African Export Import Bank (AEIB.mu) listed on the Stock Exchange of Mauritius under the Banking sector has released it’s 2021 interim results for the first quarter.For more information about African Export Import Bank reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations visit the African Export Import Bank company page on AfricanFinancials.African Export Import Bank Interim Results for the First Quarter DocumentCompany ProfileAfrican Export Import Bank is a financial institution that facilitates trade amongst African countries as well as trade between Africa and other continents. The bank provides investment banking and advisory services as well as project and export development programs in Mauritius and around the world with particular focus on the globalization of African trade. African Export Import Bank is listed on the Stock Exchange of Mauritius.
Click here to claim your copy now — and we’ll tell you the name of this Top US Share… free of charge! News that coronavirus vaccines have been developed has resulted in an incredible stock market rally. This month, the FTSE 100 index is up about 15%.If the vaccines are the ‘game-changers’ they’re said to be, share prices could keep rising. With that in mind, here are two FTSE 100 stocks I’d buy for a potential market recovery.5G is here – and shares of this ‘sleeping giant’ could be a great way for you to potentially profit!According to one leading industry firm, the 5G boom could create a global industry worth US$12.3 TRILLION out of thin air…And if you click here we’ll show you something that could be key to unlocking 5G’s full potential…Capitalise on the FTSE 100 recoveryOne FTSE 100 stock that strikes me as an excellent recovery play is alcoholic beverages company Diageo (LSE: DGE). It’s the owner of a wide range of well-known spirits brands such as Johnnie Walker, Tanqueray, and Smirnoff.Diageo has faced plenty of challenges this year due to the coronavirus. With pubs, bars, and restaurants across the world shut due to lockdowns, its ‘on-trade’ sales have taken a hit.The successful roll-out of a vaccine however, would improve the company’s outlook significantly. It’s worth noting that since news of the Pfizer vaccine broke, a number of brokers, including HSBC and Jefferies, have increased their price targets for Diageo substantially.I’ve been buying more Diageo shares for my own portfolio recently as I’ve seen the Covid-19-related share price weakness as a buying opportunity. My last purchase was around a month ago near £25. Since then, the stock has jumped about 18%. However, I still see value here. Currently, the stock remains about 17% below its 2019 highs. And the forward-looking P/E ratio of 23, while not cheap, isn’t excessive for a company with Diageo’s track record.All things considered, I think Diageo is a good stock to buy to capitalise on a potential FTSE 100 rebound.A stock market rally could push this stock higherAnother FTSE 100 stock that could benefit from a market rebound is St. James’s Place (LSE: STJ). It’s a wealth management company that, through a network of nearly 4,300 advisors across the UK, offers face-to-face financial advice to individuals and businesses. It earns much of its income from funds under management, meaning a stock market rally could push earnings higher.A recent trading update from St. James’s Place was quite encouraging. Not only did the group report funds under management of a record £118.7bn, up 1.5% year-to-date, but it also said funds under management retention rate for the year was a high 96.4%.On top of this, CEO Andrew Croft said the group is seeing an increasing demand for sound, highly-personal financial planning advice (a trend I’ve highlighted before). He also said the group remains “extremely well positioned to meet this opportunity” and to “drive further growth over time.”STJ is forecast to generate earnings of 48.3p per share next year, which puts the stock on a forward-looking P/E ratio of about 21.9. A prospective dividend yield of around 4% is on offer. I see these metrics as attractive.With the FTSE 100 stock still around 13% below its 2020 high, I’d buy today. I’m sure you’ll agree that’s quite the statement from Motley Fool Co-Founder Tom Gardner.But since our US analyst team first recommended shares in this unique tech stock back in 2016, the value has soared.What’s more, we firmly believe there’s still plenty of upside in its future. In fact, even throughout the current coronavirus crisis, its performance has been beating Wall St expectations.And right now, we’re giving you a chance to discover exactly what has got our analysts all fired up about this niche industry phenomenon, in our FREE special report, A Top US Share From The Motley Fool. Edward Sheldon, CFA | Thursday, 26th November, 2020 | More on: DGE STJ “This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997” Edward Sheldon owns shares in Diageo and St. James’s Place. The Motley Fool UK has recommended Diageo. