Member Info for Guitarsolo

To expand, the person who mentioned PRT as the threat was from the investment side of the reinsurance industry which I consider signficant. Their point was a shift from banks being the systemic risk to insurers with their PRT. As we all know, LGEN and others are taking on pension liabilities and assuming assets into LGIM in the process. Provided those assets produce the income to support the liability, all is well. But if the numbers are off, or competition drives the margin of error too low, the point was made that a fall in the assets value/income could threaten stability. Hence we are very reliant upon the actuaries doing the number crunching, and the regulators overseeing them, to get it right.

So the question is, how much leeway do we have for the calculations being off?

Fortunately, the (re)insurance industry employs a better calibre of person than banking! (I would say that).

What a contribution MD. ......perhaps just stick to guessing a share price for some day of your choosing in the future.

Oh Brixton!

Still, a better spent afternoon in 'Spoons than writing to LSE to get posts removed because you're a wee bit precious!

You sound rattled, O Precious One.

When referring to the turnover of already owned stock MK wrote: "We also top up holdings into ex-dividend dates to ensure maximum revenue generation".

So in your own words, WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS? You claim to have been some bigwig in HSBC with your £xx,xxx,xxx portfolio, so this should be simple for you. MK is not referring to funds from new issuance because he refers to that later. He is referring to funds from the sale of already held stock, which is then invested in soon to go ex-dividend stock. That is what he wrote.

Are you saying ALL the funds that are invested into stock about to go ex-dividend come from new issuance?

Because that is not what MK has wrote.

So where has the money come from?

And you don't get to tell me what I can and can't do. Stop being so obnoxious.

"of no relevant use to Lloyds investors"

"but it is of use to those to whom it is aimed at."

Sorry to dent your giant ego LTI, but I think you'll find no one on this bulletin board gives a sh*t about your average.

[Being posted again as the original message, with its 21 upticks, was mysteriously deleted! No I wonder who might be so precious as to do that!]

"You are now simply making things up. . Who has stated selling stock in order to purchase others about to go xd?"

What is made up about MK's answer when referring to turning over stock that is already held (NOT NEW ISSUE) that they "also top up holdings into ex-dividend dates to ensure maximum revenue generation". Where have those funds come from is they are not new issue and they are not from sale of other stock?

As for the rest of your answer, please note that I have already agreed with you that new issuance at a premium is a marginal benefit to existing shareholders and there is no dilution. SO NO NEED TO MAKE STUFF UP.

I work in the reinsurance industry and recently attended a market discussion in the Lloyd’s Library regarding systemic risks to the UK reinsurance industry. When it was thrown open to attendees to identify “the next big risk” there were the usual answers we would expect; Russia/Ukraine conflict (this was pre-Israel/Gaza), China, US debt levels etc. And then there was an answer that piqued my interest; “pension risk transfers”!

With LGEN at the centre of this in the UK we are highly reliant on the actuaries et al getting their sums right (and the regulators ensuring appropriate safety margins). But with the market becoming more competitive (Aviva, MNG etc all want in), what are those safety margins and what sort of economic shock would threaten the model, and therefore LGEN with it?

Why do you have to be an obnoxious prat about everything? You just can't help yourself on multiple boards.

When referring to the turnover of already held stock (NOT new issue) he wrote: "We also top up holdings into ex-dividend dates to ensure maximum revenue generation". So if stock is sold to invest in other shares that will soon go ex-dividend, and then sold again afterwards, rinse and repeat, what would you call that?

As I said, it is close to an admission but is not an admission per se.

I see you still can't help yourself, can you LTI? Read the full answer from Mike Kerley:

"We are not buy and hold investors......We also top up holdings into ex-dividend dates to ensure maximum revenue generation...... Finally, the investment of monies received from share issuance is included in these turnover numbers. These are invested into existing positions with a focus on companies about to go ex dividend to ensure existing shareholders revenue is not diluted. This combination of style, revenue maximisation and share issuance is responsible for the relatively high turnover."

