The Mayor’s Christmas service will recognize and celebrate the important work of select London organisations

About half of homeowners who have a fixed-payment adjustable-rate mortgage had reached their trigger rate by October 2022, according to a research note released Tuesday by the Bank of Canada.

The release also warned that homeownership could jump to 65 percent if the central bank hikes interest rates by half a percentage point at its upcoming December meeting, as many Bay Street economists expect.

Most adjustable rate mortgages in Canada have static monthly payments, meaning the payment stays the same even as interest rates change. Trigger rates are activated when the interest portion exceeds the payment itself, and this trend has become more widespread given the sharp rise in interest rates this year.

Once a homeowner reaches their trigger rate, the lender typically gives them several options, including paying a lump sum on the loan to reduce the principal amount, increasing their monthly payment to cover the entire interest portion, or extending the payback period.

A small number of lenders also allow for negative amortization, where the mortgage loan grows month by month.

The bank noted that its calculations did not take into account homeowners who have already taken steps to reduce their mortgage loan and bring their amortization back into line.

Separately, Bank of Canada Deputy Governor Carolyn Rogers said in a speech on Tuesday that the central bank is monitoring them how higher borrowing costs affected homeowners.

“One group of Canadians who will find this adjustment painful are those who recently bought a home, may have stretched their budget, and have opted for an adjustable rate mortgage,” Rogers said.

“This is not a large proportion of households, but it is larger than would have been based on historical trends.”

Variable rate mortgages have been prevalent in recent years, but particularly during the pandemic, with interest rates at historic lows. In the note, the Bank of Canada says these types of mortgages accounted for about a third of all outstanding mortgage debt, up from about 20 percent at the end of 2019.

The story goes on

The bank reported that the average payment increase for mortgages that have reached their trigger rate is probably about 5 percent.

Michelle Zadikian is Senior Reporter at Yahoo Finance Canada. Follow her on Twitter @m_zadikian.

Download the Yahoo Finance app, available for Apple and Android.

A look at TC Biopharm (Holdings) Plc (NASDAQ:TCBP) shareholders can tell us which group is the strongest. We can see that individual investors own the lion’s share of the company at 51%. In other words, the group will gain the most (or lose the most) from their investment in the company.

Individual investors clearly benefited the most after the company’s market cap rose $32 million last week.

In the chart below we zoom in on the different ownership groups of TC Biopharm (Holdings).

View our latest analysis for TC Biopharm (Holdings).

property breakdown” src=”https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/QII9bJhcZp7n_vl5WX7_.A–/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MDtoPTQyOA–/https://media.zenfs.com/en/simply_wall_st__316/f24c8adb6eb778ebfd4fd3688d8251bd”/>

What does institutional ownership tell us about TC Biopharm (Holdings)?

Institutions typically measure themselves against a benchmark when reporting to their own investors, so they’re often more excited about a stock once it’s included in a major index. We would expect most companies to have some institutions on the register, especially as they grow.

Because institutions only own a small portion of TC Biopharm (Holdings), many may not have spent much time considering the stock. But it is clear that some have; and they liked it enough to shop. If business picks up from here, we could see a situation where more institutions are interested in buying. When multiple institutional investors are looking to buy stocks, we often see the stock price rising. Past sales performance (see below) may be an indication of future growth, but there are no guarantees.

Hedge funds don’t hold many shares in TC Biopharm (Holdings). Looking at our data, we can see that the largest shareholder is Scottish Enterprise with 11% of the shares outstanding. For comparison, the second-largest shareholder holds about 9.2% of the outstanding shares, followed by an 8.4% holding by the third-largest shareholder.

In examining our ownership data, we found that 18 of the top shareholders collectively own less than 50% of the share register, meaning no single person has a controlling interest.

The story goes on

Studying institutional ownership is a good way to gauge and filter a stock’s expected performance. The same can be done by studying analyst sentiment. We are not currently taking analyst reports on the stock so it is unlikely that there will be widespread coverage on the company.

TC Biopharm Insider Ownership (Holdings)

The definition of corporate insider can be subjective and varies by jurisdiction. Our data reflects individual insiders and captures at least board members. Management ultimately reports to the board of directors. However, it is not uncommon for managers to be board members, especially if they are founders or CEOs.

