Member Info for tophat

Hi CarpeDiem1 I suspect the fall is due to comments made in the results presentation today that Aviva are considering redeeming at par value a number of high yield securities, issued as capital instruments, which due to regulatory changes, will no longer be considered as regulatory capital. Aviva are paying high yields for what should be capital instruments but they will cease to be counted as capital. Although this shouldn't affect the preference shares as they are counted towards regulatory capital and will continue to be under all currently known proposed regulatory changes, some holders may have been spooked by the announcement. I haven�t read the preference share prospectus� but would be very surprised if they included an option to redeem at par. However I would suggest that you contact Investor Relations to confirm the situation.

tIltingatwindmill The Court of Appeal made it clear in the case of CGL Group Ltd and others v RBS and others that where parliament has set a time limit for claims then any legal moves which attempt to circumvent that time limit should be blocked. So although in theory a private criminal prosecution is still possible even if it was successful and a criminal penalty imposed, shareholders would not be able to claim any compensation. In practice anyone silly enough to attempt a private criminal action would almost certainly face a potentially lengthy and costly battle to even get the case heard. The regulator has investigated the matter twice (once for their initial investigation and once for the independently supervised report ordered by the Treasury Select Committee) and concluded that there is insufficient evidence to bring criminal action. RBS could argue that it would be a malicious case. They could also argue that it would be a waste of court time to allow an action when there is little chance of success and so it would be against the public interest. A clever lawyer could probably find many other reasons to block the case So anyone bringing such an action would face costly legal expenses and even if they won wouldn’t get anything back!

The price stabilization notice refers to new bonds which BP are issuing as part of their normal financing operations and is a warning to potential shorters and other traders who may seek to force down the price of the newly issued securities. The mechanism can be applied to new share issues as well as bonds and other securities and works as follows If the new issue is for say £1bn, then prospectus will contain a clause saying that they may actually issue up to say 5% more than that. The stabilization manager (Soc Gen in this case) threatens to short the additional 5% at the issue price!!! If the price falls then Soc Gen can buy the securities to cover the short on the open market for less than the issue price (IP) and so makes a profit and pushes up the price. On the other hand if the price rises (which would threaten Soc Gen with a loss on the short) then BP will issue the additional 5% to Soc Gen at the IP allowing them to close the short with no loss. Of course Soc Gen will be paid a fee for this. So anyone considering shorting the security should be aware that there is a single buyer waiting to snap up a significant proportion of the issue if necessary. The stabilization period normally expires about a month after the issue date.

The outlook reminder has the time 12:33 on it

Hi honestbob Migrating customers over to a buyers own systems could take a lot longer and be more expensive than creating a new system from scratch as you have to take into account the “quirks” of both the W&G systems and the purchasers own systems. With new system there aren’t any “quirks” to worry about! RBS has so many systems because it took over other institutions and found it easier to leave the old systems in tact rather than migrate them to their own systems! A purchaser would only start to invest the huge amount of time and expense to migrate the customers after the sale had completed. Any disruption to the services for W&G customers would be totally unacceptable which means that absent new systems it is likely that RBS will have to continue to provide the IT services for the new bank. Were this to be the case I suspect that the deal would include both management fees for the services and also a “sweetner” to offload the services in the same way that Lloyds did with TSB. (Lloyds paid Sabadell £450m towards new IT systems when it bought TSB and although I don’t know it I suspect that TSB customers will still be using Lloyds systems for a while longer). Answering your last point the information came from the Q&A session following the Q1 2016 results announcement (link below). Quite a few questions scattered throughout the session were on W&G and I think a brief but fair summary would be as follows- Disposing of W&G (sale or IPO) is not the problem The problem is creating a saleable W&G entity and specifically the IT infrastructure RBS would prefer a complete separation but this may not be possible before the deadline Without a saleable entity the EU monitor wouldn’t have anything to sell irrespective of price if the deadline was missed RBS are looking into alternatives As I mentioned, the costs of developing new systems wouldn't be wasted as RBS could use the new systems themselves (after all W&G customers are RBS customers). http://investors.rbs.com/~/media/Files/R/RBS-IR/results-center/transcript-29-04-2016.pdf

Sorry for the confusion – Now I understand I agree with what you say. A few more criminal convictions (where appropriate) wouldn’t be amiss. Talking of which Scottish prosecutors are not proceeding against RBS or its former directors regarding the 2008 rights issue. http://www.lse.co.uk/ShareNews.asp?shareprice=RBS&code=m304v24v&headline=UPDATE_1Scottish_prosecutors_drop_RBS_rights_issue_case

