Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Capital Gearing Trust Plc LSE:CGT London Ordinary Share GB0001738615 ORD 25P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  -15.00p -0.35% 4,320.00p 4,320.00p 4,340.00p 4,340.00p 4,320.00p 4,340.00p 11,075 12:02:12
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Equity Investment Instruments 4.7 3.7 51.1 84.5 432

Capital Gearing Share Discussion Threads

Showing 8251 to 8274 of 8275 messages
Chat Pages: 331  330  329  328  327  326  325  324  323  322  321  320  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
09/9/2019
19:32
Once again thanks Gengulphus. Really thorough reply and made it really clear.
attrader
01/9/2019
21:12
If you go to the information desk in the Business & IP Centre they'll show you how to search their database. You can open the reports to read on their desktop computers, but if you want copies you have to go back to the desk and they download and email them to you. Unfortunately they limit it to ten per day - I don't know if there's any flexibility about that. (If you don't have a reader's card, it's easy to get one but you do have to apply in advance online and take some ID in with you when you go to collect it. They ask why you want a card but I had the impression that any reason would be accepted.)
finkwot
31/8/2019
17:29
(wrong board)
zangdook
31/8/2019
16:03
finkwot, Incidentally, with reference to my earlier enquiry and your reply in post 1100, after trying several places I found the Business & IP Centre at the British Library the most helpful for finding old company reports. They don't have a complete collection but they have quite a few in scanned form which they cheerfully give out. Thank you! Not a place I would have thought of looking, and a source of scanned old company reports would be most helpful for allowing me to reduce my substantial pile of paper copies of old company reports without any fear of throwing any information I might find useful (or even just interesting) in the future. And as it happens, I'm probably moving house in the reasonably near future, so making it easier for me to dispose of old papers is very useful at present - especially bulky ones like company reports! Gengulphus
gengulphus
31/8/2019
15:54
robo21, Retired gent opens crypto trading account makes profit 100k 19-20 tax year. What would his capital gain liability be ? Sorry, insufficient information there to determine what the answer is. Further information needed includes at least: * just how the "profit" has been calculated - CGT works off "realised capital gains", which may be calculated differently; * whether any taxable capital gains on other assets have been realised in the same tax year, and if so, what they are; * whether any allowable capital losses have been realised in the same tax year, and if so, what they are; * whether the retired gent has brought-forward losses from earlier tax years, and if so, what they are; * whether the retired gent is a non-taxpayer, a basic-rate taxpayer or a higher-rate (or above) taxpayer as far as Income Tax is concerned, and if a basic-rate taxpayer, how much of their basic-rate band they've left unused (see my reply to attrader above). But to give an idea, if the "profit" has been calculated in the way that "realised capital gains" should be, and there are no other realised gains or losses in the tax year, nor any brought-forward losses from earlier tax years, then: * If the retired gent is a higher-rate (or above) taxpayer as far as Income Tax is concerned, then the first £12k (the 2019/20 CGT allowance) of the gains are free of CGT, and the remaining £88k are all charged at 20%, for a CGT bill of £17,600. * If the retired gent is a non-taxpayer as far as Income Tax is concerned, then the first £12k (the 2019/20 CGT allowance) of the gains are free of CGT, then the next £37.5k (the 2019/20 Income Tax basic-rate band) are charged at 10%, and the remaining £50.5k are charged at 20%, for a CGT bill of £3,750 + £10,100 = £13,850. * If the retired gent is a basic-rate taxpayer as far as Income Tax is concerned, then the answer lies somewhere between £13,850 and £17,600 - where exactly between them depending on how much of their basic-rate band was left unused in their Income Tax calculation. Finally, all of this answer is dependent on my not having missed any relevant special rules having been introduced about CGT on cryptocurrencies - because they're a relatively new form of investment, it's rather more likely than usual that they have been! Gengulphus
gengulphus
31/8/2019
15:40
Gengulphus Thank you. The rights issues date back to the 1990s and it took me quite some time to find the details (and even now I don't have them all), so I think I shall assume that since, as you say, the effect is just to add the enhancement expenditure to the base cost HMRC won't mind too much if I just present it like that. As far as I can tell the rights were taken up in full. Incidentally, with reference to my earlier enquiry and your reply in post 1100, after trying several places I found the Business & IP Centre at the British Library the most helpful for finding old company reports. They don't have a complete collection but they have quite a few in scanned form which they cheerfully give out.