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Renowned stock-picker Mark Rogers and his analyst team at The Motley Fool UK have named 6 shares that they believe UK investors should consider buying NOW.So if you’re looking for more stock ideas to try and best position your portfolio today, then it might be a good day for you. Because we’re offering a full 33% off your first year of membership to our flagship share-tipping service, backed by our ‘no quibbles’ 30-day subscription fee refund guarantee. I would like to receive emails from you about product information and offers from The Fool and its business partners. Each of these emails will provide a link to unsubscribe from future emails. More information about how The Fool collects, stores, and handles personal data is available in its Privacy Statement. Our 6 ‘Best Buys Now’ Shares Image source: Getty Images Simply click below to discover how you can take advantage of this. Stock market rally: 2 FTSE 100 shares I’d buy today Enter Your Email Address See all posts by Edward Sheldon, CFA
Is Rise in Forbearance Volume Cause for Concern? 2 days ago Print This Post The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago June 13, 2016 1,506 Views Home / Featured / JPMorgan’s RMBS Deal May Not Spur Demand for Similar Transactions JPMorgan Chase Residential Mortgage-backed securities 2016-06-13 Brian Honea Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago Sign up for DS News Daily Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago About Author: Aly J. Yale Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Related Articles in Featured, News Subscribe The Week Ahead: Nearing the Forbearance Exit 2 days ago JPMorgan’s RMBS Deal May Not Spur Demand for Similar Transactions Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago Aly J. Yale is a freelance writer and editor based in Fort Worth, Texas. She has worked for various newspapers, magazines, and publications across the nation, including The Dallas Morning News and Addison Magazine. She has also worked with both the Five Star Institute and REO Red Book, as well as various other mortgage industry clients on content strategy, blogging, marketing, and more. Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago Tagged with: JPMorgan Chase Residential Mortgage-backed securities Previous: Minnesota Courts Provide Troubling Clarification on Dual Tracking Laws Next: Deciding Where to Invest in the SFR Market Share Save JPMorgan Chase’s recent $1.9 billion residential mortgage-backed security (RMBS) transaction may not spur demand for similar transactions from other banks in the next few years for several reasons, according to a report from Moody’s Investors Service.According to the report, which was released this Thursday, not all banks will see the benefits or have the same costs as JPMorgan Chase when securitizing loan portfolios. Though deals like Chase’s could offer banks risk-weighted capital relief, the report says that banks will also consider the effect it will have on shareholder equity returns (ROE), as well as other unweighted leverage ratio capital requirements.In fact, the report says, with many of these deals, shareholder ROE could actually decline significantly. In a market where banks have seen ROE below the cost of capital since 2007, this will likely be a huge deterrent to similar RMBS purchases.Banks would need to return capital to the shareholders or choose to redeploy proceeds of the transactions into assets for those shareholders if they want to keep ROE steady. But even this, the report says, poses a problem.“Reinvesting released deal proceeds into assets yielding more than the non-retained securitization bonds could alter banks’ investment portfolios and risk profiles, something they might be unwilling, or unable, to do.”Though under the Basel III regulatory framework, banks may be able to use RMBS purchases to reduce risk weights and the burden of certain regulatory capital requirements, they also need to keep in mind the impact that securitization will have on other capital limitations. The Fed’s supplementary leverage ratio (SLR) constraints will be a big consideration.“The banks are already in excess of their 5 percent SLR requirement, with their most recently reported, fully phased-in ratios as follows: Bank of America (6.8 percent), JP Morgan (6.6 percent), and Wells Fargo (7.6 percent).”Another big concern for banks will be the weak secondary market, which has seen significant decreases in liquidity as of late, and high RMBS governance, which requires deal agents as well as compensation for those agents. According to the report, both of these issues will likely keep most major banks from following in JP Morgan Chase’s footsteps – at least for the short term.“Anecdotal evidence from investors indicates that a lack of secondary market liquidity is giving investors pause before they invest in subordinate tranches of RMBS securitizations. Investors have asked for yield premium to account for lower market liquidity, but determining how much that should be is likely to be challenging.”
