All banks are highly inefficient - always been
If we think diluting LLOYDs is bad...
See dilution figures from now and when it was owned by tax payers
Which happened After
Diluting your life by increasing pension age
Diluting all savings of pop with 0 interest rate
Diluting currency by the mechanics of Q.E
Essential Lifecservices were diluted as 100s billions gone into saving banks
Banks made 100s of billions through Libor and high interests rates PPI Loans services
now the only thing left is your pocket + earnings
so get ready for inflation.
Get ready for more taxes or hikes
Insurance Premiums up
This issue aside there isnt anything favourable going on for LLOY.
High street or individual banking is not profitable for banks.
Soon APPLE AMAZON GOOGLE etc will sell all and eveything you need.
Get out of all banks / financials
wait 6 months
see how things settle
This time its a big elongated U and no sharp V
Banks will be happy to discard their small arms to hide losses.
I am horrified at people who believe in reincarnation and want another life on this planet and I am amazed at people who want to save this planet.
To all who responded to my post, thank you, but I know I should have moved when my wife did a few months ago, well I will now.
I just give up trying to understand ii, because they, or their system, seem incapable of providing any sensible answer to problems we have had. I am now of the opinion that a computer programme must be responding , by seeing the subject matter ie "Quarterly Fees" and sending reply number 23 or whatever? Worse still phone contact is nearly as bad.
I shall stay with iii to use the message boards, but will spend the next few days deciding where to go, perhaps hand over everything to the investment house I used to use, they always did OK, but I did a little better. My wife closed her ii account and seems happy to have handed over responsibility to our investment company.
Thanks again everyone, and must say I know I will miss the excitement/ disappointment of choosing my own investments, so decisions, decisions - good luck to all of you with your investments.
I had missed this thread when I prepared my 17:56 post, and it seems some of what I said duplicated what had been included in this thread.
However, reading some of the comments I decided to take a closer look at how many shares had been issued in previous years, since I had assumed that these years would be similar to 2017-18.
The "Total Rights" RNS's are easily accessed via the LBG website, so I extracted the related data going back to 2010 which are shown below.
Date of RNS Shares in issue Change over previous
28-Feb-11 68,074.5m 1,159.3m
29-Feb-12 68,874.9m 800.4m
28-Feb-13 70,343.6m 1,468.7m
28-Feb-14 71,370.0m 1,026.4m
28-Feb-17 71,460.0m 86.2m
28-Feb-18 72,086.4m 626.5m
As can be seen the number of new shares issued in each year from 2010 to 2014 was quite high, and much larger than the number issued in 2017-18. I have not had the time (or the inclination) to research why so many shares were issued in this period.
No related RNS was issued between 30th April 2014 and 28th February 2017, and the 2017 RNS showed that only a small quantity of shares were issued over the intervening 3 years. It is unclear to me if in fact the number of new shares to be issued in future will be large or not.
If we are actually returning to a high new share issuance regime then the buyback will have even less of a positive effect on the sp.
I am unsure if there is much difference between buying shares on the open market to pay bonuses etc, or issuing new shares. The former reduces the capital value of the Company since money is spent, but does not increase the number of shares, whilst the latter preserves capital but increases the number of shares. I believe that the thinking on choosing which option to follow is driven by the fact that capital spent is no longer available to the Company, and the remaining capital has to be made to work harder, whereas capital preserved is still available and can be made to work on behalf of the Company.
I am sure there are experts on this Board who can make better arguments on the choices.
Finally the "Total Rights" RNS issued on March 29th clearly states that no shares were held in Treasury, showing the the 66m shares bought back between February 28th and March 29th had been cancelled. I believe that it is safe to assume that the shares bought back are cancelled immediately.
"Given that we are buying shares back.
Surely it would make more sense to also buy the bonus shares.
It provides a bit more transparency about costs."
I agree...I'm going to propose it at the next AGM. Unfortunately it may mean smaller dividends but for the sake of transparency I think it is worth a go.
"Despite the explanation the new page design is very inferior to the old on in my view."
Inferior....I would say useless. I found the 'Market Data' very useful to me to provide an overview.
First Google Finance, then the BBC...I think somebody has got it in for me.
When I first started trading over 20 years ago, The Share Centre was the cheapest and most PI oriented platform available. It's no longer the cheapest but I have seen no reason to transfer to another platform. All my shares are in a self select Isa which costs me £4.80 a month. I have opted to pay an additional charge of £24 per quarter to get a fixed commision fee of £7.50 per transaction instead of a 1% charge. By holding 500 share centre shares (current value £125) the transaction fee is reduced to £5.25.
To trade, you get an instant quote valid for 15 seconds. They have a help line that is just that; helpful. Problems have always been resolved with just one phone call. As I said, I have seen no reason to move to another platform. The only drawback is that there is no comment forum, which is all I use III for.
Sorry to take so long replying, but I was out having lunch with my sister who is down from Scotland visiting my brother-in-law's family.
A "Total" Rights" RNS was issued on February 28th that showed 72,086m shares in issue. A similar RNS was issued on March 29th that showed 72,176m shares in issue, a net increase of 89.9m shares. The share buyback bought 66.4m shares between March 8th and March 29th, so the 156.2m total new shares is the product of these two numbers.
My post was not meant to be a criticism of your data, but just to add the different slant. Personally I have not been looking at the rate of buyback, since I believe overall the effect of the buyback will be negligible. I keep my data up-to-date so I have the data readily at hand, and to enable me to see if there is anything in the figures to make me change my view.