So the fund tops up going into ex-dividend dates, and then uses funds from new issuance to invest in existing holdings. MK has specifically split the two actions. If it was just the funds from new issue looking for stock about to go ex-dividend why refer to the same practice when discussing the 100% turnover of stock? I expect MK is choosing his words carefully and it is why I say it is close to an admission, not an admission.

But if Bott is prepared to follow up with MK there is a chance to pin him down about it.

Bott,

The part of Mike Kerley’s response that jumped out to me was; “We also top up holdings into ex-dividend dates to ensure maximum revenue generation”.

Combined with an acceptance that stock is rotated continuously (100% turnover) this is close to an admission of what some will call dividend washing. So my follow up question would be to ask how much that practice contributes to the falling NAV (and therefore share price).

Also, if HFEL intends to continue with this practice, how does MK think the fund will not continue to fall in value?

GS

"Average price now 20.61p"

...... "of no relevant use to Lloyds investors"

Asante Highveld! Interesting stuff.

From where I sit I saw a lot of JPM's policies as Tanzania cutting its nose off to spite its face. However, of course, for the general population they need a champion on their side. So much more could be done if the Tanzania Revenue Authority got its act together! But compared to their neighbours Tanzania is doing pretty well.

Anyway, that's enough off-topic stuff. Apologies to anyone not interested.

Interesting perspective Highveld. What's your experience with Tanzania? I've visited probably 50 times for business over the last 20 years and am on the phone to various contacts there once or twice a week. For sure Magafuli rode an election ticket of rooting out corruption. My professional work means I "cross paths" with corruption (and general financial criminality) and in my experience corruption within state-run companies increased significantly during Magafuli's presidency. In general the institutions with the power to monitor and intervene were defunded or their management was replaced with pro-Magafuli characters. This reversed when Samia Suluhu Hassan took over.

Furthermore, Magafuli introduced many laws to make it more difficult for "non-Tanzanians" to work there (e.g. those of Asian descent but with full working visas) whilst effectively introducing a quota system of employment of "locals". This created a large downturn in business confidence and reduction in investment. Now a lot of the people that would make negative comments to me about this were those affected by the laws so they may be somewhat biased. However, again things have improved massively under the current president.

And don't even get me started on what China is doing!

Guitarsolo

Hi Peter,

I think this is a case of died "with" Covid rather than "of". Not sure why you think I have "fallen for it" though!

Guitarsolo

Putting you on filter is not the same as tying to get you banned.

And back on filter you go. I should've known better.

Sorry to everyone else.

FFS! Ade, no one is hell bent on knowing (or caring) what you own, buy or sell. Just don't say (on 30th August) "I sold out after I started posting on this board" and then (on 31st October) say "I never said I was not a shareholder"!

If you're going to claim the company is dividend washing, provide evidence. Or at least say "I think this but can't prove it".

Lastly, I never called you a fascist. I said I filtered people who were fascist from other boards. You joined the list for being disingenuous.

Oh Jeez Ade, you really are hard work. Saying you have posted unsubstantiated claims is not the same as saying you're lying. It is saying you have CLAIMED something without providing the EVIDENCE to back it up. You could be right, you could be wrong. Without evidence we don't know. That is not the same as saying you're lying.

Again, my happiness is unaffected whether you own HFEL shares or not.

I have no agenda. I have been a shareholder for many years and take the dividend. I don't trade it. I occassionally add.

I welcome discussion where thoughts are evidenced. If they can't be evidenced they can still be presented but with clarity that it's a theory/ hunch.

Above all, transparency matters.

I haven't read much about Aviva's "intervention" about the government rowing back on its green pledges. Could the motive for their intervention be that companies such as Aviva have spent a lot of time, money and energy in directing their policies towards the previous green targets and therefore the government's recent change of heart has undermined that effort and investment? For Aviva, which manages money as well, this is a double-edged sword as not only is it their own policies but also their responsibilities as an investor in pretty much anything and everything.