Is Homeownership Living Up to Its Potential? Related Articles Sign up for DS News Daily July 9, 2018 1,444 Views Print This Post Tagged with: First American Homebuyers Homeowners Homeownership Homes HOUSING Millennials Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago Share Save The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago About Author: Krista Franks Brock First American Homebuyers Homeowners Homeownership Homes HOUSING Millennials 2018-07-09 Krista Franks Brock Previous: Fannie Weighs in on Homebuyer Sentiments Next: The Consumers vs. Home Prices in Daily Dose, Featured, Market Studies, News The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago Krista Franks Brock is a professional writer and editor who has covered the mortgage banking and default servicing sectors since 2011. Previously, she served as managing editor of DS News and Southern Distinction, a regional lifestyle publication. Her work has appeared in a variety of print and online publications, including Consumers Digest, Dallas Style and Design, DS News and DSNews.com, MReport and theMReport.com. She holds degrees in journalism and art from the University of Georgia. Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago The Week Ahead: Nearing the Forbearance Exit 2 days ago The homeownership rate is not living up to its full potential, or so says the First American Homeownership Progress Index, released on Monday. Demand for owning a home grew one percent over the year in 2017, according to the index. However, “the actual homeownership rate underperformed potential demand by almost 9 percent,” said Mark Fleming, Chief Economist at First American.To examine the cause of this mismatch, First American reviewed “critical lifestyle, societal and economic trends that influence the likelihood of renting or owning a home,” Fleming explained. The current gap in potential demand versus actual demand can largely be attributed to lifestyle trends among young Americans. The millennial generation is pursuing higher education in larger numbers than previous generations and is delaying getting married and having children. All of these factors impact a person’s likelihood of owning a home, according to the report. “Homeownership is strongly correlated with marriage, and millennials are getting married later than earlier generations,” Fleming said. In fact, the rate is 30 percent higher among married couples than other types of households. Fleming pointed out that the median age for men and women entering a first marriage was about seven years more in 2016 than in 1960. Similarly, the rate is higher among households with children, although the difference is not as drastic. The homeownership rate is 5.4 percent higher for households with two children than for households with no children. It jumps another percentage higher for households with three or more children. However, millennials are doing something that correlates strongly with owning a home, and that’s pursuing education. “While important lifestyle decisions, such as marriage or owning a home, appear to take place later in life for millennials, they are getting educated in unprecedented numbers,” Fleming said. “As educational attainment levels increase, we can expect homeownership rates to eventually grow as well.” Not only is there a correlation between education and homeownership, but it has grown over time. “The impact of education in relation to homeownership has nearly doubled in 10 years,” Fleming said. The difference in homeownership rate between those with a college degree and those with no high school diploma was 11 percent in 1997. In 2017, the difference was 20.5 percent. Fleming suggested, “it is reasonable to expect homeownership rates to grow as millennials continue to make important decisions, including attaining an education and, later in life, getting married and buying a home.”“However,” he added, “the question remains: as millions of millennials look to purchase their first homes, will the housing market provide enough homes for them?” First American pointed out the states with the most growth in potential homeownership demand in 2017 were Indiana (2.6 percent), Oklahoma (2.4 percent), Georgia (2.4 percent), South Carolina (2.2 percent), and Arizona (1.9 percent). A few states experienced declines in potential homeownership demand in 2017, including Nebraska (-1.3 percent), Alaska (-0.8 percent), and Minnesota (-0.11 percent). Home / Daily Dose / Is Homeownership Living Up to Its Potential? Subscribe
News UpdatesPlea In NGT For Cancellation Of License Of Reliance Owned Sasan Ultra Mega Power Project, For Dumping Fly Ash In Rihand Reservoir [Read Petition] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK23 Jun 2020 10:18 PMShare This – xSupreme Court Advocate Ashwani Kumar Dubey has moved the NGT seeking cancellation of license of Reliance owned Sasan Ultra Mega Power Project, for deliberately throwing industrial garbage in the Rihand Reservoir, the only source of drinking water for people living in MP’s Singrauli and UP’s Sonebhadra districts. The Petitioner had earlier approached the Tribunal seeking implementation…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginSupreme Court Advocate Ashwani Kumar Dubey has moved the NGT seeking cancellation of license of Reliance owned Sasan Ultra Mega Power Project, for deliberately throwing industrial garbage in the Rihand Reservoir, the only source of drinking water for people living in MP’s Singrauli and UP’s Sonebhadra districts. The Petitioner had earlier approached the Tribunal seeking implementation of an action plan to resurrect the environmental quality of the area. Thereby, the Tribunal had constituted a High Power Committee, with a direction to submit periodical reports on the subject, every three months. In the present petition it is submitted that in absolute derogation of this order, industries such as the Respondent, continue to dump fly ash, bottom ash, toxic residue and other industrial/ solid waste in the Reservoir, consequently damaging the health and life of people living in the vicinity. The plea has been filed in wake of a recent incident dated April 10, 2020, whereby the Reservoir was contaminated, ensuing a breach in the Fly Ash Dyke of the Respondent plant, allegedly due to sheer “negligence”. “That due to the aforesaid breach of fly ash dyke of Sasan Ultra Mega Power Plant (Respondent No.1), fly ash destroyed then agricultural land and took lives of 6 innocent villagers (including 3 minor children) and many cattle swept away with the ash slurry in the “Rihand Reservior”. That due to the collapse of fly ash dyke on 10.04.2020, there has been huge loss to the