|Bid||96.68 x 1000|
|Ask||96.89 x 800|
|Day's Range||95.41 - 97.10|
|52 Week Range||77.65 - 106.40|
|Beta (5Y Monthly)||1.59|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||10.41|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||4.00 (4.19%)|
|Ex-Dividend Date||Nov 23, 2019|
|1y Target Est||N/A|
(Bloomberg) -- Inflows into Indian equity funds rebounded after three months of decline in December as the nation’s benchmark stock index hit a series of record highs.Stock plans took in 45 billion rupees ($626 million) last month, according to the Association of Mutual Funds in India. That compares with 13.1 billion rupees received in November, which was the smallest inflow in more than three years.Here’s what the top three asset managers bought and sold:HDFC Mutual FundIndia’s largest money manager held $22 billion in equities, with financials accounting for 33% of stock assets followed by industrial companies at 13%.ICICI Prudential Mutual FundThe money manager held equity assets of $21 billion, with financials making up 28% of assets followed by materials at about 10%.SBI Funds ManagementThe fund house held about $27 billion in over 300 stocks. Financials made up about 41% of assets, followed by technology at 9%.\--With assistance from Nupur Acharya and Nikita Batra.To contact the reporter on this story: Ameya Karve in Singapore at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Ravil Shirodkar at email@example.comFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
Amid an overall bull market, many stocks that smart money investors were collectively bullish on surged in 2019. Among them, Facebook and Microsoft ranked among the top 3 picks and these stocks gained 57%. Our research shows that most of the stocks that smart money likes historically generate strong risk-adjusted returns. That's why we weren't […]
Big private-equity firms like Apollo Global Management or Carlyle Group would be among the logical buyers for the New York insurer, investment bankers said.
Sadly, the stock newsletter industry is still rife with shady characters, marginal analysts and overly aggressive marketing. Like me, Buckingham watches investor and media sentiment for a contrarian read on where the markets are headed. Inflation seems like a potential risk because it could have the Federal Reserve raising interest rates, which can hurt stocks.
(Bloomberg) -- Just weeks after Christine Lagarde became the euro zone’s first female central bank chief, neighboring Britain has chosen to stick with what it’s only ever known for economic policy: men in charge.This month’s decision to install Andrew Bailey as Bank of England governor, along with Sajid Javid’s reappointment as chancellor of the exchequer, extend an exclusively male grip on both those roles that has already notched up a combined history of more than 1,000 years.That further stains an already poor record on diversity in Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s new government. Only seven members of his cabinet -- out of 23 -- are female. On economic policy, it’s worse: aside from the top roles, he didn’t appoint even one woman as a minister in the team of four now running the Treasury with Javid.Bailey will become the 121st man to lead the BOE since its creation, meaning that by the time his term is finished, it will have had 333 years of male leadership. Javid’s role, first created in the 12th century, has never been filled by a woman.The Treasury that Javid runs has also never had a female permanent secretary, as its top civil servant is known. It’s hard to see how the situation at the BOE would change any time soon. Currently all four of the central bank’s deputy governors are men, and the only woman in the institution’s top management echelon is Joanna Place, the chief operating officer. There’s just one female on the nine-member rate-setting committee.Serious Issue“There is no woman deputy governor, which is crazy,” said Vicky Pryce, former joint head of the Government Economic Service. “Where will these women come from in the future if this generation now cannot get there? The pipeline is a serious issue. They’re going to have to start working on it now unless they decide to bring in someone from the outside next time.”By contrast, far younger economic institutions abroad have embraced female leadership. Before the European Central Bank, Lagarde had been in charge of the International Monetary Fund after serving as the counterpart to Javid’s predecessors at the French finance ministry. The U.S. Federal Reserve was formerly led by Janet Yellen.The hunt for a successor to BOE Governor Mark Carney began under Johnson’s predecessor as prime minister, Theresa May. She suggested to lawmakers that she would welcome a female central bank chief.Members of the parliamentary committee that scrutinizes the Treasury and BOE last year also expressed concern about the absence of diversity in senior positions at the central bank. They said they could decide not to approve an appointment to any of the BOE’s policy boards if it felt insufficient effort had been made to find a more diverse candidate. That wouldn’t bind the Treasury to choose an alternative, but it could prove highly embarrassing.Binders of WomenJavid, who was in charge of the BOE appointment, had women to choose from. Former BOE deputy governor Minouche Shafik, the director of the London School of Economics -- who also once served as a deputy to Lagarde at the IMF --and Santander U.K. Chair Shriti Vadera were believed to be potential candidates. Helena Morrissey, a fund manager, also put herself in the frame.He also could have opted for a candidate with a more diverse employment history to lead a central bank that has often been accused of insularity and groupthink. The ultimate insider, Bailey served three decades at the BOE, culminating as deputy governor and chief executive of the Prudential Regulation Authority.The chancellor himself is one example of Johnson breaking new ground, being the first-ever person to hold the role with a Muslim family background.Javid does claim to care about diversity, emphasizing the matter when describing the new governor’s suitability for the job. Bailey is currently head of the Financial Conduct Authority.