Member Info for Reader61

Maybe so but longer term cash will flow to the dividend payers that have shown enough fiscal strength to weather the storm. Lloyds has been a very long term bear trap with some sheckles available to day traders. It was getting good again with a decent dividend but the PRA showed who is boss making this more like a nationalised utility than private bank.

Maybe so but longer term cash will follow to the dividend payers that have shown enough fiscal strength to weather the storm. Lloyds has been a very long term bear trap with some sheckles available to say traders. It was getting good again with a decent dividend but the PRA showed who is boss making this more like a nationalised utility than private bank.

Anyone know the overall effect on the flows of new capital away from companies that have cancelled and into ones that haven't such as GSK. I would have thought this was huge due to institutions, trackers etc having to show income. That said, the likes of the banks and insurance companies that have cancelled don't seem to be worried and their shares haven't fallen much beyond the announcement, in fact they've risen.

This damage has to feed through, it cannot be the same as before so the share price is probably fair right where it is now, possibly with downside. With no dividend cash actually reaching our pocket for at least 12 months what's the attraction? What really bothers me is how long it will really take to restore the dividend given the direct pressure PRA exert, it could be years rather than a year. It does not seem to me the owners of Lloyds can coordinate any reciprocal pressure on the board as is PI's don't bother to vote and it seems neither do the institutions for some reason.
HSBC however seem to be under far more pressure due to Hong Kong investors who do coordinate and have been complaining in massive numbers via a Facebook movement from what I understand. Might they be the better choice moving forwards although to be frank, I'm probably going to head towards GSK etc in the hope of more secure income selling Lloy but keep HSBC as China is now earning for them again, wrong though that may seem.

Its a fact that at some point EZJ does need new planes, if not to support increased passengers, then to replace worn out inefficient stock and reduce running costs. This is immutable, the question is, how good and how flexible is the Airbus deal? If it can be correctly staged and aggressively priced then why not but it all comes down to how well it can be re-negotiated.
If Stelios has factored these elements, then lets hear what the deal should be in real terms that could be genuinely proposed. Load factors are going to be pivotal to staging deliveries as recovery is in years not months but then airline contracts are used to that. Lets see some rationale to the purchase rather than toys being thrown from prams on both sides.

Darknightmy,

I am not discussing this with the country but with a board of investors who are interested. What doesn't unfortunately change for the living is the need to remain solvent and pay our way. If your not interested then suggest you go elsewhere .

Email sent to This is Money:-

Dear Tanya,

Are you able to raise the profile of the plight of millions of ordinary investors as a result of the enforced dividend cuts by the Prudential Regulation Authority. Like many others with a draw down pension plus separate shareholdings, I rely for my income on the dividend payouts from UK companies. Whilst I appreciate these are always at risk, this should be the decision of the company board based on their financial position and not a result of political decisions by regulators such as PRA and BOE.
Furthermore, the people making the threats in these organisations are recipient of generous final salary pensions paid for by the taxpayer. They have no skin in the game with the increasing majority in the private sector who do not have these schemes, therefore it is even more important they do not act selfishly to penalise us whilst sitting extremely pretty in their own feathered nests. I do not doubt they would not be so quick to act if there was any impact on their own financial positions. It's about time this lot started to sit in the same lifeboat as the people they charge for their owncomfortable retirement.

Many many people are extremely angry about this interference and the fact that shareholders are often portrayed in the press as having their noses in the trough. For the smaller investors and those trying to avoid awful annuity rates thanks to Gov policy, nothing could be farther from the truth. As you will be aware by investing in companies we allow expansion, recruitment and hopefully profit for those organisations but at the same time we risk our capital saved over many years to provide for ourselves. Additionally the funds invested also contribute to the tax take as the companies spend the cash and of course the Gov also charges stamp duty as we invest plus capital gains should we make a success of the investment.

It's about time somebody stood up for us small investors and highlights the shameful treatment by the civil service bureaucracies, might that be via your own publication?

Whilst I understand preserving cash, investors buy shares with the expectation of a return in the knowledge these are at risk.
It really gets my goat though when those decisions are then made by politicians who have zero skin in the game. Millions of pensioners are affected by dividend payments being cancelled because they have draw down. They could of course have annuity with an appalling rate of return.
On the other hand the BOE et al all have final salary paid by the taxpayers so forcing a dividend cancellation has no effect on their pensions whatsoever. The gov then guarantees wages to those losing jobs etc but gives no similar protection to those losing dividends and pension. Where do they think the guarantees will be paid from, oh, right thats investors and taxpayers of course.

What concerns me is the people making these decisions are probably on excellent, high quality, index linked final salary pensions. Their money comes in rain or shine, we on the other hand have a choice of appalling annuity rate pensions or draw downs where capital destruction and dividend cancellation crushes your financial health.
I guess some of this is our fault however as we all talk a good fight but never go to the AGM's to take them to task and in any case would be ignored as we are small unlike pensions funds - who just seem to go with the board.

Does any bright spark know the actual effect of the suspension on the value of a company and it's ability to raise capital in the future. How important is share capital to Lloyds et al? Naively my understanding is that once they have raised the capital they don't really care as they have the cash but what about subsequent raisings and things like dividend options, scrips etc? I'm wondering if there is somewhere where I can easily see the frequency and value of new share capital because I think things like allotment of shares to directors etc may be raised created in addition to the already present shares and have an insidious effect on value? Just my thoughts that I'm googling to try to understand but thought here may be a good start.

Will we get shares in the separate entity then?

Aren't Phoenix resurrection specialists? Is there a mechanism by which, if the company goes bust/underperforms they get the first chance to buy all the assets or remove and replace the directors for their own choices? A successful operation like that wouldn't invest so heavily without a plan B which may be the real intention.

So I'm not sure if to take comfort from their buying or not?