finkwot
31/8/2019
15:06
attrader, I have a question about CGT tax bracket. I have a company where I receive all my income in dividends and I pay dividend tax rate. For CGT, would I be classified as Basic Rate payer or High rate payer since I don’t receive any salaried income ? I cannot really answer that question as it stands, because nobody is really classified as either a basic-rate taxpayer or a higher-rate taxpayer for CGT purposes. Rather, their taxable capital gains are taxed by CGT at either the lower rates of CGT (10%, or 18% for residential property) or the higher rates (20%, or 28% for residential property), as follows: 1) Work out the total of their taxable capital gains realised during the year. 2) Deduct allowable capital losses according to the rules for doing so: first deduct ones realised during the same year as far as possible (i.e. deduct all those losses if they're less than the gains, or an amount equal to the gains if they're greater). Then if the remaining gains are above the CGT allowance and there are losses brought forward from earlier years, deduct them until either they run out or the gains are reduced to the CGT allowance. (Any losses left undeducted at the end of this are carried forward to the next year.) 3) The remaining gains are the net taxable capital gains. They are taxed as follows: * First, an amount up to the CGT allowance is not taxed. * Second, if there are gains left after the first step (i.e. the net taxable capital gains were more than the CGT allowance), an amount up to the amount of the Income Tax basic-rate band that was not used for income in the Income Tax calculation is taxed at the lower rates. * Finally, if there are still gains left after the first two steps, they are taxed at the higher rates. So the simple case (which I would guess doesn't apply to you) is that if you're a higher-rate taxpayer (or above) as seen by Income Tax, i.e. if your Income Tax calculation takes you into higher-rate tax, it will have used your entire basic-rate band, there will be nothing left for the second step to use, and so none of your net taxable capital gains will be taxed at the lower rates. I.e. up to the CGT allowance will be untaxed, and anything over that is taxed at the higher rates. But if you're a basic-rate taxpayer as seen by Income Tax, i.e. if your Income Tax calculation takes you into basic-rate tax but not into higher-rate tax, you probably didn't use all of your basic-rate band in that calculation (not quite certainly because your taxable income might be exactly equal to the higher-rate threshold, taking you all the way through the basic-rate band but not quite into higher-rate tax). Up to the CGT allowance of net taxable capital gains is untaxed and up to your amount of unused basic-rate band is taxed at the lower rates, and anything not covered by those is taxed at the higher rates. Or if you're a non-taxpayer as seen by Income Tax, i.e. if your Income Tax calculation has all of your taxable income covered by your personal allowance and any other proper Income Tax allowances you happen to have (though see below about some 'allowances' introduced in recent years) and so doesn't take you into basic-rate tax, the same applies except that all of your basic-rate band is available, not just some of it. Note that unused allowances do not count as unused basic-rate band. In particular, unused Income Tax personal allowance is completely wasted and doesn't affect the CGT calculation, just as unused CGT allowance is completely wasted and does not affect the Income Tax calculation. So basically, it's the gains that are classified as being covered by the CGT allowance, taxed at the lower rates or taxed at the higher rates, and you could well end up having some taxed at each rate. So asking how you are classified is somewhat off-target... (*) A couple of other things to say: first, the Income Tax calculation does of course look at all your taxable income - salary, interest and dividends (unless received in an ISA or other tax shelter), pensions, etc. So the amount of salaried income you receive is not enough on its own to determine how much basic-rate band your Income Tax calculation leaves unused - and the dividends you receive do count towards taxable income. "Dividend tax" is not a different thing from Income Tax - it is Income Tax, just paid at a lower rate than for most taxable income. And secondly, the so-called 'dividend allowance' is not what I called a "proper Income Tax allowance" above, in that it doesn't prevent the dividend income it covers being counted against the tax bands: it is just an especially low tax rate of 0% that applies to the dividend income it covers. I.e. 