“I would particularly highlight his proud record of increasing the diversity of the FCA’s senior leadership team,” Javid said. “Under his leadership, he is committed to making the bank a more open and diverse institution.”To contact the reporters on this story: Craig Stirling in Frankfurt at firstname.lastname@example.org;Lucy Meakin in London at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Simon Kennedy at firstname.lastname@example.org, Brian SwintFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- A simple lesson we should have learned from the financial crisis is that complexity begets abuse, and undermines stability. Yet the key measure we use to determine banks’ health is so fiendishly difficult to understand that outsiders have no choice but to accept what we’re told by the lender.That’s the conclusion of a broad U.K. government review of the audit industry unveiled this week. Donald Brydon, the former chairman of London Stock Exchange Plc who ran the review, considered whether accountants should be brought in to verify how banks calculate the all important “risk-weighted asset” measure. Alarmingly, he concluded that there was no point because even trained auditors would struggle to get their heads around these calculations, unless banks employed an army of them. If that’s true, then what hope for ordinary shareholders or bank supervisors?After all, we’re talking here about the figure that lenders and their regulators use to assess how much capital they need to hold against the risks they’re taking. Worries about divergences in how banks work out risk-weighted assets have already prompted new rules to limit the degree to which they can use their own models. The world’s leading financial regulators have urged the audit profession to help , as has the Institute for Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.Unfortunately, Brydon believes that getting auditors involved is simply not viable. Tucked into his 138-page report, the City grandee concludes that because the models on which risk-weighted asset calculations are based “can run to many hundreds of pages of explanation,” getting auditors to provide opinion on their truth and fairness would "involve a disproportionate additional cost.” And at a practical level, “the depth of skills necessary to undertake such separate assurance are not obviously widespread and readily available,” in the accounting profession, says Brydon. His alternative solution is to get the U.K. banking supervisor, the Prudential Regulation Authority, to issue a letter of comfort as it already reviews the banks’ risk-weighted asset models. But given his admission that this task is beyond the audit profession, it’s not clear why just writing a letter would make bank calculations any more transparent.Moreover, Brydon’s conclusions beg a number of questions. Isn’t the complexity of risk-weighted calculations precisely the reason they should be reviewed externally? If auditors lack the skills, where else is the expertise? Ultimately, shouldn’t we be striving to make these fundamental measures accessible to a wider pool of experts? How can we trust that banks are as safe as they claim to be, and aren’t just gaming the system?This year alone there have been a number of examples of dubious risk-weighted asset calculations. The U.K.’s Metro Bank Plc is being probed by regulators for assigning a weighting that was too low for some assets, an error that — once fixed — led to the bank raising capital. Citigroup Inc. was fined in Britain for inaccurately reporting its capital and liquidity in part because the firm underestimated its risk-weighted assets. Most recently, Coventry Building Society, a U.K. lender, corrected risk weights that inflated its financial strength for years. (The firm was still comfortably above regulatory requirements).While none of these incidents has threatened the viability of any one company, let alone the financial system, institutions are tripping up on an essential reporting requirement that’s too complicated to unpack. As regulatory failings go, this one might easily have dangerous consequences.To contact the author of this story: Elisa Martinuzzi at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Boxell at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Elisa Martinuzzi is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering finance. She is a former managing editor for European finance at Bloomberg News.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The suspense is over. After a seemingly endless carousel of candidates mulled over in the media, the next Bank of England governor will be the longstanding favorite Andrew Bailey. Seen as the ultimate safe pair of hands and respected across government and the City of London, he was always the logical choice — if not necessarily the most exciting.His background in regulation will be critical as the U.K. forges its post-Brexit financial trading relationship with the European Union and the rest of the world. And for those who see the split from Europe as an opportunity for the City, rather than a disaster, his appointment will no doubt be a comfort. “I do think that, left to our own devices, the U.K., with its common law system and large, global financial markets, would construct financial conduct regulation in a rather different way,” he said back in April. No wonder Prime Minister Boris Johnson preferred him to the Brexit-dubious Minouche Shafik.Even though Bailey was deputy governor at the BOE for three years to 2016, he didn’t sit on the rate-setting Monetary Policy Committee, so his monetary stance is more or less unknown. But there are nine people on the MPC, so that’s not necessarily an impediment. Johnson’s new government is no doubt keen to avoid the superstar central banker guise adopted by the current governor Mark Carney, who has regularly infuriated Conservative politicians over his positions on Brexit. The job will suit an anonymous soccer-style referee, who knows the rules but only makes his presence felt when necessary.Bailey’s resume has focused primarily on the regulatory aspects of the BOE remit, especially in his current role as head of the Financial Conduct Authority; he has also headed up the bank supervisor, the Prudential Regulation Authority. At the FCA, he sensibly reined in some of the more draconian measures that were hurting Britain’s finance sector.With Brexit at the forefront of the government’s agenda, it makes eminent sense to have your most experienced rule-setter in charge to steer the City through a painful divorce. Maybe he’ll help make it a place that can survive and thrive outside the EU.Of course, his long career at the main regulatory bodies means he doesn’t come without fleas, as my colleague Mark Gilbert argued in June. The FCA’s role in the chain of events that led to Neil Woodford freezing redemptions from his flagship fund has been questioned. The government has clearly decided that his neutrality on Brexit and his tendency to not over-regulate are more important. He did stabilize the FCA after a rocky period too.Securing London’s preeminence as a financial services hub in a post-Brexit world is the top priority in what has become a much bigger job than just presiding over interest-rate setting. The British economy is sluggish but Carney has left a full toolkit to handle pretty much all eventualities. Bailey is a continuity candidate for the Bank, but one who’s placed to handle the discontinuity of Brexit.\--With assistance from Mark Gilbert .To contact the author of this story: Marcus Ashworth at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Boxell at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Marcus Ashworth is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering European markets. He spent three decades in the banking industry, most recently as chief markets strategist at Haitong Securities in London.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
The House of Representatives approved a $1.4 trillion spending package on Tuesday, sending the measure to the Senate just days ahead of another government shutdown.
