Alliance & Leicester Share Discussion Threads

[acamas] 18/7/2008 07:42

jenny5

Accepting your 79p the principle of my calculations are sound? So the Divi becomes £1153 per annum

[jenny5] 18/7/2008 07:22

more like 79p for 1€

[acamas] 18/7/2008 07:01

I need some help working out the estimated Annual Dividend we can expect from Santander once A&L are no more. To keep things simple I am using 6000 A&L shares. Santander's forecast dividend is around 73cents for 2008. So our 6000 A&L shares become 2000 Santander(Abbey) shares times 73 cents = 1460 euros. What is the euro exchange rate these days 70 to the £. Therefore on the above example are we talking around £1022 per year on an investment of 2000 Santander shares at say £8/£9 per share say £16k/£18k investment.

Is my calculation of £1022 reasonable or have I goofed somewhere.


Also £1022/£17,000 = yield of 6%
Thanks in advance

[acamas] 18/7/2008 06:18

Indieman,

Despite all that the door is not yet closed on a rival bid. One or more parties may be pondering on if they would like to own A&L. If it does happen I would favour another European Banking Institute because of competition laws for the British Banks such as Lloyds/TSB or HBOS. I guess there is still around four to six weeks for another bid to appear

[indieman] 17/7/2008 23:29

Keith,

The argument that the directors turned down higher offers previously is irrelevant to the current situation. If A&L were genuinely able to make the case that they were worth more on a risk/reward basis, rival bidders would be queuing round the block. Equally, if other potential bidders came to that conclusion for themselves, the result would be the same. That, in itself, would push the share price higher even without an actual takeover.

The simple fact that the share price hasn't risen to a level significantly higher than the bid price means that experienced investors, institutional, hedge fund or otherwise don't believe A&L is significantly undervalued on a risk/reward basis.

The main risk is not that A&L are bunkrupt or unable to trade in the short or medium term. It is that in the longer term, A&L might have difficulty borrowing sufficient funds to support the business well enough to generate cashflow to see them trade through their difficulties. Reduced business and steady fixed costs are not a recipe for success in difficult times.

[keith95] 17/7/2008 22:31

Taxation
Under Spanish law, Santander is generally required to withhold 18 per cent. on account of
Spanish Non Resident Income Tax on dividend
payments to Santander Shareholders not resident in Spain for tax purposes and not acting
through a permanent establishment in Spain.
However, certain non-Spanish tax resident Santander Shareholders may be eligible to
benefit from an exemption or a withholding reduced
rate under Spanish domestic law or under the provisions of an applicable double tax treaty
entered into between Spain and such non-resident
shareholder's country of residence. Where this is the case, Santander will not be obliged to
levy such withholding or will make it at the
relevant reduced rate, provided that the non-resident Santander Shareholder provides evidence
of its right to benefit from such exemption or
withholding reduced rate by furnishing Santander (through the appropriate intermediaries) with
a certificate of tax residence duly issued by
the tax authorities of its country of residence in force at the time the dividend is payable.

[kumala] 17/7/2008 20:43

no matter which way you cut it, it all still stinks, but hey ive been bitten on more than one ocasion and am still realing from the likes of Northen Rock to name just one of late.
Good luck to all though, and hope no one gets stung to bad.
K

[jennyj] 17/7/2008 11:02

Sounds good to me acamas

[jennyj] 17/7/2008 11:02

Sounds good to me acamas

[acamas] 17/7/2008 10:56

Keith

Thats exactly why The Americans are after a super regulator to eliminate these spivish practices on Wall Street. The senators are seeking a SWAT team to perform random dope tests on Companies that trade on Wall Street. They will just turn up close them down for two days and analysis the past few days trades.

[jennyj] 17/7/2008 10:55

Pension companys care not for the pension holders!

Most pension funds get out performed by a basic savings account and not even a top performer.

ALWAYS manage your own pension. - SIPPS all the way and this is where HL. step in.

[tricky1992000] 17/7/2008 10:52

that would be a great advert for a company that does sipps only, if only people knew about their pensions and what happened to the money they pay to these companies.