In general, I think insider ownership is a good thing. In some cases, however, it becomes more difficult for other shareholders to hold the board accountable for decisions.

It appears that insiders own a significant stake in TC Biopharm (Holdings) Plc. It has a market cap of just $320 million, and insiders have $40 million worth of shares in their own names. We’d say this shows the focus on shareholders, but it’s worth noting that the company is still quite small; Some insiders may have started the company. You can click here to see if these Insiders have bought or sold.

General Public Property

The general public – including retail investors – own 51% of TC Biopharm (Holdings). With this amount of ownership, individual investors can collectively play a role in decisions that affect shareholder returns, such as: B. Dividend Policy and Appointment of Directors. They can also exercise the power to vote on acquisitions or mergers that may not improve profitability.

Private Equity Ownership

With a stake of 8.4%, private equity houses are able to help shape the corporate strategy with a focus on value creation. Sometimes we see private equity stick around for the long term, but generally they have a shorter investment horizon and – as the name suggests – don’t invest much in publicly traded companies. After some time, they might try to sell capital and reallocate it elsewhere.

ownership of public companies

Public companies currently own 14% of the shares of TC Biopharm (Holdings). It’s hard to say for sure, but this suggests they may have intertwined business interests. This could be a strategic investment, so it’s worth watching for ownership changes in this area.

Next Steps:

While it’s worth considering the different groups that own a business, there are other factors that are even more important. For example, consider the ever-present specter of investment risk. We have identified 5 warning signs at TC Biopharm (Holdings) (at least 2 that cannot be ignored) and understanding them should be part of your investment process.

Of course This might not be the best stock to buy. So check this out free free List of interesting companies.

Note: The figures in this article are calculated using data for the last twelve months, relating to the 12-month period ending on the last date of the month to which the financial statements are dated. This may not tally with the annual report figures for the full year.

Do you have any feedback about this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch directly with us. Alternatively, send an email to the editorial team (at) simplywallst.com.

This Simply Wall St article is of a general nature. We provide comments based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended as financial advice. It is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stock and does not take into account your goals or financial situation. Our goal is to offer you long-term focused analysis based on fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not take into account the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any of the stocks mentioned.

Join a paid user research session
You will receive one $30 Amazon Gift Card for 1 hour of your time while you help us create better investment tools for individual investors like you. Sign up here

The sixth anniversary of the Brexit referendum triggered another wave of warnings about the economic cost. If the recent headlines are to be believed, leaving the EU was indeed an economic catastrophe and one of the main reasons why public finances are so ailing.

The goal seems to be to convince us that the UK cannot thrive outside the EU and should at least rejoin the single market, either formally or under the Swiss model of ad hoc deals that could amount to the same thing.

Several of the usual media suspects are involved. One of the low points, however, was former Bank of England Governor Mark Carney’s claim that the UK economy had shrunk from 90 percent the size of Germany’s to less than 70 percent since 2016.

Even economists, notoriously skeptical about Brexit, denounced it as “nonsense”, but Carney followed up by implausibly blaming the recent rate hike on Brexit. In his view, leaving the EU “slowed down the pace at which the [UK] economy can grow”.

In order to investigate and, if necessary, correct such claims, we recently published a detailed report on the BriefingsforBritain website. This carefully describes the evidence and methods used in a range of studies and articles, showing how the UK has fared compared to other countries since 2016 in terms of GDP, trade, inflation, exchange rates and the financial sector.

The hard evidence is that leaving the EU has had remarkably little impact on the UK economy. Between the first quarter of 2016 (the quarter before the referendum) and the third quarter of 2022, OECD data shows that the UK economy grew by an overall 6.7 percent. This was a little behind France (7.4 percent) but ahead of Spain (6.6 percent), Germany (6.2 percent) and Italy (4.9 percent). UK exports to the EU have recovered to long-term trend levels and the City of London has been little affected.

This, of course, contradicts Carney’s claim, which was based on data at prevailing market exchange rates and therefore reflected the pound’s decline since 2015. But the net impact of a weaker currency on the economy is uncertain and it is wrong to assume that sterling would not have weakened whatever the outcome of the referendum. Sterling already looked overvalued in 2015 – as the UK ran a huge current account deficit – and the fall in the effective exchange rate in 2016 was only slightly below the 2009-2013 average.

