Member Info for Richard365054

Thank you for your recent email to António Horta-Osório, who has asked me to reply on his behalf. He has noted your concerns regarding the cancellation of the dividend and fully understands your disappointment about the impact that this may have on your personal finances.

This was not an easy decision for the Board to make, and they were very conscious of the importance of dividends to many individual shareholders like yourself. However, given the critical bank’s role in supporting the economy – and individual businesses and consumers - through this difficult COVID-19 pandemic, this had to be balanced against ensuring we retained enough capital in the bank to support us in that role.

It was against those considerations, and in response to a request from our regulator, the Prudential Regulation Authority, that the Board agreed to preserve capital by cancelling payment of the final 2019 dividend in relation to ordinary shares.
In addition, as set out in the letter to shareholders of 3 April, the Board decided that it was appropriate for the Group to make no quarterly or interim dividend payments, accrual of dividends, or share buybacks on ordinary shares until the end of 2020 when the position will hopefully be clearer.

At this stage it is difficult to forecast how events may turn out, but I can assure you that the Board will review the situation at the end of 2020 and take a view on our level of capital and capacity to pay dividends at that time.
While the Board recognises that the cancellation of dividends will be disappointing to shareholders, we hope you will understand why it was appropriate to agree to this in the current exceptional circumstances.

While we expect that the months ahead will be exceptionally challenging for businesses and households across the UK, we remain focused on our purpose of Helping Britain Prosper. We are supporting customers like you with a raft of measures to help minimise the financial impact of the global pandemic on households, businesses and communities. Further details of these measures, which include £500 interest free overdrafts, mortgage payment holidays and other practical help, are available on the Group’s website at https://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/Media/coronavirus/support-for-customers-impacted-by-coronavirus-covid-192/. Please do contact us via the links provided there if you have specific concerns you would like to discuss.

If the PRA and BoE want to control the Banks when it suits them, then get the Government to nationalise them. The Banks have a duty to the shareholders as well as the wider economy. Lloyds BoD have a duty to themselves.

If you forget about the dividend you condone what this BoD have become - listless, lacking direction and self rewarding. I would clear most of them out and I have voted accordingly.

I don't think the UK's active cases are amended as the list does not show any recovered cases. Hence the figures look bad.

It's a great shame that fresh and frozen produce don't have flags of origin displayed. Trying to find the small print can be quite difficult at times. We've also become totally spoilt in having pretty well all produce available all year round. If we accepted and got used to the idea that many items were seasonal, like we used to, it would perhaps cut down on some of the crazy journeys that produce undertakes and help reduce pollution.

I do support British growers and farmers. I did a shop last week and it was surprising to see how much German beef and Danish pork was on the shelves. I didn't buy either, instead choosing English pork and chicken. Are supermarkets making their choices on cost rather than supporting British farms.

I'm like you on this StrollerB. I cannot see the point of shareholder votes if the Board can ignore the result. If the PRA can dictate to the Board in a situation like this then effectively they may regard these institutions as being in public ownership when circumstances dictate. It's a very different approach in some other democracies who view such actions as undermining confidence in the banking system.

It would, StrollerB, but I don't have a link with anyone. Do brokerages like HL vote on behalf of all those investors that don't have paper certificates?

ERV1, it's an odd one, isn't it. The voting form contains the resolution for payment of the dividend, first put forward by the BoD.
If there is a majority of support for the proposal but the BoD ignores it, then would the shareholders have a case against the Board.

StrollerB, I enjoyed and fully support your letter, but I'll be amazed if you receive a prompt reply.
I've written twice to the Bof E, twice to the PRA, twice to AHO, twice to Rishi Sunak and once to the PM, my MP, the Bishop of Birmingham (Banking Standards Board), and one other MP. So far, diddly-squat.
I too am curious that if the proposal to pay the dividend is on the voting form and a majority approve, what is the BoD's position in law.

