HSBC Annual Results 2019 media release

[Dod101]

They are discussing the matter with their regulator, announcement before noon.

Alternatively, the mechanism for setting the exchange rate broke down yesterday, or somebody forgot. Announcement by noon.

Dod

By now, we have probably all realised it is a forgone conclusion - we won't be paid and we'll have to suck it up. The only question is whether it is a cancellation or a postponement.
Extraordinary, when HSBC carried on paying out through the credit crunch.

As regards keeping their capital in order to stimulate the economy: what happens when they pay my dividend? Most of it is spent via my pension, which wouldn't happen if it weren't paid.

Arb.

Exactly see my earlier post at 6.56 am

Dod

[Arborbridge]

Exactly see my earlier post at 6.56 am

Dod

Thanks - yes very relevant, and makes it even more odd. Well capitalised, much stronger than they were yet... Regulators nervous of being seen asleep on the job again, I would guess - or else they see the crisis as being far worse than our politicians will let on.

Don't they always say regulators fight the previous crisis, not the current one?

Arb.

[Wizard]

They are discussing the matter with their regulator, announcement before noon.

Alternatively, the mechanism for setting the exchange rate broke down yesterday, or somebody forgot. Announcement by noon.

Dod

By now, we have probably all realised it is a forgone conclusion - we won't be paid and we'll have to suck it up. The only question is whether it is a cancellation or a postponement.
Extraordinary, when HSBC carried on paying out through the credit crunch.

As regards keeping their capital in order to stimulate the economy: what happens when they pay my dividend? Most of it is spent via my pension, which wouldn't happen if it weren't paid.

Arb.

I thought with no or insufficient dividends people would use their capital reserves, the banks can then use the additional capital reserves to lend to struggling businesses. And don't forget this is fractional banking, so an additional pound of capital allows them to lend more than an additional pound. I think you are confusing capital and funding.

[Arborbridge]

I thought with no or insufficient dividends people would use their capital reserves, the banks can then use the additional capital reserves to lend to struggling businesses. And don't forget this is fractional banking, so an additional pound of capital allows them to lend more than an additional pound. I think you are confusing capital and funding.

I'm not confusing the fact that we won't get a dividend and therefore won't be able to spend money to keep the economy going and my pound also carries its own multiplier effect. I've no idea if your macro argument is sound, but individuals speak from there own circumstances.
I'd guess the banks have the power to do both: pay dividends and prop up the economy, and this is just regulators wanting to appear to be doing the popular thing by attacking those nasty shareholders.


Of ourse, I will dip into my capital reserves (my IR) but that doesn't mean I want to!
Arb.

[Itsallaguess]

Of ourse, I will dip into my capital reserves (my IR) but that doesn't mean I want to!

Such an interesting topic Arb, that it probably deserves a thread all of it's own, but all I'd perhaps ask is -

If not now - when?

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Dod101]

Of ourse, I will dip into my capital reserves (my IR) but that doesn't mean I want to!

Such an interesting topic Arb, that it probably deserves a thread all of it's own, but all I'd perhaps ask is -

If not now - when?

That is the question. I doubt that many of us living off our dividends to a greater or lesser extent really want to have to dip in to our capital reserves. I think it is human nature. I prefer to try to cut my expenses but will not develop this because as you say or imply anyway, it is a separate topic.

Dod

[Itsallaguess]

Of ourse, I will dip into my capital reserves (my IR) but that doesn't mean I want to!

Such an interesting topic Arb, that it probably deserves a thread all of it's own, but all I'd perhaps ask is -

If not now - when?

That is the question. I doubt that many of us living off our dividends to a greater or lesser extent really want to have to dip in to our capital reserves. I think it is human nature.

I prefer to try to cut my expenses but will not develop this because as you say or imply anyway, it is a separate topic.

I agree Dod, and so I've started a separate thread on this specific topic to help avoid any further off-topic posts on this HSBC thread -

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=22652

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[pyad]

Funny how the tides turn isn't it. A year ago no one was touching utes (including pyad over on stockopedia, he thought he knew better ).

No no I am sure he did not. Strategic Ignorance, you forget!

Dod

It appears that you fail to comprehend the very simple concept of SI. I'm not going over it yet again here but as far as the specific point of utes and my HYP on Stockopedia is concerned this is what hapened.

A t the time I constructed that new HYP about a year ago it was clear that a general election would have to be held some time soon. The Labour party if they won would renationalise utes. Nobody, least of all me, knew the chances of a Labour win but it was an obvious and clear risk. Thus I avoided utes in that portfolio.

The point for SI purposes is this:

Avoiding a clear, near term and very substantial risk to a share does not contravene SI

Now I don't mind people knocking SI, I reject loads of investment ideas as we all do. But before doing so, shouldn't you take the trouble to find out what it means? This isn't brain surgery, it's a very simple and straightforward idea. Two possibilities arise, either you genuinely don't get it or you are deliberately assuming a completely distorted picture of what it means to try and get a laugh. I don't which it is.

[Dod101]

Funny how the tides turn isn't it. A year ago no one was touching utes (including pyad over on stockopedia, he thought he knew better ).

