Lloyds Grp 9.25 Discussion Threads

[folderboy] 14/3/2018 15:42

LLPC has been suspended according to NEX website



Odd that as I can both buy and sell.

[folderboy] 14/3/2018 12:56

No trades data for LLPC, SAN, STAC and I guess other preference shares - at least not using the ADVFN Silver service. Anyone able to advise as to where I might find an alternative - as I guess there has been the odd trade in the past few days!

[tiswas] 13/3/2018 15:57

It is a bit off but interesting that the chart at the top of this page seems to reflect the share price movement throughout the day.

[my retirement fund] 13/3/2018 14:48

No trades seem to have been published since last week. Surley this is outside of exchange rules to do this now ?

[future financier] 12/3/2018 09:41

Ecclesiastical Insurance taking the moral high ground - as one would hope!

" 12(th) March 2018
Announcement by Ecclesiastical Insurance Office plc
Ecclesiastical Insurance Office plc ("Ecclesiastical") notes the recent movement in the price of its 8.625% preference shares. Ecclesiastical assumes this is a result of Aviva's announcement on 8(th) March, in which Aviva stated that it has "the ability to cancel [Aviva's and General Accident's] preference shares at par value through a reduction of capital, subject to shareholder vote and court approval".
Ecclesiastical notes Aviva's governance statement that "as one of the biggest companies in our sector, we aim to make our industry work better for everyone. That starts with us building trust with our customers, investors and shareholders by running our business honestly and transparently." Ecclesiastical trusts that Aviva will follow the principles set out in that statement when considering whether to pursue this course of action.
Ecclesiastical has holdings in Aviva and General Accident's preference shares, but these are not material in size in the context of Aviva's announcement and Ecclesiastical's balance sheet strength.
Ecclesiastical has no plans to cancel its own 8.625% preference shares at par value through a reduction of capital."

[alphorn] 11/3/2018 18:29

Simple question - can the approval for the ordinary share buy back be allocated, in part, to the Prefs?

[truemuppet] 11/3/2018 18:23

The place to look for LLPC is page 80 of the Prospectus.
Despite the misleading heading about liquidation the paragraph also covers a 'return of capital'which would I believe cover a return of capital on a reduction of capital approved by the court (the potential Aviva situation).
The prefs would get par plus accrued dividends.
Such a court procedure requires a special resolution. Whether a separate class meeting of the prefs would be required is not clear.I believe there are cases where the courts take a very restricted view of whether class rights are being affected, hence a class meeting might well not be required.

[davebowler] 11/3/2018 12:00

This might be a useful stick to beat Lloyds Bank with-

[my retirement fund] 11/3/2018 11:34

Indeed but thats really only something the FSA really could do. The ECNs were 100% miss sold. Infact Lloyds even laid claim to there being serious mistakes in the prospectus so evidently even to the courts they would have been misssold. Infact one of the judges during thw Supreme court ruling suggested they had miss sold them.Sadly on that occasion the FSA did nothing about it though and the rest is history.Small wonder Aviva think its fair game to use the kind of wording in their annual report about the own preference shares really.

[whitestone] 11/3/2018 11:21

swanmore1 considers the position of Lloyds preffs. in his post 1920 here

[tiswas] 09/3/2018 16:16

I sold a few yesterday on Mark Taber's tweet because I didn't really understand the risk to LLPC and having bought a few this morning at 1.35 I have now sold the entire holding at an average price of 9% off yesterdays high..

I will freely admit that when far smarter people than me can not agree about the risks of cancellation then it is time to move on. These were meant to be buy and forget investments and have done very well for me but I would rather sleep well at night. The astonishing collapse this morning was a big shock and not being able to see trades/order book is also like playing snooker in the dark!

It has been a great return but I had already put half my holding in to the ords last year hoping for greater capital growth and increasing dividends.

Just wanted to say thanks to everyone for their input but I am clearly out of my depth so good luck to all holders.

Tis

PS Am I ok buying more BOI!

[cerrito] 09/3/2018 12:43

Well done to anyone who bought sub 140 this morning, and given my views of interest rates I have lost interest at 150+

[folderboy] 09/3/2018 11:39

Apparently there are 'loads of trades' - we just can't see them.

[cerrito] 09/3/2018 11:38

The description of qualifying non innovative securities on page 85 of the Prospectus gives me comfort but given lack of trades it may be academic.

[redartbmud] 09/3/2018 11:34

log agreed

[loglorry1] 09/3/2018 11:31

@Kenny I don't have links about the Substitution clause being benign. The far greater threat is cancellation of the capital.

[redartbmud] 09/3/2018 11:17

I am sure that the little Portuguese with the lightening zipper has had a plethora of legal eagles on the case, since the time that they redeemed the ECN's.
Futhermore, I am not convinced that any legal judgement in the future will give due consideration to the rights of individual sections of the overall shareholding in the company.
I would contend that the ordinary shareholders are bound to be given 'preferential' consideration on any judgment arising from a request to redeem a section of capital.
It may not be fair and equitable, but it will not be the first, or last time, that it happens.
A seemingly very insignificant technical point of law may determine the outcome that flies in the face of honesty, integrity and commonsense. The FCA is bound to capitulate without a murmer. They all feed from the same trough.

Just a thought.
I hold LLPC and LLPE and previously held 11% ECN's (former Halifax PIBS) that were redeemed from under my nose, at par.

[kenny] 09/3/2018 11:17

Hi loglorry1, please could you post the legal basis of your statement, perhaps linking references? You will appreciate that there is a lot of money at stake here for holders, so they need more than statements unsupported by any cross reference.

[loglorry1] 09/3/2018 11:12

@Kenny I don't think the substitution clause is such a problem. They would not be able to reduce the coupon or change the terms during the substitution without consent. Otherwise they could simple just substitute them for L2 debt paying 0.1%