U.S insurers and other financial-industry players score a victory this week as a year-end spending deal includes a retirement bill that they’ve pushed.
This article is written for those who want to get better at using price to earnings ratios (P/E ratios). To keep it...
The Insider Monkey team has completed processing the quarterly 13F filings for the September quarter submitted by the hedge funds and other money managers included in our extensive database. Most hedge fund investors experienced strong gains on the back of a strong market performance, which certainly propelled them to adjust their equity holdings so as […]
Prudential (PRU) reported earnings 30 days ago. What's next for the stock? We take a look at earnings estimates for some clues.
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Prudential Financial, Inc. (NYSE: PRU) between February 15, 2019 and August 2, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Prudential investors under the federal securities laws.
Let's see if Prudential Financial, Inc. (PRU) stock is a good choice for value-oriented investors right now, or if investors subscribing to this methodology should look elsewhere for top picks.
Prudential Financial Inc, the No. 1 U.S. life insurer, has hired Goldman Sachs to explore the possibility of selling its South Korean unit, which could fetch about 2 trillion won ($1.70 billion), Korea Economic Daily reported. A sale of the unit would see the U.S. insurer exit the South Korean market after about 30 years since it first entered. South Korea's large financial firms like KB Financial Group and Woori Financial Group, as well as private equity funds are named as potential buyers of the insurer, the report said.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- In the aftermath of the financial crisis, we’ve become accustomed to banks being slapped with sanctions running into the billions. So at the equivalent of $57 million, Citigroup Inc.’s new fine for reporting failures could well go unnoticed. That would be a mistake.The third-largest U.S. bank, with assets in excess of $2 trillion, inaccurately reported its capital and liquidity in the U.K. because of dysfunctional systems, governance and controls, the Bank of England’s Prudential Regulation Authority said this week. This is not what Britain expects of a systemically important bank, the PRA added, explaining why it was imposing a record fine.While the Wall Street giant’s measures of financial strength remained above the U.K.’s regulatory requirements during the four years in question, that’s little comfort given the magnitude of the flaws and the bank’s inadequate oversight.If Citi’s key financial figures can be repeatedly off the mark, what else might they be getting wrong? As the regulator noted in its 44-page assessment of how the errors came about, “firms that do not produce timely, complete and accurate data during periods of relative stability are less likely to produce it under stress.”The U.K. is Citi’s biggest market outside the U.S., accounting for about 16% of its total assets and about 9% of revenue; its trading activities there run across cash and derivatives markets. The securities unit is one of Europe’s biggest investment banks on a standalone basis.Because of the errors, which happened between June 2014 and Dec. 2018, the biggest of Citi’s three British entities at one point was reporting a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 11.8% when it should have been 10.3%. While the ratio was at 11% when allowing for differing interpretations of how to calculate risk-weighted assets, this was still a material divergence.In October 2016, the same unit (Citi’s U.K. broker dealer) informed the regulator that between October 2015 and June 2016 it had misreported its liquidity coverage ratio by a whopping 47%. While the figure was actually better than the bank had reported, in some months the bank’s short-term ability to fund potential outflows was significantly worse than first reported.At the root of the mistakes were loose controls which failed to meet the bank’s requirements, even though internal red flags were raised. Reports, which should have been closely monitored, were often prepared manually by teams in Mumbai and Budapest and the bank used the wrong currency for settling some positions.Most alarming, the bank’s top executives and governance committees had a limited understanding of the reporting requirements and which senior managers were responsible.In fairness, the bank stressed that it had “cooperated fully with the PRA throughout the process, and in 2019 a leading independent accountancy and audit firm confirmed that Citi had remediated the material issues identified.” By working with the regulator the lender qualified for a 30% rebate on the penalty.But the cascade of errors under seemingly careless management points to a cavalier attitude in global finance that hasn’t been fixed entirely. Banks’ books are far from being as safe as houses.To contact the author of this story: Elisa Martinuzzi at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Boxell at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Elisa Martinuzzi is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering finance. She is a former managing editor for European finance at Bloomberg News.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Please replace the release with the following corrected version due to multiple revisions.
To properly execute DIY dividend-investing strategies, a lot of research is required to fully understand the companies and how durable their dividends are.