Another stubborn belief is that the vote to leave the EU has resulted in a slump in investment that has left it well below its trend rate. The studies that make this claim are mostly based on a simple extrapolation of investment growth between 2009 and 2016 and the implausible assumption that this growth would have continued indefinitely. In fact, investment growth during those years was a strong but inevitably temporary rebound in investment from the depths of the world
financial crisis.

Looking further ahead, business investment in the UK is only slightly below its historical trend and part of the gap can be explained by lower investment in oil and gas in the North Sea, which is clearly unrelated to Brexit.

Foreign direct investment (FDI) into the UK has also held up well since 2016, contrary to predictions that it would collapse. In particular, greenfield FDI to the UK increased by a third between 2016 and 2021 and was the highest of any major European economy in any year during that period.

There is also little evidence that Brexit has contributed to (at least not permanent) labor shortages. UK employment has not recovered to pre-Covid levels and this helps explain the UK economy’s relatively weak growth since 2019. However, this mainly reflects an increase in long-term illnesses. The failure of many EU migrants to return to the UK can also be attributed to the pandemic, which has had a similar impact on migrant workers in other European countries, particularly Germany, where job vacancy rates are similar.

That leaves two more channels through which Brexit may have “destroyed” the UK economy. One is inflation. However, inflation in the UK has been similar to that in the US and EU, including food price inflation. The other is trade. Far from collapsing as some claim, UK trade with the EU has fully recovered after initial disruptions.

The views of the Office of Budgetary Responsibility (OBR) have been widely quoted here. It would be odd to deny that the rise in trade tensions between the UK and the EU has had a negative impact. However, it is not clear that there has been a significant drop in trade intensity, at least in the most recent data, or that the drop is mainly due to Brexit. It is certainly a big step to assume, as the OBR is doing, that this is a permanent blow that will reduce the UK’s long-term productivity by up to 4 per cent.

In particular, there was not much difference between the performance of UK exports to the EU and those to the rest of the world. In addition, the UK’s trade balance with the EU was actually improving up until the energy crisis as exports held up better than imports.

It’s also worth noting that the OBR’s 4 percent assumption is based on an average of external studies and not original papers. Evidence for a strong link between changes in trade intensity and productivity in an economy like the UK, which is already relatively open and developed, is also weak.

The lack of evidence of significant economic damage from Brexit is particularly important given that it was always likely that most costs would be upfront and relatively visible. In contrast, the main benefit of Brexit has always been greater freedom to create one’s own economic policies, the benefits of which would take longer to take hold.

Success or failure will depend on how effective these policies prove. But it would be wrong to back down now on an anti-Brexit campaign built on such flimsy foundations.

dr Graham Gudgin is a Research Associate at the University of Cambridge CBR and Julian Jessop is a Fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs

It’s hard to get excited looking at the recent performance of Personal Group Holdings (LON:PGH) when the stock is down 17% over the past three months. We decided to examine the company’s financials to see if the downtrend will continue, as a company’s long-term performance usually dictates market outcomes. In this article, we have chosen to focus on the ROE of Personal Group Holdings.

Return on equity, or ROE, is a test of how effectively a company is increasing its value and managing investors’ money. In other words, it is a profitability metric that measures the return on capital provided by the company’s shareholders.

Check out our latest analysis for Personal Group Holdings

How do you calculate return on equity?

The return on equity can be calculated using the following formula:

Return on Equity = Net Income (from continuing operations) ÷ Equity

So, based on the formula above, the ROE for personal group holdings is:

3.7% = £1.5m ÷ £40m (based on trailing 12 months to June 2022).

The “return” is the profit of the last twelve months. This means that for every £1 worth of equity, the company makes £0.04 profit.

Why is ROE important for earnings growth?

So far we’ve learned that ROE is a measure of a company’s profitability. Depending on how much of those earnings the company reinvests, or “retains,” and how effectively it does so, we can then assess a company’s earnings growth potential. Assuming all else being equal, companies that demonstrate both higher return on equity and higher earnings retention tend to be those that exhibit a higher growth rate than companies that do not share the same characteristics.