'dividend allowance' is a rather poor description of it, since it's applied in a rather different way to the personal allowance and that different way does affect how the basic-rate band is used. And other "allowances" introduced in fairly recent years may need careful looking at to see whether something similar applies to them... (*) Note that this is little different from the situation with Income Tax - higher-rate taxpayers generally have part of their income taxed at basic rate and the rest at higher rate. So it is customary to take "higher-rate taxpayer" to mean someone in that situation, and there is a convention that one describes a taxpayer according to the highest rate of Income Tax that they pay. One could have a similar convention with regard to CGT, so that one describes someone as a "higher-rate CGT payer", a "lower-rate CGT payer" or a "CGT nonpayer" according to whether they pay CGT at the higher rates (possibly accompanied by also paying it at the lower rates), and if not, whether they pay it at the lower rates. But just as what rate of Income Tax taxpayer one is normally regarded as is an output from the Income Tax calculation, not an input to it, what rate of CGT taxpayer one is by that definition is an output from the CGT calculation, not an input to it. One needs to know all the inputs to the CGT calculation to determine it, not just the facts you give! Gengulphus
gengulphus
31/8/2019
11:20
finkwot, If I buy a convertible bond which pays interest, hold it for several years and receive the interest each year, and then convert the bond to ordinary shares, is the cost of those shares the price I paid for the bond? Or is the interest deducted, in whole or in part? I hope and suspect that the interest is treated as income, taxed in the relevant year, and has no bearing on the cost, but it's best to be sure. Can't say I have any experience with convertible bonds, but I would assume that the situation is just the same as for any other case where an investment generates income, and then later gets reorganised in some way - e.g. if a company pays dividends and then later gets taken over for shares in the acquirer rather than for cash. I.e. the income is taxed in whatever tax year it arises, with no effect on the CGT base cost of the holding (unless of course you reinvest it in the same type of share / security, in which case that's a buy with its normal effect on CGT base cost). So the answer appears to me to be that the interest is indeed treated as income, taxed in the relevant tax year, and as not affecting the CGT base cost - provided the taxation rules for convertible bond interest are the normal ones, which seems very likely to me (but that's a detail I have no experience of and so don't know for certain). Gengulphus
gengulphus
30/8/2019
21:43
American Idiot, In the 18/19 tax year I opened an Australian CFD (Contracts for difference) account with IG due to new ESMA regulations which came into force in the UK during 18/19 which meant to speculate on my UK CFD account the margin requirements / commission rates were stricter / higher. Basically, I live in the UK and speculate on UK stocks only using the CFD account opened in Australia. Have you any idea on tax treatment for this ? Very little, I'm afraid. The general principle for foreign taxation of a normal UK resident like you is that you're taxed on your worldwide income and capital gains, but if a foreign country taxes you on something and it's a tax that HMRC recognises as equivalent to Income Tax or CGT, then you can offset the foreign tax paid against that particular item of UK tax, up to the amount of UK tax (so if the foreign tax is less than the UK tax, you can offset it all, but if it's more, you can only reduce the UK tax to zero). The upshot of that is that you end up paying total tax (i.e. counting both the foreign tax and the UK tax) that is the maximum of the two amounts of tax, not their sum. Note that it must be the equivalent tax - you cannot offset foreign income tax paid against UK CGT, nor vice versa. And the foreign tax can only be offset against the UK tax on the same item of income or capital gain. E.g. if a foreign government charges income tax on a dividend paid by a share you hold in an ISA, you're out of luck: there is no UK tax on that dividend, so nothing can be offset against it, and you cannot offset it against tax on other dividends or anything else. But beyond that general principle, about all I know is that there are numerous special-case rules relating to foreign taxation, and so I can't really say anything definite about your situation. Sorry. Gengulphus
gengulphus
27/8/2019
17:37
Gengulphus-just picked up reply to my query on return from holidays so a belated thank you for your response
jacobsdad
25/8/2019
20:27
Gentlemen Retired gent opens crypto trading account makes profit 100k 19-20 tax year. What would his capital gain liability be ?
robo21
25/8/2019
19:12
A rather more important question: If I buy a convertible bond which pays interest, hold it for several years and receive the interest each year, and then convert the bond to ordinary shares, is the cost of those shares the price I paid for the bond? Or is the interest deducted, in whole or in part? I hope and suspect that the interest is treated as income, taxed in the relevant year, and has no bearing on the cost, but it's best to be sure.
finkwot
22/8/2019
14:38
If I acquire shares in a rights issue, is the date of acquisition for tax purposes the closing date for acceptance and payment, or the date the shares are issued?