No no I am sure he did not. Strategic Ignorance, you forget!

Dod

It appears that you fail to comprehend the very simple concept of SI. I'm not going over it yet again here but as far as the specific point of utes and my HYP on Stockopedia is concerned this is what hapened.

A t the time I constructed that new HYP about a year ago it was clear that a general election would have to be held some time soon. The Labour party if they won would renationalise utes. Nobody, least of all me, knew the chances of a Labour win but it was an obvious and clear risk. Thus I avoided utes in that portfolio.

The point for SI purposes is this:

Avoiding a clear, near term and very substantial risk to a share does not contravene SI

Now I don't mind people knocking SI, I reject loads of investment ideas as we all do. But before doing so, shouldn't you take the trouble to find out what it means? This isn't brain surgery, it's a very simple and straightforward idea. Two possibilities arise, either you genuinely don't get it or you are deliberately assuming a completely distorted picture of what it means to try and get a laugh. I don't which it is.

I get it all right.

Dod

[Arborbridge]

Strangely ironic that the companies that are looking safest for paying a dividend are the Utes!

Funny how the tides turn isn't it. A year ago no one was touching utes (including pyad over on stockopedia, he thought he knew better ).

I've only just noticed this, and see pyad has replied.
However, I do think the comment about pyad is off-key: "he thought he knew better". I'm no sycophant, but one thing I know about pyad is that he is constantly reminding us that he (and we) knows diddly-squat (his expression, I believe) about the future. He's the last person to think he knows better on this sort of matter, and if he left out utes it was for a clear an immediate reason - as he explained later.

Arb.

[Dod101]

So back to HSBC. Were it not for the fact that they did not fix the exchange rates yesterday we would still expect the dividend due in a couple of weeks. The longer they leave it the more difficult it will be for them (and Barclays!) to cancel. What is going on?

Dod

[Dod101]

In the announcement that I have seen about UK banks cancelling their dividends I have not seen mention of HSBC but it is difficult to imagine Standard Chartered doing so and not HSBC. Nothing on their website that I can see. If I were a Barclays shareholder I would be hopping mad.

Dod

[ADrunkenMarcus]

The axeman cometh!

[Dod101]

I have just Googled for an article . The item tells me that it is copyright FT so I guess TLF would not like me copying it but it seems that HSBC is cancelling its dividend and presumably will formally tell us tomorrow.

Quite ridiculous I think. The dividend was the only reason to hold them. We shareholders ought to get together and complain.

Dod

[monabri]

I have just Googled for an article . The item tells me that it is copyright FT so I guess TLF would not like me copying it but it seems that HSBC is cancelling its dividend and presumably will formally tell us tomorrow.

Quite ridiculous I think. The dividend was the only reason to hold them. We shareholders ought to get together and complain.

Dod

Have you seen these letters?

"Please confirm to the PRA by 20:00 today whether or not your group is prepared to agree to this request.

The PRA stands ready to consider use of our supervisory powers should your group not agree to take such action. We would expect you to make a statement by 21:00"

( go consider then!)

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/prudent ... sh-bonuses

[monabri]

Bloomin heck...he even drafted out the letter for them to say they were cancelling the dividend....

There's my letter of complaint sent!...see the link above.

"I'm surprised & dismayed that you have written to the UK banks asking them to "consider" cancellation of their dividend payments. Along with the many other UK companies now cancelling their dividends , I would be obliged if you can outline how pensioners are supposed to pay the ever increasing bills? We rely on these dividends for our retirement. The UK banks having been "stress tested" to extreme clearly means nothing when dividends can be cancelled so readily. The message coming across is that UK banks, like many other UK businesses, are totally unreliable and many retail and institutional investors will give them short shrift in the future...in short, it is not worth investing in the UK."

[Dod101]

Thanks no I have not seen these but they are disgusting. The banks of course I think should have collectively stood up to this unwarranted interference. It is like forcing them to become banks for the reconstruction of the UK economy and those supplying the capital can go and take a jump and HSBC I saw, was apologising to its HK shareholders!

I am already drafting a letter for Mark Tucker the Chairman of HSBC. The only reason for holding HSBC shares was the dividend and now it is gone they will be lucky if there is a bank to bully. I thought Corbyn had gone but he could have written these letters.

Dod

[monabri]

Just as concerning

"PRA Chief Executive Sam Woods also wrote to heads of insurers, saying they should pay “close attention” to the need to protect policyholders and maintain safety and soundness when considering bonuses or dividends."

[Dod101]

I wonder if the PRA can boss the banks like this? This is not regulation. I thought the PRA's job was to ensure that the banks were secure and reliable which they are. Instead it is almost like semi nationalisation without spending any money, telling them what to do. I am sure the bans must have checked that but it is really appalling.

Dod

[PinkDalek]

I wonder if the PRA can boss the banks like this? This is not regulation. ... I am sure the bans must have checked that but it is really appalling.

Have you read the letters?:

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media ... o-hsbc.pdf

They do not appear to be bans per se but threaten the use of supervisory powers.