Personal Group Holdings earnings growth and 3.7% ROE

At first glance, Personal Group Holdings’ ROE doesn’t look very promising. We then compared the company’s ROE to the industry as a whole and were disappointed to find that the ROE is below the industry average of 10%. As such, it might not be wrong to say that Personal Group Holdings’ five-year net income decline of 16% was likely the result of lower ROE. However, other factors can also cause earnings to fall. For example, it is possible that the company has allocated capital poorly or that the company has a very high payout ratio.

The story goes on

Next, when we compared it to the industry, which shrank its earnings by 7.1% over the same period, we still found Personal Group Holdings’ performance to be rather dismal, given that the company has shrunk its earnings faster than the industry.

Much of the basis for increasing the value of a company is tied to its earnings growth. It’s important for an investor to know whether the market has priced in the company’s expected earnings growth (or decline). This then helps them determine if the stock is placed for a bright or bleak future. Is Personal Group Holdings fairly valued compared to other companies? These 3 evaluation criteria could help you with the decision.

Is Personal Group Holdings reinvesting its profits efficiently?

Personal Group Holdings has a high three-year median payout ratio of 83% (meaning it retains 17% of its earnings). This suggests that the company pays out most of its profits as dividends to its shareholders. This explains to some extent why revenue has shrunk. With very little left to reinvest in the business, earnings growth is far from likely. You can see the 3 risks we have identified for Personal Group Holdings by visiting our Risk Dashboard for free on our platform here.

Additionally, Personal Group Holdings has paid dividends for at least a decade, meaning the company’s management is committed to paying dividends even if it means little to no earnings growth.

summary

Overall, we would be extremely cautious before making any decision on Personal Group Holdings. The company has experienced a lack of earnings growth as it retains very little earnings and what little it retains is reinvested at a very low rate of return. However, given the current analyst estimates, we noted that the company’s earnings growth rate is expected to see a huge improvement. Are these analyst expectations based on broader expectations for the industry or on company fundamentals? Click here to go to our analyst’s forecast page for the company.

Do you have any feedback about this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch directly with us. Alternatively, send an email to the editorial team (at) simplywallst.com.

This Simply Wall St article is of a general nature. We provide comments based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended as financial advice. It is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stock and does not take into account your goals or financial situation. Our goal is to offer you long-term focused analysis based on fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not take into account the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any of the stocks mentioned.

Join a paid user research session
You will receive one $30 Amazon Gift Card for 1 hour of your time while you help us create better investment tools for individual investors like you. Sign up here

An OPP investigation into an illegal cannabis distribution network in southwestern Ontario, with the help of the London Police Service, resulted in the seizure of over US$800,000 worth of illegal cannabis and cannabis-related products.

The investigation began in May after London Police submitted information to OPP and formed the Provincial Joint Forces Cannabis Enforcement Team (PJFCET).

On November 9, PJFCET executed three search warrants in the City of London and one in Woodstock.

Police seized approximately 110 kilograms of dried cannabis, five kilograms of cannabis resin, two kilograms of cannabis shatter, more than 4,500 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) vape pens, 170 vials of cannabis shatter, 280 THC bars and more than 5,000 THC gummies.

Nine hundred psilocybin gummies were also seized, along with 800 psilocybin bars, more than 1,000 pre-rolled cannabis cigarettes, 60 THC suckers, 55 milliliters of cannabis oil, 16 ounces of cocaine, more than 100 suspected oxycodone pills, more than 200 suspected Percocet pills and more than 150 suspected hydromorphone pills.

The estimated street value of the drugs seized is approximately $876,895, according to police.

In addition, officers seized more than $1 million in Canadian currency, two gold Rolex watches with an approximate value of $20,000 each, and three vehicles with an estimated combined value of more than $270,000 as crime-related property . A sawn-off shotgun with ammunition was also seized.

Five people, including four Londoners, have been charged with a total of 25 offences.

Kyle Catherwood, 28, Mariah King, 28, Keiryn Jacobs, 32, and David McNiven, 55, all from London, and Matthew Blumenstock, 31, from Woodstock, have been charged with a total of 25 offenses, including multiple possession of an illegal substance for the purpose of trade and theft.

They were released from custody upon arrest and are due to appear in court in January 2023.

Barclays: Government’s commitment to fiscal sustainability doubtful if measures are ‘loaded back’