If I look at a longer time frame, there was a "Total Rights" RNS issued on February 27th 2017 that showed 71,460m shares in issue, which is 626m shares less than just before the buyback started. This shows how many shares have to be bought back in one year just to keep the status quo.
The £1bn buyback cash would buy 1,504m shares at the average price paid to date, which would be 2.1% of those in issue on March 8th, but this reduces to only 1.2% when taking the new shares issued into account.
The MCap at the start of the buyback was £49,595m (68.8p * 72,086m). Reducing this by the £1bn spent on the buyback and dividing by my estimate of the number of shares at the end of the buyback (71,208.6m) would yield an effective sp of 68.24p, a reduction in the sp of 0.8%. Hardly a beneficial effect!
"It dilutes (reduces) the value of the shares.
As a holder of many , I'd like the share price to go up "
RT, yes I know that.....but what's the alternative.....give the bonus as cash? Spend profits buying the bonus shares on the open market (as already suggested)?
Anyway the buy back now cancels out the dilution caused by the bonus/incentive scheme (and possibly a few extra shares for cancellation).
Ideally we would reduce the bonus/incentive scheme but presumably the BOD think it is important. We get our dividends and now the 'buy back' takes care of the dilution issue. Sorted!!
So people were happy with 'Special' dividend and the bonus/incentive dilution, now they aren't happy......possibly because they have found out how much the bonus/incentive scheme is actually costing shareholders.
Ask the question at the AGM but I expect they wont think there is a problem.
I don't see what all the fuss is about. You guys would preferred that they buy their own shares to give back to employees? What would be the sense in that.
Paying bank employees in shares for bonuses and incentives is preferred by the regulator over giving them cash. So shares will always be created. Creating new shares doesn't cost the company anything......buying your own shares does.
Perhaps the share buy back is partly aimed at keeping the volume of shares in circulation under control. It isn't directly related to the employee shares.
The size of bonuses and the incentive schemes is a valid concern. But probably similar to other banks. It's the nature of the business. Bankers like to be well paid to look after our money.
I`ve no problem with iii quarterly fee, strange that it seems lower for me than some others have quoted.
I get it back in trading credit anyway.
What really annoys me is having to make multiple attempts at withdrawing cash.
Also have a holding which is in good enough profit for me to sell yet they continually state I have not the stock to sell.
I most certainly have.
sac de merde.
I work hard, want to sell that holding and call it a day/week.
I would have hoped that ALL employee share reward schemes, incentives and bonuses should be paid directly out of revenue, and not by the creating of new additional shares?
Happy for all of the reward schemes to exist ( if they are in fact rewarding good performance that is, but if these are being "paid for" by the "free" issue of new shares, and not charged directly from current year revenue (i.e. buying the required shares on the open market), then the directors are overstating the profits that year. This would be false accounting??
Afraid I can't answer my own question here, but I do believe that the numbers are now so large and obvious that the Directors do need to issue a statement providing some clarification here? It would certainly be helpful to those ordinary investors who cannot make sense of this approach.
The share purchase scheme indicates that the company intends to cancel the shares.I do not think this happens immediately on purchase.
I understand a large number of employees are eligible & are members of share purchase schemes,certainly into a five figure number,shares are offered at lower prices than market price so company also gets some payment.
I understand a smal annuall share award is made to all employees based on performance circa £200.
If you are unhappy with this I suggest you do n't invest.
Seems really concerning if all that is happening is spending £1bn on just covering staff & directors share schemes which without the number of shares in circulation would just continue to spiral out of control.
This maybe finally explains the reason why the SP ever fails to sustain any increase above 70p and a SP some 10% lower than 4 years.
My conclusion: Unless someone compromises then a 'No deal' is getting more likely IMO.....but as often seems to happen a last minute deal is made. Although with the EU having their backstop solution (NI in the CU) then the pressure is on the UK (IMO again).
Is this relevant to Lloyds?...not specifically. But if it looks like a 'No deal' then the stock market could reflect the uncertainty ahead.
No particular point to make, just a straightforward question.
It occurred to me that although you enjoy stirring the B-word on here, there's a good chance you didn't actually vote on 23/6/16
As you've failed repeatedly to answer my simple question I suspect I may be right.
Important message from the Financial Conduct Authority:
Posting inside information that is not public knowledge, or information that is false or misleading, may constitute market abuse.
This could lead to an unlimited fine and up to seven years in prison.
If you have any information, concerns or queries about market abuse, click here.
The content of the messages posted represents the opinions of the author, and does not represent the opinions of Interactive Investor Trading Limited or its affiliates and has not been approved or issued by Interactive Investor Trading Limited.
You should be aware that the other participants of the above discussion group are strangers to you and may make statements which may be misleading, deceptive or wrong.
Please remember that the value of investments or income from them may go down as well as up and that the past performance of an investment is not a guide to its performance in the future.
The discussion boards on this site are intended to be an information sharing forum and is not intended to address your particular requirements.
Whilst information provided on them can help with your investment research you need to consider carefully whether you should make (or refraining from making) investment or other decisions based on what you see without doing further research on investments you are interested in.
Participating in this forum cannot be a substitute for obtaining advice from an appropriate expert independent adviser who takes into account your circumstances and specific investment needs in selected investments that are appropriate for you.