Yes it could take some time to sort out the W&G business. The separation is a major technical challenge as for decades banks have preferred to patch up and keep multiple old IT systems, rather than replace them, because it was seen as safer to do so. Currently RBS use over 700 different IT systems to support the products and services used by those customers who will form the W&G bank. This would be a nightmare for any potential buyer to take on so RBS are attempting to create a new, much simpler, environment. However the new systems have to work perfectly for customers from day one and I appreciate the scale of the challenge. I presume the “alternative solutions” which they are now investigating means that they will look at the possibility of running the IT systems on behalf of any prospective purchaser the same way that Lloyds did with TSB. However as an optimistic sort of person I can see the advantages of creating new systems for W&G as the very same systems could be used for RBS itself, potentially making them more robust and a lot cheaper to maintain in the long run.

honestbob RBS have already said that they believe that the two bilateral agreements between the UK government and EU and UK Government and RBS regarding the disposal of W&G will stand irrespective of the outcome of the EU referendum vote. The disposal is meant to negate any competitive advantage gained from the use of public money to support the company. Bearing in mind UK MP’s of all political persuasions have expressed a desire to see even more completion then it is unlikely that there would be will to either break the agreement or water it down.

Neepheid I can understand your point of view but see things slightly differently That RBS is taking so long to sort out shows just how much of a mess it was in and while it may seem difficult to appreciate the bank is in a far better situation than it was even a few years ago (although this is not reflected in the SP). However it shouldn’t come as any surprise that 2015 wasn’t a good year (RBS management said they wanted to accelerate the resolution of legacy issues) and if the management get their way then 2016 is also likely to be bad as well! That can be seen as “yet another bad year” or as “even further progress” – it depends upon different perspectives and timeframes. Allowing RBS to fail would have been totally irresponsible as it would only have increased pressure on other UK banks (particularly HBOS, LloydsTSB and Barclays). As it was we almost had a total collapse of the UK banking system in October 2008. Imagine workers not being paid, companies not receiving payments, cash machines not working and credit card transactions being refused!!! It almost happened. John Gieve (former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England) said we came very close to disaster and Lord Myners (former Business Secretary) said it was a matter of a few hours! Global recapitalisation of the banks was needed but at the time the US was in the middle of their presidential election campaign with the republican stance being “The banks got us into this mess so they should pay for it” and the ECB saying that their banks didn’t have any problems (how wrong they were!) and in any case there wasn’t anything in the treaties so couldn’t do anything in any case. Alistair Darling said that the UK banks needed to be recapitalised and offered to back them with public money where needed. This was something that the US couldn’t ignore and they eventually followed suit. I seem to remember that even George Osborne gave some credit to Alistair Darling for his handling of the crisis.

The RBS share consolidation was specifically to allow the payment of coupons on various securities in shares, rather than cash, to preserve capital. In June 2012 RBS shares had a nominal value of 25p but were trading at under 20p. Companies are prohibited from issuing new shares at a price below their nominal value, and bond holders wouldn’t be prepared to accept shares instead of cash at a price higher than their market value. So to permit the coupon payments in shares RBS had to increase the SP compared to the nominal value. To do this RBS changed the nominal value of each share to £1 rather than 25p which is why each share carries 4 voting rights rather than just one, but at the same time had a 1 for 10 share consolidation. This resulted in a share price of around £2 with a nominal value of £1 which allowed the issue of further ordinary shares to pay the coupons to the holders of the relevant securities. On the other hand share splits often occur when the SP is seen as too high! Usually the higher the SP the less liquid the share becomes and there can be a point at which the number of people prepared to trade at the high price diminishes to a point where it becomes a restriction on the SP growth. I believe that a few years ago Greggs had a very successful split ie the increase in demand for the lower priced shares increased the value of shareholders holdings significantly.

Qualifying shares are those, up to a maximum of 769, bought in the IPO and held continuously until 25th June 2015. For those with the maximum number of qualifying shares Lloyds will pay 38 x £3.40

Yes you will receive the payout for all qualifying shares you hold. Lloyds will pay the company you have the ISA with for all qualifying shares they hold on behalf of account holders (ISA or otherwise). The company will then credit the individual accounts in the same way a dividend would be paid.

I wouldn't expect any dividend soon. The IPO prospectus contains the following paragraph which suggests that the first div will be in 2018. Dividend policy The TSB Board believes that the Company will, in time, be able to support a dividend distribution of 40 to 60 per cent. of underlying earnings, reflecting the strength of the capital position and franchise of the Company. In the near term, however, as TSB grows its earnings and balance sheet, the TSB Board will have particular regard to the low level of profitability of the underlying business and the need to preserve capital to support TSB’s growth strategy. Taking this into account, it is the TSB Board’s current expectation that the Company’s inaugural dividend would be in respect of the financial year ending 31 December 2017. The TSB Board intends to review, on an ongoing basis, the expected timing and quantum of any dividend payments in the context of progress on delivery of TSB’s strategy and the broader operating environment.

