Lloyds Banking Share Discussion Threads

[maxk] 21/6/2021 20:54

scruff

I think net zero is now 2050. The 2035 thingy seems to have got lost somewhere.

A few other hasty handbrake turns are in the offing methinks.

[pandy999] 21/6/2021 20:44

Always have a laugh or don't bother

[utrickytrees] 21/6/2021 20:07

2025 apparently

[scruff1] 21/6/2021 20:06

graham
I think the furlough malarky is scaled back progressively - 80% -60% and so on.
According to Fattys seeming philosophy we will spend our way out of bankrupty. Its what he does in his private life. It doesnt work but neither does lockdown but it dont stop him keep trying it.

[pandy999] 21/6/2021 19:47

5x wot he say fell asleep .

[eeezeeetiger] 21/6/2021 19:45

Buy Buy Buy LLOY. The good times with big profits and generous dividends look set to return. LLOY is probably the safest investment anybody can make.

[grahamite2] 21/6/2021 19:39

I cannot see the furlough scheme and the various associated schemes being withdrawn abruptly - the shock to the system would be too much. On the other hand, the longer the can is kicked down the road the worse the eventual disruption will be. I don't actually see how the government gets out of this one.

The SEISS scheme is being dramatically scaled back. It's probably being used as a test.

[utrickytrees] 21/6/2021 19:27

Anyway, back to Lloyd's. Bit of a tickle today... Nice! I think Sunak has pumped in so much muller that the only ones that are gonna take a covid hit will be the commercially property sector & aviation. Can't see any country who've invested in a furlough scheme rushing to open up their borders so we'll all have to go Scarborough for us holidays which suits me. Is the Jock border still closed?

[minerve 2] 21/6/2021 18:37

You are becoming a bore.

[minerve 2] 21/6/2021 18:37

Give it a rest psycho. You went to Oxford. Well done. Slow hand clap everyone. It was a long time ago. You are now a little rusty.

No one cares. Get over it.

[psychochopper] 21/6/2021 18:31

Arja, we’ve been a having a long debate about education, but you still seem unable or unwilling to tell us about your own experience. I am confident it could add so much to the discussion and we are all the poorer for the lack of candour. Or is it a simple omission? Or perhaps you fear it might contextualise other comments you have made about Brexiteers and race and such like.

Another thing I must simply have missed - which vaccine did you get? The COVID one, that is.

[xxxxxy] 21/6/2021 18:19

Lloyds Banking Group is set to buy its first property under radical plans to become a private landlordBy Emma Dunkley, Financial Mail On Sunday21:51 19 Jun 2021, updated 10:39 20 Jun 2021Lloyds Banking Group is set to buy its first property under radical plans to become a private landlord. City sources said the bank is close to securing a block of flats in Nene Wharf, Peterborough, and could start renting them out as soon as next month. It is understood there are nearly 50 flats in the block. The dramatic move by Britain's largest high street lender is the first time a major UK retail bank has moved into the private rental market. Lloyds is expected to manage its new-build property through a subsidiary called Citra Living, which was set up this year, according to filings at Companies House. .... This is money

[geckotheglorious] 21/6/2021 18:18

"Leaving the EU" won 4 democratic votes, and yet fascist Remainers like Arja claim it wasnt democratic, and they were deprived the right to vote Remain (who would have won if the vote ballots had been fiddled as bad as they were in the US elections)

The only people behaving badly and trying to overturn democracy are Remainers who wouldn't accept the vote result not ONCE, not TWICE, nor THRICE, but FOUR times in the space of 3 years......

Only way Remain would have won it is if they fiddled the vote. Period.