You and I are on different sides of the fence and I don't think that will change.
I'll say it once again that Lloyds had options but chose not to consider them, and don't preach about share risks to people. Many people hold Lloyds and other Banks in PEPS, ISAs and SIPPs and the PDA don't give a stuff about the impact this has had on so many elderly retired folk. They will forever be poorer because they will never be able to replace the capital they will now have to deplete. It's worth pointing out that most pension funds hold Lloyds and other Banks and the non contributory final salary pension that PDA hierarchy are members of never have to worry about their income in a severe recession. It automatically keeps getting paid and if the money isn't there then taxes will be raised. They will never feel the consequence of lost dividends like so many will now the dividend has been "cancelled". I'm afraid your dismissal of the dividend through "cancellation" rather than a "suspension" does not cut water.
The situation with regards to Lloyds and PPI has been handled disgracefully and once again the shareholder carries the cost. It was evident years ago that claims companies and Joe public were happy to screw Lloyds for every penny. Lloyds were happy just to go on paying more and more, the equivalent of about £2.5 Billion every year since 2011. But it didn't matter to the Board who got their salaries and bonuses and share awards. They could have contested the number of bogus claims but never chose to because the honey pot was always big enough to dip into.
AHO was well received when he first arrived at Lloyds, but like a few other members of the Board he's forgotten that he has a responsibility to the shareholders. Like many he no longer impresses me and as a Board they have collectively forgotten that the shareholders have a voice.

I've already written twice to the PRA. Needless to say they don't respond.
Lloyds had several options they chose not to offer to the PRA, one of which was to reduce the dividend which could have been funded by the suspended buyback capital.
If the PRA intend to control private banks then perhaps they should nationalise them. They should also bear in mind that Lloyds is fairly unique in having the largest number of private investors, many elderly with no chance of replacing capital they will have to use with the dividend being cancelled. There's no support for them and the Bank had options they could have applied. They chose not to do so. They also chose to use the word "canvelled" as opposed to "suspended" and I'm still trying to get clarity on this.
Lloyds, through their CEO have not had consideration for shareholders for quite some time. Their track record on PPI is appalling, littered with broken promises and utterly false estimates. They are happy to pay bonuses and dilute shares before ever considering shareholders.

I've voted like yourself as I don't see this Board giving much consideration for the shareholders, but they are very good at rewarding themselves. I've also submitted some questions for the AGM and hope other shareholders do likewise. The more there are the more the chance of the Board having to justify their recent actions and statement.

Good question 23awel. Including the "suspended" buyback, Lloyds are sitting on £2.2 Billion of our dividends. I've asked them twice why the term "cancelled" rather than "suspended" has been used since it is our money from our company. Like many shareholders nearly all my dividend would have gone back into the economy.

Walkersworld, you're in good company as no one answers any of the letters that shareholders have written.

It's disgraceful that Lloyds PPI cost matches their capitalisation. If two thirds of that had been paid as dividends we would have received 20p per share, or 2.25p a year since AHO made his infamous statement.

longshort, not a chance. Maybe have a look at the share charts and see how poorly this share has performed. It's been a dog of a share and now the dividend has gone there's nothing to give it any impetus. AHO could have chosen a different word to
"cancelled", such as "suspended" in reference to the final dividend. He could also have chosen to suspend the final dividend but pay the suspended buy back as a dividend so at least some benefit was felt by the millions of retired people who depend very much on this income stream.

I've also submitted a question on the shareholders site regarding how you "cancel" a dividend when the money exists, including the "suspended buy-back, but don't expect Lloyds to reply to questions they don't like.
They are contemptuous towards towards the little investor and sadly I don't know of a Fleet Street reporter who asks hard questions of them.

AHO isn't just camera shy when it comes to talking to shareholders, he also doesn't reply to letters. He's had four over the years from myself and not replied to any.
I've voted through HL, my broker, and had to chase them to get confirmation they had registered my votes. As a protest I've voted against re electing any of the Board and also voted against their financial rewards.

Hi Hollybean, that's kind of you but I don't think I deserve it. Before this pandemic started I used to do voluntary work at an animal rescue centre. A lot of volunteers were elderly but loved the company of animals and visa versa. Many struggled financially just to travel to the centre and these are the ones that could well be affected by all that's happened, not least because there may be restrictions imposed on the more elderly to protect them. There are a lot of elderly people that do voluntary or low paid work.