Member Info for Nuwanda

Contribution gladly sent.

I sold all my shares for the gain I wanted. However, I still have fun looking at the price, and retain an interest through funds, so I'll take 126p if I may.

A Happy new Year to all and well done TheFarEnd :)

I sold at the price that suited me and my financial objectives (85p) and am only pleased for others that the price has gone up. I wouldn't gloat if the price had gone down. I try and take the emotion out of investing and set my own objectives and take the profit that's right for me and attempt to manage losses to a minimum. All I can say is that my long term financial health is better with emotion removed.

The issue with AI is less about the role it will play, but the number of players in the market, which exceeds the number that the market can sustain. It's all about who will succeed and who wil fail. They've raised funds, but have limited assets and revenue streams. Just like the dot com bubble, many will go to the wall as they approach future funding rounds. Consolidation will take place and the weak (even though they may have the better technology) will go to the wall.

Abolishing Stamp Duty isn’t necessarily a bad idea in principle. It could help remove one of the key barriers to mobility by making it easier for people to move homes for family, work, or lifestyle reasons. The challenge, however, lies in what replaces it.

Stamp Duty may be unpopular, but it’s a one-off transaction tax that generates substantial revenue. Removing it without a well-designed replacement risks creating a significant fiscal gap. A recurring property tax might seem like a logical alternative, but that brings its own set of complexities; not least around fairness, affordability, and regional variation in property values.

So while the theory of improving mobility makes sense, the practical implementation would be far more difficult. The balance between encouraging movement and maintaining a sustainable tax base is a delicate one; and any replacement would need to be both politically and economically robust

Lucky no ones looking at taxing 'excess' profits on Banks; as this RNS would likely make them, at least, reflect on the compounded impact of imposing such a tax - just saying ;)

I am out too. My target exit sum has been reached and happy to leave profits for others. My investments are now mostly in short term money markets and a little gold bought long ago. Low level of risk is right for me. Also putting 50% of my salary, tax free, into my pension pot for as long as higher rate tax relief lasts,, then the 8th wonder of the world (compound interest) does the rest for me. work/life balance is just perfect. I will continue to lurk and ensure I make my payment to the Mr Meerkat competition. GLA

More here:-

https://assetfinanceconnect.com/fca-to-consult-on-motor-finance-compensation-scheme

It's VERY complicated.

1) On holding data, there has been a 'litigation hold' in place for some time to ensure that the least amount of data was lost.

2) High commission could be in the consumers interest! - If a high commision allowed the car to be sold with no margin added, then the consumer got a good deal (in terms of the final price paid). A lower commission and a margin on the car would still end up with the consumer paying the same final price.

There is a lot of detail to unpick and whilst the Supreme Court Judgement was very deatiled and clear, the FCA's response is the complete opposite.

The Johnson case was "highly fact sensitive" and will certainly not apply to all consumers. (very high commission, a financially unsopistocated consumer and a Dealer tied to one lender advertising that they used a panel of lenders).

If you look at SIMPLE maths, based on assumptions:-

Total maket exposure = £20bn

Lloyds share of the expsoure = 5%

Potenetial payout = £1bn

The Provision is £1.5bn, so enough headroom for any movements should anything change as the detail unfolds.

In my opinopn the bank should keep the £1.5bn provision until there is absolute clarity, as it's clear it will have to pay out some compensation in respect of the DCA element. It also demonstrates prudent risk management and offers protection to support the share price from uncertainty.

To the extent that some compensation is due in a a limited set of circumstances it feels like there is sufficent cover on the balance sheet through the provisions made to date. So, it feels like LBG read the room well.

I think people are conflating events impacting the share price today. The whole market is down and LLOY is just Ex-Div, when a fall would be expected.

Also, the Bank already has a sizable providion on the balance sheet, so at least cushioning the impact on the P&L (dependent on the accuracy of the calculation).

Finally, the share price is still below NAV.

The 'warning' from the SC that markets will be moved by their decision was/is just 'a statement of the obvious' that we've known from day one. The decision to move the timing is a mature one to allow all stakeholders to refelct on the outcome over the weekend, make informed decisions and avoid (not eliminate) panic buying/selling on headlines had the decison been released this morning. I have a brierfing from a Partner at Shoosmiths, specialising in auto finance, at 9am on Monday (Aug 4th). I am sure much will be in the media before then and it will be an hour after trading starts.

LBG have set aside substantial provisions; notably with no further provision in the recent results. Given external audit requirements, they are obliged to take a prudent approach to risk.

As many have said, a fall in the share price would be good news for the buy-back. As a long term holder, I'm not too stressed on short term volatility. Volatility translates into vitality. There will continue to be supply and demand for LLOY.

The LBG Board, and their external auditors, clearly belive they have the risk of an adverse Car Finance ruling covered, as they came under no pressure to increase the provision. So (at least in theory) the deciion should have no downside and, if favourable, all upside.

If the merket reacts negativly on the share price, along with a dip on the ex-dividened, then the Buy Back Programme would hoover up some more shares for cancellation.

So, all round, much as you were as we ride the waves. The yeild still remains attractive to institutions.

If my understanding is correct, you must hold shares by close of business today (July 30th) in order to receive the divident of 1.22p per share in September.

That being the case the shares are 'technically' worth 1.22p less tomorrow, so a fall of around the dividend amount wouldn't be unexpected (?).

If that did happen, I guess it would be a buying opportunity for the Buy-Back.

Obviously the Car Finance judgement remains an uncertainty. However, the fact that it was felt that no further provision for it was required in the recent results, would imply that the Board (and the external Auditors) feel there is sufficent risk cover for an adverse outcome.

On the other hand, compensation payments would release capital into the economy stimulating spending on goods & services.

For the record, my personal view is that no one should be compensated. IMHO, I don't belive the buyers suffered a genuine loss.

Curious to see if it has a (nominal) dip when it goes ex-div on the 31st. That may be a window for the buyback. But I seem to recall that when it last went ex-div LLOY held it's price.

Chid - You make an excellent point about the impact of inflation on share prices; very well illustrated by the 'wage packet' example.

Red or Blue it seems all the same.

Inflation was at 10% when the 1979 Conservative Government took over, rising quickly to over 20% as interest rates also rose to 17%, doubling unemployment to 3m from 1.5m. GDP consequently went negative for 1980 & 1981. The 'Right to Buy' fueld unprecidented levels of house price inflation and dramatically reduced Local Councils housing stock. There was a period of 'Loads of Money' 'prosperity. But it led to them leaving office having led the country into a recession with Inflation at 15% having hovered around 10% with a brief low of c7.5%.

I'm not arguing for one side or the other; just that, as I see it, red or blue they always end up in a mess. I think any colour would end in a mess :(

We are a long way off inflation being "among the highest in the world", but of Western economies, yes, it's higher (ignore Turkey at 35%!).

Put an end to Salary Sacrfice Car Schemes, which are very prevelant in the public sector (even though it would impact Lloyds aquisition of Tusker). This would increase the Tax and National Insurance income from the Public Sector (and elsewhere). At the moment it just takes money out of the system that the country needs (not just for public sector pensions!). Let them buy cars from taxed income, like the vast majority of people.

The counter argument will be that it helps the change to Zero Emissions Vehcles (ZEV), as they are mostly all you can now buy on a Salarary Sacrifice Scheme. But there are better ways to stimulate demand for ZEV's than to offer a few a tax break to the detriment of the many.