May I ask how and where do you see LLOY making profit in future ?
Any SP movement which is what we are interested here depends on future profit, even if you remove Brexit / PPI and Efficiency issues, LLOY to make significant profit seem difficult and when you add Brexit / PPI and inefficiency - SP gets worse.
Unless you want to hold LLOY for next couple of years - in which case anything is possible - charts etc cant help you deciding price movement - not for a Goliath LLOY.
5% upward growth is easily available in other BlueChips, something LLOY has been struggling and sadly will continue.
Markets dont lie, they dont play games, not with a Blue Chip.
Take whatever profit you can from LLOY and run a mile ! go Tech or go China
Last year they were 22nd February, is there a date, it looks like next week.
Looking at the chart, the shares were about this price a year ago while Lloyds are in a better place now although the FTSE 100 having been higher is now a touch lower. Having followed Soi back in at 66.5p it seems to me, very simplistically, there is a reasonably good chance of a turn to be made before or after the figures and statement.
Its a lowly rated, fairly solid business paying hopefully a chunky dividend. Never mind the fundamentals, the truth is the tape as Soi reminds us, no doubt he will have been in and out a few times before then, good for him, and very helpful for us to see his trades.
Nah, regardless of all the theories I still reckon it's a golfing term - hear it often when out playing and that my friends qualifies as evidence which is mostly direct, often cicumstantial and sometimes hearsay.
I would also suggest that if wetted by sea water, then the anaerobic fermentation process might produce hydrogen sulphide (the oxygen in the sulphate of seawater and the wsaste itself is used instead of oxygen from the atmosphere leaving hydrogen sulphide as gas) and that too is noxious - it stinks, and in relatively small concentrations is highly toxic when breathed. So storage high not only keeps it dry but helps it to be well ventilated with fresh oxygenated air.
I don't know any Hebrew so can't heat with the OT.
I classical greek there are quite a lot of words that could be so translated. Kakos is one of them and I have just discovered that ST Paul uses the word Skubala in Philippians 3:8.
OFF on a tangent in Victorian England dog [email protected]@@ was referred to as "the pure" and collecting infra the streets of London was an industry. It was sold to tanners for use in tanning leather.
>>With income you can spend it over and over again
And use it to buy more stocks, thus gaining capital growth: that is what I do, a better idea, I think, than investing in accumulation funds to that end (the "pound cost averaging" approach which is often recommended) .
After the post by Prefinvestor1 regarding the high cost of funds I thought I would share some info with you.
I find the ex fund manager Lars Kroijers view on expensive funds and tracker funds fascinating.
He puts a good case forward for any young people starting out who want exposure to the market but are not sure what shares/bonds to buy into.
I have been thinking that the last couple of days may be just "taking a breather" and that, in reality, we have a bit further to fall.........
On that subject I found an interesting article from Bloomberg in my inbox last night.
I agree with you about the charges on some of the funds and I would also prefer to hold direct shares in retirement but If I was younger then I definitely would be drip feeding money monthly into a global tracker such as Legal & General International Index Fund.
The charge is only 0.13 and with some brokers it is even less.
I had been of the understanding that it had a biblical connection, and had used that as an excuse if ever I used the word. I still prefer it's use when referring to dog s..., instead of the ridiculous sounding 'dog mess'.
Whatever, it's a s... morning down 'ere in 'ampshire.
Well trackers are low cost yes, if you want to go up and down with the market. Not so good in a correction that, but guarantees recovery when tge markets recovers I guess. Zero income though, so not for me.
On your point about getting both income and growth from the same investment, well for tge last 6 years my prefs have delivered exactiy that. When I started out with LLPC and NWBD they cost me 90 odd pence and paid me 9.x pence dividend a year, ie close to 10% yield. Today LLPC are 171.x and NWBD 168.x and only yield 5.x% but I have a lot of them.
Capital loss from equities is a general problem I think. Almost any can take a dive and leave you locked in awaiting a recovery to get your capital back. I have read posts on the CNA boards (for example) which indicate that some are in that position. Personally I address this issue by only investing a small amount in any one equity and sell immediately if the stock drops by 10% (under normal market conditions that is !). This stops a 10% loss growing into a 20% loss and then a 50% loss !. There are a few equities that I trust a bit more (eg Shell and BP) where I feel confident that any drop is short term AND that the dividend will definitely be maintained. I am prepared to put a bit more money in those.
But in the end I still prioritise income over capital. With income you can spend it over and over again with capital you can only spend it once. With income investments you can rebuild lost capital, with growth stocks once its gone all you can do is wait and hope.
"The following poem makes even more extreme use of word incompatibility by pairing a number of polar opposites such as morning/night, paralyzed/walking, dry/drowned, lie/true, in conjunction with lesser incompatibilities such as swords/shot and rubber/wall.
One fine day in the middle of the night,
Two dead boys got up to fight.
Back-to-back they faced one another,
Drew their swords and shot each other.
One was blind and the other couldn't see,
So they chose a dummy for a referee.
A blind man went to see fair play,
A dumb man went to shout "hooray!"
A deaf policeman heard the noise,
And came to arrest those two dead boys.
A paralyzed donkey passing by,
Kicked the blind men in the eye,
Sent him through a rubber wall,
Into a dry ditch and drowned them all.