[xxxxxy] 21/6/2021 18:14

Should the UK-Australia trade deal be a template for future agreements?June 21, 2021By Catherine McBride – 6 minute read MANY UK PROTECTIONISTS are claiming the UK-Australia agreement will be a template for future trade deals and therefore conclude this will be a disaster for the UK's cossetted agricultural sector. I totally disagree, it will not harm UK farmers, but it may not even benefit UK consumers – yet there are some sections in this agreement that are worth templating. For the UK's first independent trade deal the good news is the acknowledgment in the trade agreement that both countries have the right to establish and uphold their own regulations in relation to the environment, domestic laws, Sanitary and Phyto Sanitary (SPS) regulations, and labour standards.  This may not sound like a significant proclamation but with the EU still trying to impose dynamic alignment with its SPS regulations on the UK, claiming that it is the only way of saving the Northern Irish Protocol, trading with countries that accept mutual recognition as best practice should hopefully become the new normal. The SPS section is clear and sensible "Imports will still have to meet the same respective UK and Australian food safety and biosecurity standards. Both the UK and Australia agree the importance of independent SPS regimes." It may surprise anyone who has been listening to the NFU propaganda to discover that Australia has incredibly strict SPS regulations – not only have they managed to keep out foot and mouth disease, swine fever, BSE, and bovine tuberculosis – but they also search tourists for fruit, nuts, dried fish, raw meat etc., spray plane passengers with insecticide as they land and Australian customs agents will clean your shoes if you have visited a farm before flying to Australia. Those readers who have ever watched the TV show Border Security: Australia's front Line will know this is for real. The UK Australia agreement is proof that regulatory independence does not prevent trade in goods or in services. That is another thing that we should be templating: this agreement includes services – financial services, legal services, business services, transport and delivery services, and telecommunications. The deal also increases investment limits; encourages digital trade while ensuring data protection; protecting digital innovation by preventing enforced tech transfer of source code or encryption keys; commits to protect intellectual property; and maximise opportunities to supply government procurement markets. It shows what can be achieved between friendly foreign powers that want to grow trade rather than arrange a punishment beating. However the garden is not all rosy There is still a very definite bias in UK trade towards the EU. Only six months ago, the UK was happy to grant unlimited tariff-free access to its markets for EU agricultural and manufactured goods even though many EU producers undercut UK producers. And yet without the imposition of quotas or tariffs, UK farms, factories and even car manufacturers are still in business despite the potential for the EU to 'flood' the UK market.  However, while the Australian side of section 1.2 Goods market access is one line: "full liberalisation of UK originating goods entering Australia", the UK's side has a page of exceptions – most of them agricultural.  For some reason UK farmers have an irrational fear about Australian farmers and have insisted on restricting Australian agricultural goods. The whole point of trade is to buy things from more efficient producers – but while UK farmers are not fearful when the more efficient producer is the EU, their representatives become hysterical when the more efficient producer is on the other side of the world. Consequently, the UK Australian 'Trade deal' still limits trade in the commodities where Australia is clearly the more efficient producer, such as beef, but bizarrely it also restricts trade in a couple of areas where it is not, such as butter. This makes me suspect these restrictions were imposed to quell future protectionist demands even though New Zealand already exports more lamb to the UK than the Australian tariff-free quota allowance, and does so without so much as a peep from the NFU. Beef Quota Some commentators have argued that increasing the tariff-free quota for Australian beef to 35,000 tonnes is a massive increase on present imports, but present imports are severely restricted by the tiny EU quota that was split between the UK and the EU27 after Brexit. The previous EU quota limited Australia to a total of 7,150 tonnes of beef for all 28 members. This is a rounding error in terms of international trade, and it does not surprise me the quota was often unfilled. It is far too small to regularly supply a supermarket chain or more than a handful of specialist butchers. When the UK left the EU, the EU insisted it take part of this tiny quota with it because the UK had traditionally imported the most Australian beef. Australia has been disputing this quota division at the WTO. However, the UK Australia trade agreement, demands that Australia withdraw its WTO objection. At least Australia should be happy the new 35,000 tonne quota is tariff-free – the old EU quota still carried a 20% tariff and any beef imported above the quota had eye wateringly high, fixed and variable tariffs applied to it.  To put this new import quota in perspective: The UK imported 242,528 tonnes of beef in 2020 but this was low due to the closure of many restaurants. In 2018 the UK imported just under 290,000 tons of beef and most of this – 210,000 tons – came from Ireland. So why are UK farmers insisting that the Government limit Australian beef imports to only 35,000 tonnes? The UK market is already swamped by cheaper Irish beef, so why all the irrational fear about Australia?  A 35,000 tonne quota is still small for Australian exporters: even with 2020 lockdowns Australia exported 1,140,274 tons of beef, while in 2019 they exported 1,330,600 tons. Australians are very efficient beef producers. In the world outside the EU: trade is about buying products from efficient producers.  Lamb Quota The duty free quota given to Australian lamb is only 25,000 tones which is small when you consider that the UK imported 60,000 tons of lamb last year – 38,000 tons from New Zealand and 8,500 tons from Australia. We could excuse the protectionism here because the UK does export lamb but lamb is seasonal so the UK producers in the Northern Hemisphere are not in direct competition with either Australia or New Zealand in the Southern Hemisphere where the seasons are reversed. So again, why the irrational fear? Dairy Quota, what?  