finkwot
22/8/2019
14:01
Hi Gengulphus, great to see your generosity in sharing your knowledge. Many thanks. I have a question about CGT tax bracket. I have a company where I receive all my income in dividends and I pay dividend tax rate. For CGT, would I be classified as Basic Rate payer or High rate payer since I don't receive any salaried income ?
attrader
22/8/2019
12:47
Hi Gengulphus, I am a lifelong UK resident. In the 18/19 tax year I opened an Australian CFD (Contracts for difference) account with IG due to new ESMA regulations which came into force in the UK during 18/19 which meant to speculate on my UK CFD account the margin requirements / commission rates were stricter / higher. Basically, I live in the UK and speculate on UK stocks only using the CFD account opened in Australia. Have you any idea on tax treatment for this ? On Gov.uk website I found this :- hTtps://www.gov.uk/tax-foreign-income/taxed-twice Which states this :- Capital Gains Tax You’ll usually pay tax in the country where you’re resident and be exempt from tax in the country where you make the capital gain. You will not usually need to make a claim. You have to pay Capital Gains Tax on UK residential property even if you’re not UK resident. When to claim relief There are different rules if your gain comes from an asset that either: cannot be taken out of the country, such as land or a house you’re using for business in that country You’ll need to pay tax in both countries and get relief from the UK. ......... Can I take from above that I would declare as normal UK capital gains ? There would be no need to claim relief as the different rules do not apply in my case (therefore I wouldn't be double taxed CGT in both the UK and AUS ?) Many Thanks.
american idiot
20/8/2019
09:40
Unaffected by the recent Equity wobble, steady growth over the years, safe as any any to park your money
andyadvfn1
09/8/2019
18:18
jacobsdad, a quick query- if in the tax yr 18/19 I had made say £5k gains but also £5k losses-does the £5k loss carry forward? Afraid not. Losses must be used against gains realised in the same tax year as far as possible - it's only losses in excess of the gains realised in the same tax year that can start being carried forward. So in your scenario, the losses neatly cancel out with the gains. Just to be clear: this is about £5k gains realised in the 2018/19 tax year and £5k losses also realised in the 2018/19 tax year. If instead you had £5k gains realised in the 2018/19 tax year and £5k losses brought forward from the 2017/18 tax year, the situation would be different: brought-forward losses only have to be used to reduce gains above the CGT allowance, so in that case the losses wouldn't have to be used and could continue being carried forward from the 2018/19 tax year to the 2019/20 tax year. also just to clarify if in tax yr 18/19 I had made say £20k gains but also £5k losses-would that have meant £20k-£11700 allowance=£8300 taxable gain,then-£5k loss=£3300 then taxable ? Yes, though you've not got the order quite right: first offset the losses £20k-£5k = £15k, then use the CGT allowance £15k-£11.7k = £3.3k. Same result, though! In fact, if you do the calculation as first same-year losses, then CGT allowance, then brought-forward losses, with unused losses being carried forward but unused allowance being lost, you'll generally get the right answer. Gengulphus
gengulphus
09/8/2019
14:30
£3300 taxable is my understanding
rahosi
28/7/2019
13:19
a quick query- if in the tax yr 18/19 I had made say £5k gains but also £5k losses-does the £5k loss carry forward? also just to clarify if in tax yr 18/19 I had made say £20k gains but also £5k losses-would that have meant £20k-£11700 allowance=£8300 taxable gain,then-£5k loss=£3300 then taxable ?