[acamas] 17/7/2008 10:43

keith95,

Thanks for the reply. There is a lot in there with which I agree. We are the buzzards at a carcass and can expect to be chased away by The Lion who is still enjoying his kill. The carcass is A&L. The Lion is Santander and then comes us PI's somewhere down the pecking order. That is the role we fulfill in the investment greasy pole

regards

Acamas

[stucom] 17/7/2008 10:32

are you entering the menopause by any chance?.....
christ sake,have you any glass left in your house?

[jennyj] 17/7/2008 09:32

In order to best benefit the OWNERS IE THE SHAREHOLDERS, the DIRECTORS need to simply trade until the market value has reached levels of £8 odd which it can do easily buy NOT SELLING THE COMPANY IN THE MIDDLE OF A FEAR INDUCED PANIC AND WHEN THE TURNOVER IN HOUSING IS AT ITS LOWEST LEVEL.

HISTORY PROVES EVERYTHING RECOVERS.

THE DIRECTORS ARE COMMITING FRAUD. THE DIRECTORS HAVE THEIR OWN INTERESTS AT HEART AND ARE GETTIGN LARGE AMOUNTS OF CASH UNDER THE TABLE.

A+L profits will be of the order of 150 billion over the next 100 years, and yet they are trying to sell the company for 1 billion not even twice its profits. FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD. THIS IS MAFIA STYLE DEALING.

[keith95] 17/7/2008 09:09

... in which case there should have been a RI sandybubbles ... agreed.

"A&L is a strong and attractive business and its resilient performance is proof of the quality of its franchise."

Leaves lots of questions!

[sandybubbles] 17/7/2008 09:03

it is against human nature to sell a share at £11 when markets are good because one would think £12 or £15 is just around the corner. what is most annoying about this take over is that the directors gave the impression that things were if not good then not too bad and yet they scurry to agree the bid. can we assume that if there are no good jobs available for them then a few golden handshakes are likely. pity the poor employees who are facing losing their jobs.

[acamas] 17/7/2008 08:01

keith95,

Do you have any evidence that The Directors are to be offered good jobs in the reformed group. Simon Potter did the same thing with Hardman but he was not given a job with Tullow. In fact he has scratched around since that takeover. The A&L Directors may well have been about to offer a profits warning we will never know. However the banking sector of our share price being £11 and today are as different as chalk and cheese. We are being taken out by one of the better managed banks in the sector at the present time. Prior to the bid going in there was talk of our share price dropping below £1 on this BB. That has now stopped. Markets are volatile, sp's go up and down. The secret here was to sell at £11 rather than bemoan our misfortune at £3.

You are very rarely given time to phone a friend or ask the bulletin board on timing in this game. Our mistakes we have to live with. I should know over 40 years of investing I have made a few. I am in this game to make money and where that is concerned it is every person for themselves, Directors included they wont wet nurse us shareholders.

regards

Acamas

[keith95] 16/7/2008 23:14

One could begin with AL. directors turning down previous offers of £12, £6.50, yet accepting a £3 paper offer from a bank whose share price looks overvalued in the same market given the sentiment.

The argument that a company traded at X one day and therefore X*1.5 represents a fair valued offer to be accepted is plainly rediculous. Wells Fargo I believe rose by 30% today by example on results less worse than feared.

"The Board has taken the decision to recommend the acquisition by Santander after careful consideration. A&L is a strong and attractive business and its resilient performance is proof of the quality of its franchise."

"We are very pleased to be working with the management and employees of A&L as we seek to build with Abbey one of the leading franchises in the UK banking sector."

If AL. is a quality business the offer should be rejected. If its not, and is suffering more than is already known then there should have been a profit warning to the same effect.

Difficult to see how shareholder value has been maximized with these events: Suggest that directors will be offered good jobs in the combined group at the expense of shareholders: IMO.

[indieman] 16/7/2008 22:35

Jenny,

Feel free to keep repeating that A&L is worth 3 times (or four depending on the post) the current price if you wish, but if you want people to take you seriously, why not try to justify either 3 or four times.

Directors have a fiduciary duty to maximise value for the company's owners-the shareholders. Any evidence that they have failed to do so by such a huge margin would justify charges by the FSA. What is the evidence?

[bigface] 16/7/2008 19:55

It does look a bit like the banking system has shat in its own next bt over lending the smaller banks have been shafted by the big nboys who will (one way or another end up holding the best of the former buidling societies.