 4.5Kwp Solar PV system installed with LiFePo4 Battery storage. I'm looking at getting quotes for a heat pump in the New Year. The plan is to use the battery to charge from the grid next winter and cover the majority of our annual Electricity needs using cheap rate tariff's and solar.

"Lti is a special case as has millions and doesn't wish to be taxed on div capital returned"

I agree, he is a special case 🤪

LTI you're incapable of seeing other peoples point of view in your Black & White world.

In 2018 the interim and Final dividend combined came to 3.21p, in 2019 Lloyds paid an interim of 1.12p which was 4.67% higher than the 2018 interim. The 2019 Final and 2020 interim were scrapped due to covid. The 2020 Final was reduced to 0.57p, which I think was due to the PRA. When the dividends restarted in 2021 the total for Financial year came in at 2p, so over 37% down on 2018. Income investors dependent on their Lloyds dividends would have felt the pain of the covid suspension, but then to add insult to injury Lloyds gave them another kick in the teeth.

Lloyds are down over 17% since December 2019, so show me the proof that buybacks have helped the share price over the last 5 years? Saying that Lloyds would have been 42p now, but for the buybacks, is nothing but a guess in an environment where sentiment beats logic every time.

You should learn to reason things outside of the narrative you create in your own mind, saying that Lloyds would be 42p without buybacks is just a scripted response with no proof or basis in fact, it's just an assumption. Who knows, investors may have rewarded Lloyds if they'd continued the pre covid progressive dividend policy unchanged post covid.

LTI why would we want to sell our 447,804 Lloyds shares when we're expecting dividends to continue? I'd go as far as to say that we've received no benefit from buybacks, although the share price drops on the back of the dividend reduction did allow us to buy more stock on the cheap. Since we have no plans to sell, from our point of view dividends are far more important than buybacks and since Nunn has already battered income investors post Covid, I'd hope that he'll prioritise dividends over buybacks going forward.

"I am still holding, but will live to regret doing so. If I wasn't 'in' I certainly would not be buying until the RNS tells us how much of our divs, and buybacks are to be stolen; again"

If you really believed everything you said in your last post, you would have posted that you'd actually sold out instead of holding.

The Motor Finance compensation isn't a threat to Lloyds finances and is unlikely to affect dividends, at worst it might kick buybacks in to touch for a year or two, but I don't care about buybacks anyway and apparently the market shares my view going off Lloyds performance over the last 5 years.

Does make you wonder what the point of regulators are, since the courts just override regulation anyway, maybe they should just put judges into the FCA and let them make it up as they go along.

I had a quick look into Christopher Giancarlo and his views about what he refers to as the "Internet of Value", but it strikes me that he's advocating on behalf of decentralised Crypto, which in my opinion will never work. What is possible is that countries may mutually agree to create universal distributed ledger blockchain's to trade things like commodities, buying the Tokens (goods) with CBDC's, but there'd be no place for Bitcoin in that and the blockchain would be centrally managed on the commodities exchanges.

Bitcoin is an inefficient Proof of Work blockchain, that the believers think will free the World of Finance like some sort of revolution, but anyone with half a brain can see that's pie in the sky. My personal view is that there is a place for crypto, but it'll be centrally managed Proof Of Stake blockchains that'll win out, I just don't see how anyone could trust an unmanaged decentralised Proof of Work Blockchain, with no controlling entity to ensure security and no one to complain to when something goes wrong.

I also don't see how Bitcoin would fit into any financial system since it appears to have only one purpose, which is to bet on the price going ever higher. Anything Bitcoin can do, other Blockchains can do more efficiently and better.

My mind is open, I read a lot of literature to understand the basics behind the token and can't see any value. Anyone who says the value of Bitcoin is based on anything but belief, is either a vested interest looking to profit from others, or someone who doesn't understand the token and just believes the evangelists promoting crypto in general.

There are loads of ways to facilitate digitally, if Crypto has a place in that why would anyone use an inefficient protocol like BTC? If Crypto had any place in the financial world it would have dominated a decade ago, but here we are 15 years on and the token still has no truly efficient and definable use case. People just buy it because it's going up while in the background vested interests are making money off the believers.

"ID cards are yet another layer of bureaucracy and red tape. Yet more state overreach"

I disagree, ID cards should have been introduced years ago in my opinion. The only reason they haven't is because the powers that be actually rely on the grey economy. If it was down to me I'd ensure that anyone without an ID would be refused the right to work and I'd hit companies breaking the rules with massive fines if caught employing illegals. Anyone without a valid ID would be refused healthcare with a requirement to notify the authorities should someone request healthcare without ID details. To ensure that people who may have lost their ID, or had it stolen aren't disadvantaged, there could be an electronic database with question based access to view pictures of registered people using address data, national insurance number, or something else.

It's about time UK politicians grew a backbone, instead of the country being viewed as a soft touch by all and sundry.