Member Info for Leisurely

The timing of the rns is really interesting. Why leave today rather than in 3 months which is only round the corner. It could be the results also align with finalisation of regulatory review and metro has negotiated immediate exit as part of that. Also I hope metro confirm Emir chairman title means he has absolutely no power or involvement going forward (other than as a shareholder). The rns just now could also preempt some conflict of interest in the next few months should he be involved in a takeover of some sort but I always thought that a long shot.

Nov, I think we both agree there are cost implications. The only difference is the view on the amount. You’re view is a very large fine relative to profits whereas i can’t recall a case where they have done that before. Therefore I’m opting for 10 to 20% of profits as the fine. Total guesswork though.

Nov, they won’t get any fine for any change in shareholder value. The regulator never has and never will.

Nov, no customer lost money because of the misstating of risk. Therefore the fine is more likely a percentage of profits. A fine of 100 to 200% of 2018 profits (your estimate) has never happened before from a uk regulator when customers have not been impacted. It’s far more likely to be material change to governance with over site plus a fine of £5 to £10m.

Smaller than end of 2018. And growth in loans costs money that they’ll need to raise at a high cost (admittedly that cost will reduce the longer they have stability)

But why should the price increase to £2,50 or £3?

£50m profit in 2018. They haven’t grown since then. They now have to fund £33m coupon so that brings profit to £17m. Margin as you’ll see later this week is reducing which will squeeze profit more. They could grow by changing the risk profile. So I think there could be a bounce as long as their future outlook states something that addresses the growth strategy.

I wish some of you would put facts and numbers behind your share price predictions to support your argument. Doesn’t matter if you’re right or wrong but it does show you’re at least trying to think about it.

Nim will likely be lower but hopefully above 1.4% for q3 compared to 1.62% for h1 (the increased deposits will have come at a cost). This coupled with the £1.8m right down of portfolio sale may leave profits close to zero for q3. They need to give confidence the £33m for MREL bonds (which cannot be refinanced until the last year) are affordable.

Haha. That’s really funny.

Other than one poster on here who didn’t give any source is this mention in any external website / publication?

I doubt it’s true. But I did work for standard bank for a few years in London and SA. Strong management. Good ethos. Not sure it’s a fit tho.

Having a constructive debate is important. But it doesn’t help anyone to make just positive comments ; there’s factual information that is negative but no one is thanked for posting. A balanced positive with negative would help most people.

Auson, can HL can’t lend out stock in nominees accounts without their permission - HL are not the beneficial owner of the stock?

Denby, whilst the economic impact is financially greater on Europe - spread across 300m ppl it’s proportionately much less. And for each country is is far less than the impact on the uk. So they’ll accept the hit if necessary to keep the main eu principles intact.

Also worth noting that if he reaches a deal with the EU by 19th and MPs subsequently reject that deal then Boris does not have to ask for an extension and might leave with no deal on 31st. The bill that was passed only says an extension is required if he cannot deliver a deal by that date for MPs to vote on.

The share price may have dropped because shorts increased. We’ll only find that out tomorrow afternoon. But something changed, no idea myself. It dropped at 2:30 so could be in response to US downturn at that time.

To the person who says they don’t have access to go short. Just trade CFDs and use say IGs platform. It’s open to all of us if that’s what we want to do.

Cudo, just to clarify the 12 month rule only applies to the shares already purchased by the bidder in that period; any other trading doesn’t matter. See top of pg 39 in link below

‘ the offer must be for cash or accompanied by a full cash alternative at not less than the highest price paid by the offeror for target shares within the preceding 12 months.’

https://www.slaughterandmay.com/media/39320/a-guide-to-takeovers-in-the-united-kingdom.pdf

Gggg21, I think I read on one of the chats they had rung up investor relations who confirmed the original bond didn’t have anything further uptake between midday and 4pm and that is when they pulled it. I think the rns was after that. I haven’t read the prospectus fully but it may have a clause that says the placement goes ahead only if at least the full amount is subscribed to; and if more they can increase the placement. Just guessing on that last point tho.

Just something odd I noticed earlier. At 3:45 the shorts download for 2nd Oct on the FCA website had ENA position at 1.62 percent (up from 1.50 the previous day). If I look now at the download it’s 1.50 percent again (consistent with short tracker website). No idea what’s going on there. Probably a mistake but interesting to see what tomorrow’s shows.

Don’t shout at me but they will have to pay 33.25m each year for the next 6 years to cover the coupon on this bond. That’s a significant chunk of profits (at the moment anyhow). So, a relief they’ve met short term MREL so one obstacle met that should keep them going, however profits take a significant hit. If they can get out of regulatory review with a fine of 5 or 10m then at least we’ve good basis going forward.

I’m guessing there’s nothing to the bid rumours.

I’d suggest the miniscule increase in two short positions notified yesterday were to heighten negative sentiment to push down the price short term so they could then close a bigger position at a bigger profit. We’d find out if that’s right tomorrow afternoon.

I agree investor6 with your sentiment on the personal impact of sustained losses.

However it would be great if shorters could be open on this board without being shouted down. If they explained their reasons for being negative on metro then we all might learn something. We all have the option to short and we would have made a lot of money by now had we done so. But the vitriol thrown at anyone who remotely comments negatively on metro prevents us sharing knowledge (which is presumably the point of this board).