However, the extraordinary part of this agreement is the Dairy quotas. The UK has little to fear from Australian dairy farmers – they produce some exceptional brie, but milk production requires water and cheese production requires large amounts of milk: it takes about 10 litres of milk to make about a kilo of cheddar. Fresh cheeses use less milk – but you don't have to know too much about Australia to know which country in this agreement should be exporting cheese.  But incredibly the UK imported over 490,000 tons of cheese last year and 535,000 in 2019 while UK cheese exports were only 192,000 and 208,000 tons respectively. UK farmers can hardly claim they will be flooded by Australian cheese – the UK is already flooded with EU cheeses and the largest supplier is Ireland who undercuts UK cheese producers with good imitations of UK cheddar. Rather implausibly, the UK has also insisted on an Australian butter quota of 5,500 tonnes rising to 11,500 tonnes in five years' time. This is crazy. Australia is a net importer of butter, importing just over 41,000 tons, worth US$191 million, last year. The UK exported 61,363 tons of butter in 2020, almost four times as much as Australia. Yet inexplicably the UK has limited Australian butter imports to 5,500 tonnes. In your dreams – that would be a third of all of Australia's butter exports and more butter than Australia exported to China (3,217 tons) in 2020.  Comparative advantage and protectionism Who advised the DIT that Australian butter imports should have quotas? It makes the whole UK market access section look random – did they pull product names out of a hat to placate the UK's protectionist National Farms Union (NFU)? It is a testament to the self-reliance of Australian farmers that they did not ask for protection from UK dairy farmers – Australian farmers know what they are good at. If only UK farmers would accept their own shortcomings and concentrate on their comparative advantages, not demand protection for uneconomic UK beef farmers.  In an ideal world, the UK should be selling butter to Australia and buying beef in return. The UK should be an efficient producer of butter but instead it sells milk and cream to Ireland and then buys it back again as value added butter. The UK imported 78,000 tons of butter in 2020 – 48,000 tons came from Ireland – giving the UK a butter trade deficit of 17,000 tons. UK butter producers should see Australia as a potential gold mine but instead they are cowering with fear of Australian imports due to misinformation pushed by the uninformed NFU. The quota restrictions in the trade agreement would not be so hard to stomach if UK farmers had made even the slightest attempt to improve their productivity since the Brexit referendum by increasing their beef herd size or their butter production. But according to DEFRA figures, UK farmers are not even vaguely attempting to meet UK consumer demands. Instead, they seem happy to sit back and allow the EU's industrial farms to supply the UK population with tariff-free and quota-free food.  Who benefits from this trade deal? It is not surprising that the UK Government's figures claim that this trade deal will do little to increase UK GDP, when it is the UK government that appears to be uninterested in any actual liberation of trade in more efficiently produced Australian goods. Instead, the UK merely sees the trade deal as a way to boosting UK exports. But as Australia already has few quantity restrictions on UK imports and only 5% tariffs – it is the Australian economy that will benefit the most from this deal, but not by their exports. Instead, the money Australian consumers save on tariffs, they will be able to spend on other goods, boosting the Australian economy.  Conclusion Some commentators have suggested that this agreement will be the template for the UK's other non-EU trade deals, but would the UK try to impose similar restrictions on the US? Would US car manufactures be limited to exports of only 35,000 cars while the UK happily imports around 2 million cars from the EU each year? Would US pork producers be limited to a 35,000 tonne pork quota when the UK imports an average of 440,000 tons of pork each year, 438,000 tons of it tariff and quota-free from the EU? If this is a template for the New Zealand deal, then it is even stranger. As I have mentioned New Zealand already exports more lamb to the UK than the tariff-free quota granted to Australian lamb exports, but would New Zealand be granted a similar beef quota to Australia? New Zealand is already the world's largest butter exporter, but its main brand, Anchor, now produces butter in Wiltshire for the UK market. I would be surprised to see this change although rebranding it as Wiltshire butter and exporting it to Australia might be worth considering. But New Zealand does produce some good cheddars that could displace Irish cheddars in UK supermarkets – unless of course they are hobbled with similar-sized quotas as Australia. If this agreement becomes the template for future deals then Global Britain is stillborn because the UK will remain a captured market for the EU. Instead of importing a useful amount of beef from Australia and a useful amount of dairy from NZ, the UK could end up giving sub-commercial quota amounts to both countries regardless of their comparative advantages or market efficiencies. In all likelihood these quota restricted imports will not be used outside of specialist butchers or providores. They are unlikely to be cutting the price of meat or cheese for the average UK consumer. In trade deals we should buy from the most efficient producer - i.e., beef from Australia and dairy products from New Zealand not half and half from both countries. Let's hope that in the next trade agreement, the Department for International Trade stands firm against the protectionists in uneconomic UK industries. 

[alphorn] 21/6/2021 18:12

Apparently it will be paid from the Navy budget and classified as a warship. Lol

[grahamite2] 21/6/2021 18:10

Rationalize it all you like, arja, the fact is you lost and you lost for keeps. There is no chance at all of ever rejoining the EU, partly because it won't exist in 10 years.