Barclays has over 16bn shares in issue and Lloyds over 53bn which are tradeable (ie not owned by HMT). In contrast TSB have only approx 175m tradable shares (ie not owned by lloyds) so you'd expect volumes to be lower. However if you compare the ratio of volumes to tradeable shares then the TSB is actually higher than both Barclays and Lloyds, which again is expected after an IPO.

As Barlew and Armani.. point out the XD Date is 2nd April with the Record date 4th April. It pays not to confuse these! The Record date is the date on which the Company’s Registrars will compile the list of shareholders and their holdings as at 1st April, the day prior to the XD date, ie those people who will receive the dividend. Historically the delay between XD date and Record date was primarily to allow time for brokers to notify the Registrars of any changes. This was far more important when everything was done on paper! While it may seem outdated in this age of computerized trading, the record date still has significance for people or institutions making private transactions and who bypass the brokers. For someone like me who only deals via brokers, the record date for dividends, rights issues etc can be ignored. It is always the Ex date which matters. .

MARK4660 The Post Stabilization Notice is the partner of the Pre-Stabilization Notice made on 27th September. RTO have just issued 350m euro of notes (commercial paper) repayable on 7th October 2021. These are tradable on the markets in a way similar to shares. The Pre notice gave the markets advance notice that, if necessary, the banks which were managing the issue on behalf of RTO would intervene in the market to support the price. Anyone thinking of immediately shorting the issue could get burned so potential traders have to be warned. There is a specific mechanism for this type of market support (price stabilization). The issue prospectus or accompanying documentation will have made it clear that the total amount of notes issued may be up to say 10% more than the 350 million. If the banks saw that the market price was falling then they would have shorted up to the additional 10% of the issue. If the price continued to drop then the banks would have bought the notes needed to close the short on the open market and hence supported the market price. On the other hand if the price rose, putting the banks at risk of a loss, then RTO would have issued the additional 10% of the notes to the banks at the issue price. The banks would then use these to close the short and so avoid any loss. The Post notice is simply saying that no market interventions have been made.

Hi Grogsy Something else you may care to consider is that at the time of the merger the intention to hold a Rights Issue during the second half of this year was announced. The 2010 results are due on Tuesday 1st November so it is quite likely that details of the RI will be announced at the same time (unless they wish to delay due to market conditions). In theory a RI is neutral. ie the value of the shares pre Ex date+ the cash invested should more or less equal the value of the shares post Ex date. However it is not unusual for the post value to be lower than breakeven. (Thanks to TIE on the LLOY board for that tip) Since the SP of a share normally rises in the run up to the Ex Rights date some investors take the opportunity to sell during this period, either to bank profits/cut losses or with the intention to buy back at a lower cost than the RI. Of course on some rare occaisions the post price is higher than breakeven so there is a risk either way. Sorry if this complicates your decision!

Britain may unveil a number of public sector relocations in Wednesday's annual Budget as it fights to trim a ballooning national deficit by cutting real estate costs, property adviser GVA Grimley said. The property consultant said many of the 20,000 public sector posts based close to the seat of power in London's Whitehall did not need to be there, racking up unnecessary costs in one of the world's most expensive office markets. "Those 20,000 posts occupy approximately two million square feet of central London office stock, most of which is located in Victoria," GVA Grimley Head of Research Stuart Morley said. He predicted a lettings boon for key regional cities as the government resumes a quest for cheaper real estate space following an earlier programme of relocations in 2007. "Greater Manchester, Merseyside and the West Midlands will be among those regions that are likely to feature strongly during the relocation programme. http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-news/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=10421922

An interim divdend for the year end 2009/2010 of 1.55p has just been paid on 29/01/2010. This was the same amount as last year. From the interim management statement issued on 14/01/2010 I expect that, unless something unforseen happens, the final div will also be the same as last year ie 2.95p (making a total of 4.5p for the financial year).

The NAV was to be expected as there hasn't been any significant increase in commercial property prices so the only thing to increase it has been the RI. I think the major reason for the fall wasn't the NAV but the lack of progress in re-negotiating the debt repayment due in January. If it is not extended then I'm sure that they can repace it but the interest rate is likely to be much higher. Once the commercial property market picks up then WICH should do quite nicely and in the meantime we can enjoy some nice divs.