jacobsdad
09/7/2019
21:35
finkwot, With regard to the small number of shares, I've thought of something that I think worth checking: you have taken account of the terms of the merger that formed CGNU, haven't you? According to https://www.investegate.co.uk/norwich-union-plc---011-/rns/merger-of-cgu---norwich-union---part-1/200002210701478869F/, they were 48 CGNU shares per 100 Norwich Union shares, so 150 Norwich Union shares would have become 72 CGNU shares. With regard to the dates, there are generally quite a lot of different dates associated with corporate actions, and I wouldn't be at all surprised about someone being confused about exactly which one applies for CGT purposes - indeed, I don't know myself in many cases! I generally don't worry unduly about that - it only makes any difference for CGT purposes if the uncertainty affects which tax year the corporate action is treated as being in, and I only have to be able to truthfully declare that my tax return is complete and correct "to the best of my knowledge and belief" (not "to my certain knowledge") and that I'm not underpaying tax (I'd prefer not to be overpaying either, of course, but I can hardly get into trouble for it!). A final comment related to that is that if all else fails, a tax return based on the shares having no acquisition cost can hardly get you into trouble for the same reason: it's reasonable to rely on the record you've got if you can't find anything to contradict it, and zero acquisition cost can only result in overpaying CGT, not underpaying it. Gengulphus
gengulphus
05/7/2019
12:20
Thanks, that's an interesting idea which hadn't occurred to me. Two things argue against it - the minimum windfall was 150 shares, and the number acquired here is less than that (conceivably some may have been sold, but for such a small number it seems unlikely); also the demutualisation seems to have finally gone through in June, rather than May. So it's possible, but on the whole I think the other explanation is more likely. (Which is a slight relief as the tax bill will be fractionally lower if I can establish a cost for the shares). Still, if nothing else adds up I may revisit it.
finkwot
04/7/2019
18:26
finkwot, I'm working from a list of Commercial Union share acquisitions from 1982 to 1997, giving number of shares, month of acquisition and total cost for each. What puzzles me is that one entry, for May 1997, gives only the number of shares acquired; the cost column is left blank. The totals of all shares acquired and of cost for the whole series of acquisitions have been added up carefully, with no allowance for the cost of the May 1997 acquisition. Apart from this, the record was prepared conscientiously (there are multiple pages of other records for other shareholdings; this is the only lacuna I've found). There are two possible explanations I can think of - either there was some complication and the person who kept the records was unsure how to calculate the cost, so left it blank intending to add it later, or for some reason he thought the cost was nil. As someone who tries to be pretty conscientious about such things myself, uncertainty sounds more likely to me - if I had genuinely decided the cost was nil for some reason, I would enter zero, while leaving it blank would mean not yet known. As for reasons why it's not yet known, there is a similar omission in my records, due to a contract note from the early 1990s that I've mislaid. I know I've never deliberately destroyed it, but it's been missing for a very long time now. Hopefully it will eventually turn up... I do tend to mark such known omissions on spreadsheets with a red background, as a general warning that something needs changing before it's used. But that sort of precaution could easily have been inadvertently left not done, or simply not thought of. And of course there's no guarantee that one person's conscientiousness takes exactly the same form as another's! So all this is about is suggesting which answer I think more likely, not anything definite about what it is. So my question now is, are there any circumstances in which shares can be acquired at nil cost for CGT purposes? Yes - if someone gives you shares that are genuinely worth nothing at the time of the gift. A gift generally brings the 'market value' rule into play and so the shares are deemed to have been acquired at their market value at the time, but if that market value is zero... But those circumstances are hardly likely to apply here! And while I can also think of circumstances in which a share can have its base cost reduced to zero after purchase (it can happen as a result of using the 'small capital distribution' treatment on a share that has risen hugely after purchase, or that has made a whole series of small capital distributions), those also seem unlikely to apply here - and it would also require something esoteric to make it happen to one acquisition and not the rest as well... I nearly submitted this post saying there might well be other ways to acquire shares with no acquisition cost and indeed had a nagging feeling I'd seen at least one more in the past, but couldn't remember any details. But it has now sprung to mind and it seems quite plausible - though obviously only you can be in any sort of position to tell whether it's what happened. It's to do with building societies, etc, that demutualised, and I've found a couple of HMRC Capital Gains Manual pages in the area: https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/capital-gains-manual/cg56820 https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/capital-gains-manual/cg13028 (and possibly its next page as well) If I read them correctly, when a building society demutualises and gives its members free shares, a share account in its original mutual version gets reorganised into a cash account in its new version plus the free shares. The normal rules about cash accounts say that the