Comments on: I have a brilliant idea for Joseph Muscat and Edward Scicluna: why don’t you steal that bank all over again?

By: H.P. Baxxter

H.P. Baxxter — Mon, 27 May 2013 22:10:41 +0000

In reply to Harry Purdie. Is that a line from '120 Days of Sodom' or the first four months of Labour? Not that there's much difference, for that matter.

By: ciccio

ciccio — Mon, 27 May 2013 20:37:35 +0000

In reply to P Shaw. "Then the Minister could do as he pleases with his new infant bank." He might consider doing a bail-in, for instance. And hoover the depositors accounts to the credit of the government's.

By: Riya

Riya — Mon, 27 May 2013 19:50:08 +0000

Beda jberraq!

Din hija l-bidla?

Se jerghu jabbuzaw bil-vot tal-injorant. Ezatt kif kien jghamel Mintoff.

Imma disgrazzjatament dan hu il-Labour u ma jinbidel u jitghallem qatt. Mohh certu Maltin s’hemm iwassal.

By: P Shaw

P Shaw — Mon, 27 May 2013 18:38:32 +0000

Perhaps Edward Scicluna and Joseph Muscat should open a new bank to play around with.

Since the evil Nationalists managed to safeguard (partially in the case of BOV) the largest commercial hands from the troubling overreach of an amateur government, the brilliant minister of Finance could set up a new bank where the gullible Maltese would put in their savings, buy bonds, or invest in it by buying minority shares.

Then the Minister could do as he pleases with his new infant bank.

By: Harry Purdie

Harry Purdie — Mon, 27 May 2013 17:34:34 +0000

Every single day, more into the red depths we go.

By: canon

canon — Mon, 27 May 2013 16:29:29 +0000

My fear is that the BOV will be forced to finance certain government projects like the new power station behind our backs. Is this possible?

By: lorna saliba

lorna saliba — Mon, 27 May 2013 16:20:30 +0000

Daphne I do not think that the shareholders can object through a judicial protest in this case. The reason being that the La Vallette fund has been found in breach of mis-selling and the respective Authority had imposed a substantial fine with this respect.

Therefore the MFSA which is a regulatory authority as opposed to an executive authority, has not been bypassed.

With regards to pressure from the Government, to re-inburse investors: the likelihood is that once the government is in position to appoint a board of directors on the BOV seat, it has the authority to exert pressure or make demands of this sort. In any case, dividend payments to shareholders are not compulsory.

A public company has a right to retain its profits if it wants to strengthen its capital base or re-plough its profits into future capital investments. The absence of dividends does not necessarily mean a depletion in share value, as long as the capital gains on its shares are consistent.

On the other hand. companies may opt to reduce their dividend per share but retain a proportionate dividend payout in line with their normal payout ratios.

By: Butterfly

Butterfly — Mon, 27 May 2013 13:30:05 +0000

What would Paul Bonello say?

By: Roy

Roy — Mon, 27 May 2013 13:20:49 +0000

Well, being made chairman of an obscure government property holding company was hardly reward enough now was it?

By: Lestrade

Lestrade — Mon, 27 May 2013 13:14:34 +0000

It seems that the finance minister is unaware that BOV (as also HSBC) has been paying part of its annual dividends in the form of bonus shares by the capitalization of reserves thus increasing capital base.

As regards La Valette case, so MFSA has been bypassed so as to pay Finco’s pound of flesh.