(If you don't believe this lie is true,
Ask the blind man he saw it too!) "
Did you miss the O/T precursor? Or are u suggesting - in a tactful & diplomatic manner - that LLoyds is in the 'Stow high in transit' (although I tend to call it the 'proverbial'). Personally I would say that Barclays is better suited to the moniker after yet another court case was announced today.
An interesting fact about Manure: In the 16th and 17th centuries, everything for export had to be transported by ship. It was also before the invention of commercial fertilizers, so large shipments of manure were quite common.
It was shipped dry, because in dry form it weighed a lot less than when wet, but once water (at sea) hit it, not only did it become heavier, but the process of fermentation began again, of which a by-product is methane gas. Since the stuff was stored below decks in bundles - you can see what could (and did) happen.
Methane began to build up below decks and the first time someone came below at night with a lantern, BOOOOM!
Several ships were destroyed in this manner before it was determined just what was happening.
After that, the bundles of manure were always stamped with the instruction ' Stow high in transit ' on them, which meant for the sailors to stow it high enough off the lower decks so that any water that came into the hold would not touch this "volatile" cargo and start the production of methane.
Thus evolved the term ' S.H.I.T ' : (Stow. High. In. Transit) which has come down through the centuries and is in use to this very day.
You probably did not know the true history of this word.
I can understand why you do not like Funds. The costs are high but thank goodness, they are now more transparent in that they have to declare their charges rather than hiding them. The only defence I will offer is if you pick a good fund manager, the results can be outstanding. However the trick is picking a good fund manager.
In addition, you can avoid excessive management fees by picking a tracker fund. Vanguard operate one with a fee of just 0.06%.
I admit that I do neither. I do, however, have some fund investments where the fund is operated on the LSE such as high income funds, growth funds and funds in specific markets such as Japan.
One comment on big dividends. I am interested in dividend income but I have had some bad results following this particular strategy. I have held GSK, SSE, CNA, CNCT, GATC and Cable and Wireless. All have honoured and paid excellent dividends but for one reason or another their sp's have been adversely affected. Maintenance of capital can be more important than a high dividend.
Some of the funds I hold have shown excellent growth such as BGS, IGC and PIN but no income.
Life is so difficult. Why can't I have income and growth from each investment?
Thanks. My issues with Funds are many and varied, to try and summarise:-
1. Active Management. The big thing about funds is that you are supposed to get the benefit of your money being invested by highly experienced professionals. However there has always been controversy about whether this is really any better than you can do yourself and recently the rise of Passive funds and ETFs have further dented this myth. Well publicised failures by big name fund managers eg Neil Woodford, have also been witnessed. There probably ARE some good expert fund managers out there, but I dont think they are worth all the charges.
2. Diversity. This is another supposed classic benefit of Funds, many of whom have huge numbers of holdings. Well I believe in diversity and I invest in a range of stocks and assets to avoid getting wiped out by a crash in any individual investment. But most Funds go over the top with it in my view and have far too many holdings, the net effect of this is to water down nearly any up or down move in the fund portfolio to an extent that it becomes almost non-existent. Personally if I buy something and it does well I want to see the benefit and if it does badly I am prepared to accept some pain. I dont want all that averaged away by a fund with 150 holdings or something like that.
3. Charges, charges, charges. Lots of charges involved which are opaquely hidden in the price. Initial charges, ongoing charges, performance fees to name but a few. Also some brokers (like mine) charge you 0.44% of your total fund holding per annum just to hold them in your portfolio.
4. Accumulation Funds. With this type of fund all of the dividends on the underlying stock are automatically re-invested giving you more units. You never receive any dividend income, which makes them pretty much the same as low/no dividend growth stocks. There ARE some Income Funds but the yields are generally poor and there are far fewer of them.
5. Too Slow. When I want to buy and sell I want it to happen now, not have to put an order in and have it actioned tomorrow lunchtime, which is how funds work with my broker.
At this point I should come to another related topic which is the importance of income. Back during the 2008 financial crisis I had a largish wedge of cash in accumulation funds collected as savings during my working life. No individual stocks (considered too risky in those days). I had not long retired and was hoping these savings would grow and allow me to take some income during my retirement.
When the crisis hit the fund values plummeted. Because they were accumulation funds they produced zero income, so had I needed that to live on I would have been stuffed. But the lack of income also meant that I had no immediate funds available to re-invest while everything was so cheap. All you could do was sit around and wonder how many years it would be before the fund values recovered. And if you sold any of your funds to take an income this would decimate your holdings (its called pound cost ravishing !). It was at this point that I realised the major errors inherent in my previous investment approach and "the importance of income".
Compare that situation with my current highly income generative portfolio. This generates an almost guaranteed income of around 5.5% a year increasing in value every year through the re-investment of the dividends. Any reasonable drop in the capital value of the portfolio can easily be covered by the income in a reasonably short time, aided by the fact that dividend re-investment can be done at the lower stock prices available during the correction. Should I choose to take the income because I need it for some reason then I can do so without selling any of my holdings. A much healthier situation.
So for me funds not only suffer from the disadvantages listed earlier, they also do not provide the income related features that I have outlined above. As such the
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.