Member Info for TheFarEnd

Whatever it takes, yeah right.

When one of France's richest men, Bernard Arnault of LVMH, went to the corporate bond markets last week to raise around €9billion to help pay for his purchase of US jewellers Tiffany, he made his company even richer.

He raised this new debt over a range of bond maturities from two to 11 years, with two of the five euro tranches being offered at negative yields.

That means the lenders to the luxury goods giant – pension funds and other investors – were in effect paying the A-rated LVMH to borrow their money. Even the longest maturity, an 11-year euro tranche, yields only 0.43 per cent.

In other words, Europe's central bankers and pensioners are subsidising LVMH to pay $16billion for one of the world's s****iest jewellery brands.
They certainly are. LVMH was able to get such good terms for its debt because the European Central Bank is throwing money around again.

It recently relaunched a €189billion corporate purchasing programme, otherwise known as more QE, which is driving down yields into negative territory.

What the ECB is hoping to do with this latest programme is cut funding costs for European companies, making it easier for them to invest.

Whether the ECB's Christine Lagarde had in mind that LVMH should top up its jewellery box with Tiffany's trinkets is another matter. M&A rarely creates growth.

But what Arnault knows is that the ECB will underwrite the issue, no matter what the coupon is. And the central bank will probably end up with a slice of the luggage maker.

This extraordinary situation is one of the many unintended consequences of the big bazooka 'whatever it takes' gigantic QE programme let loose by the ECB's former chief, Mario Draghi, after the financial crash to shore up Europe's economies. Like any addict, the ECB does not seem able to kick its bad habits.
The paradox of the LVMH situation illustrates why so many critics claim that ultra-low interest rates and QE have been a disastrous policy.
It's one that has aided those with assets to become even richer, while most of the population have not benefited. Quite the reverse. What we have is a form of financial apartheid, a polarisation between those at the top and the bottom.

Companies such as LVMH are being paid to borrow money at negative yields while savers are receiving next to nothing for their investments.

At the same time, the squeezed middling classes with mortgages are paying around 3 per cent, small businesses are charged at least 10 per cent or more on business loans while credit cards are still charging an outrageous APR of 22 per cent or more.
Who said interest rates are low? As always, the poorest in society are the worst hit as they are shafted with interest charges of up to 100 per cent if they buy washing machines from the pay-day loan sharks. These differentials in spending or borrowing power are not healthy.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/comment/article-8030483/MAGGIE-PAGANO-rich

Most are complaining about the rebate reduction, its all about how much they can get back.
Either way it's not enough.

Pat, I posted my thoughts on Lloyds future SP linked to our future trade deal with the EU at the beginning of the year.
The thing here is, we already have a backup trade deal, there is no elephant in the room, its called WTO.
Another 10 years wait for my blue passport, just renewed before Christmas, but it had the added bonus of no mention of the EU anywhere on it.
Perhaps you would like to lend a hand over the channel as you're "alright Jack," seems they are having a few problems concerning a budget or something.

HBD to yer.

This is certainly good news for AHO,
"as part of a shift to a new type of long-term pay model. Mr Horta-Osório’s potential long-term bonuses will be halved, while the expected short-term payouts will increase."

With all the talk about AHO leaving I'm sure he will be delighted to read the last few words.

I see all the fruitcakes out during the night, you gotta laugh, some of these pratt's don't half talk some s hi t e.
As John Wayne said, "many people are alive only because it's illegal to shoot them."

RIP Biscuits.

SP opened back down to pre result levels.
Panic over.

Impairments on bad loans spiked to 1.3 billion pounds in 2019, up from 937 million pounds the previous year.

'hairbrain' with inverted commas BJ, but it was early, for me, but you know that I meant.

January figures from yesterday show the unemployment rate on the up (7.5%).
Just saying.
Not conversant with the January agreement, but with public opinion down to 23.5% this government is not that popular, but like all residing government's they'll hang on to the very end.

snige, that's not the point here that "we will kid ourselves we are not aligning, but we will."
The point here is that by aligning we will be a rule taker, yes we are equal now (some more equal than others or so it seems) but you never know what 'hairbrain' regulations they will introduce in the future.

I guess that's one way to make up for all the deleted posts.......post everything twice. Lol.

Yeah. She's now known as Mrs Ditzy Gino. :-)

Positive wrong, negative wrong, cheerful/miserable wrong, shares go up shares go down.
One way or the other you'll be right.

Sell and move on Jammare if you're that negative on LLOY.
Can never understand why so called 'investors' keep moaning on about things when they go wrong.
You don't have to wait until your break even to sell, most who sell always say there's better investments elsewhere but never say where.
If you believe you can acquire Lloyds at a lower price then sell up now, stop your belly aching and do it. That's what investing is all about.
You got the title right, trouble is the "misery" is all ours, so do us all a favour, sell up next week move on and
and as you say "watch the price plunge Tuesday onwards, as many large institutions leave."
Then if you're that attached to LLOY buy in at a lower price you'll even get more shares.
Result happiness but in your case I doubt it.

P.S. enjoy the rest of your weekend.

Just as many posts about RBS (see above) on here today, as the RBS board.
Just saying.

For leave to appeal, read freedom to appeal.
Whoever wins or loses I believe they will appeal to have the decision reversed.
The Sami are famous for it. They have just won a case that had taken over 10 years, all the way to the supreme court. They won it by taken into account the importance of ancient memory. Rights arising from the memory of ancient memory still exist, whatever that is, but it don't sound like anything to do with the law.
Just saying.

Yes or no, there will be legal action.

I guess the government are having trouble dumping their remaining shares, anything with Scotland in the title will cause a problem they're brassic. :-))

I'm sure many have made a loss by selling in this investing lark, I know I have.
However it's the reason for selling that is the difference. I've never sold because I have to (like I need the money now) but I've sold at a loss when I've made a bad entry point.
You win some, you lose some.
Also, never be frightened to take a profit.

Royal Bank of Scotland will be no more, it has decided to change its name away from the Scottish connection to NatWest Group, even though it is based in Edinburgh.
Any ulterior motives here I wonder?

For my sins snige, I took the hit yesterday on Centrica.
Just saying.