CGT value of the old share account and of the new cash account are both simply their cash balances, and the normal rules about reorganisations of financial assets preserving CGT value say that the initial CGT value of the free shares is the difference between them, i.e. zero. Or in other words, the acquisition cost of the free shares is zero. I saw no reason why the same shouldn't apply to demutualisations of other mutual organisations, and I knew that some insurance businesses were mutual organisations (and indeed some still are). So that did seem to be a reasonably plausible reason for the shares in your case to have zero acquisition cost. And a little bit of digging on Wikipedia said that Aviva was a renaming of CGNU, which was formed by CGU and Norwich Union merging in 2000. Chasing those further, I found that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwich_Union contains the sentence "In 1997, its bicentenary year, Norwich Union demutualised and floated as a public limited company on the London Stock Exchange." So there is a plausible-looking source for the odd, not very large number of shares acquired with no acquisition cost in May 1997. I emphasise that all I can say is that it looks plausible. I'm not certain that my understanding of the Capital Gains Manual is correct even with regard to building societies; if it is, I'm not certain whether it extends to other mutual organisations as well, I don't know which mutual organisations that demutualised the owner of these shares belonged to, I don't know whether Norwich Union's demutualisation produced free shares, etc, etc, etc! I'm also pretty certain the HMRC material I very dimly recollect seeing many years ago is not the manual pages I've linked to above - it would have had to be in a much more easily-found place and written in a much more user-friendly way to have come to my attention back then! But I've not managed to find it again... So treat what I've said about Norwich Union as a suggested line of enquiry, not a definite answer! Gengulphus
gengulphus
01/7/2019
21:45
Gengulphus, Thanks. I've found some of the information I need, still looking for some. I'm working from a list of Commercial Union share acquisitions from 1982 to 1997, giving number of shares, month of acquisition and total cost for each. What puzzles me is that one entry, for May 1997, gives only the number of shares acquired; the cost column is left blank. The totals of all shares acquired and of cost for the whole series of acquisitions have been added up carefully, with no allowance for the cost of the May 1997 acquisition. Apart from this, the record was prepared conscientiously (there are multiple pages of other records for other shareholdings; this is the only lacuna I've found). There are two possible explanations I can think of - either there was some complication and the person who kept the records was unsure how to calculate the cost, so left it blank intending to add it later, or for some reason he thought the cost was nil. So my question now is, are there any circumstances in which shares can be acquired at nil cost for CGT purposes? It's an odd and not very large number of shares, so I doubt it was a straightforward market purchase. There was a dividend payment in May 1997, so it might have been a scrip dividend. The value of the shares acquired is rather higher than the value of the dividend (it would add up if the share price had been 570p, but it was in a range either side of 700p in May 1997), but at the 1996 AGM a motion was proposed to allow scrip dividends to be paid at a higher level than the cash dividends (for reasons to do with Advance Corporation Tax). The example given in the 1996 proposal is for an increase of 25% over the cash level, which would give a price of 712.5p, so this may be a possible explanation for the origin of the shares. I don't believe it could justify an acquisition at nil cost, but it might explain uncertainty about what the correct figure was. However, the notes with the 1996 AGM letter have a fairly clear explanation of the tax implications, and the record-keeper has done much more complex calculations elsewhere without apparent difficulty, so I'm still puzzled. Also, I haven't yet discovered if there was in fact a scrip alternative for the May 1997 dividend, and if so, whether it was at a higher level than the cash dividend. (edited 1 July 22.18)
finkwot
24/6/2019
22:43
finkwot, I'm afraid I can't really help with questions about the 31 March 1982 rule - it predates all my experience with shares (though only by a few years in the case of my small number of BT shares held ever since the first round of privatisation). On historical prices, I do have copies of the CGNU annual reports for 2000 and 2001 - I've never owned CGNU shares, but I downloaded them from Aviva's archived reports page years ago when they were still there. (now the only trace left of that on https://www.aviva.com/investors/reports/ seems to be the statement "Please note that all presentations before the Group's name change to Aviva plc on July 1, 2002 will be branded CGNU plc." at the bottom of a list whose earliest entry is dated in 2004...). Unfortunately, they don't contain anything about CGT - some companies make a habit of putting CGT information into an end-of-report "Shareholder information" section, but apparent not CGNU/Aviva. Apart from that, the only thing I can suggest for a share price that long back is that I know that years ago, the London Stock Exchange ran a paid-for service called something like the Historic(al) Price(s) Service - I've used it once around 15 years ago. Whether they still do, whether its charges are reasonable if it does, etc, I'll have to leave you to investigate. Gengulphus
gengulphus
Chat Pages: 331  330  329  328  327  326  325  324  323  322  321  320  Older
Your Recent History
LSE
CGT
Capital Ge..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20190920 12:31:42