environment and millions of metric tons of fly ash stored in the dyke have been deposited in the Rihand Reservoir through the “Nalla’/Drain. The damage has been caused to the environment in various contexts vis-a-vis ground water damage; damage to standing crops and the agricultural land have become unfertile,” the plea states. Significantly, this is the third incident of a fly ash breach in the past one year, including the Essar Mega Power Plant breach and the NTPC Vindhyachal Super Thermal Power Station leak. It is submitted that the breach has led to excessive flouride concentration in the water, causing tumors, health hazardous such as dental and skeletal fluorosis, and impact on blood, hair, nails, and other body parts of the nearby residents. In this backdrop, the Petitioner has sought forthwith removal of all industrial waste from the water bodies, villages, drinking wells, agricultural fields and from the Rihand Reservior, in addition to cancellation of license of the Sasan Ultra Mega Power Project. The Petitioner has urged the Tribunal to invoke the “Polluter Pays Principle” and direct the Respondent to install a Reverse Osmosis (RC) plant of reasonable capacity on the reservoir, for providing safe drinking water in the area. Further, it is prayed that the Respondent be directed to pay adequate environmental damages for causing pollution in the Singrauli region and to restore the environment and pay compensation/ damages to the affected persons. Inter alia, the Petitioner seeks a direction on the MOEF and other relevant authorities to formulate requisite guidelines, to secure proper checks and balance with respect to disposal of industrial wastes by the Industries running in that area. The plea has been filed through Advocates Pankaj Sharma, Manish Kumar and Priyanka Toppo. Click Here To Download Petition Read Petition Next Story
Top StoriesPleas Of Title And Adverse Possession Cannot Be Advanced Simultaneously And From The Same Date: SC [Read Judgment] Ashok Kini26 Aug 2020 11:38 PMShare This – xThe Supreme Court has observed that plea of title and adverse possession cannot be advanced simultaneously and from the same date.In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit claiming that he is the full and absolute owner of the schedule property and also sought a direction to remove the temporary structure put up by the defendant on the schedule property. The defendant claimed that the…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Supreme Court has observed that plea of title and adverse possession cannot be advanced simultaneously and from the same date.In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit claiming that he is the full and absolute owner of the schedule property and also sought a direction to remove the temporary structure put up by the defendant on the schedule property. The defendant claimed that the said property was sold by plaintiff’s brother to his wife and made her the absolute owner. The sale deed was, however, not registered as there was a prohibition on registration of piece lands.The defendant also claimed that his wife has also got the prescriptive right of ownership over the said site property by way of adverse possession. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. Later, the High Court reversed it and decreed the suit on the ground that the original defendant had not been able to establish the plea of adverse possession.Agreeing with the High Court view the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ajay Rastogi and Aniruddha Bose observed that the claim of title from 1976 and the plea of adverse possession from 1976 cannot simultaneously hold. On the failure to establish the plea of title, it was necessary to prove as to from which date did the possession of the wife of the defendant amount to a hostile possession in a peaceful, open and continuous manner. “We fail to appreciate how, on the one hand the appellants claimed that the wife of the original defendant, appellant 1 herein, had title to the property in 1976 but on their failure to establish title, in the alternative, the plea of adverse possession should be recognised from the very date.”The bench said that the issue in this case is whether simultaneously a plea can be taken of title and adverse possession, i.e.,whether it would amount to taking contradictory pleas? To answer this issue, the bench referred to the following judgments : 1) Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India (2004) 10 SCC 779 (2) Mohan Lal (Deceased) Thr. LRs. v. Mirza Abdul Gaffar 1996 SCC (1) 639 (3) P.T. Munichikkamma Reddy & Ors. v. Revamma (2007) 6 SCC 59 (4) M. Siddiq (Dead) Through LRs (Ram Janmabhumi Temple Case) v. Mahant Suresh Das& Ors. (2020) 1 SCC 1 (5) Ram Nagina Rai & Anr. v. Deo Kumar Rai (Deceased) by LRs (2019) 13 SCC 324. The court noted that in these judgments, it is held that 1) The pleas on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the former is renounced 2) In order to establish adverse possession an inquiry is required to be made into the starting point of such adverse possession and, thus, when the recorded owner got dispossessed would be crucial. (3) It has to be specifically pleaded and proved as to when possession becomes adverse in order for the real owner to lose title 12 years hence from that time. The court observed: The possession has to be in public and to the knowledge of the true owner as adverse, and this is necessary as a plea of adverse possession seeks to defeat the rights of the true owner. Thus, the law would not be readily accepting of such a case unless a clear and cogent basis has been made out…….In the facts of the present case, this fact has not at all been proved. The possession of Smt. Narasamma, the wife of the defendant, is stated. to be on account of consideration paid. Assuming that the transaction did not fructify into a sale deed for whatever reason, still the date when such possession becomes adverse would have to be set out. Thus, the plea of adverse possession is lacking in all material particulars…..The legal position, thus, stands as evolved against the appellants herein in advancing a plea of title and adverse possession simultaneously and from the same date.”The bench also rejected the contention of the defendant relying on Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. v. Manjit Kaur. It observed:The question which arose for consideration before the three Judge Bench was whether, a suit could be maintained for declaration of title and for permanent injunction seeking protection on a plea of adverse possession, or that it was an instrument of defence in a suit filed against such a person. In fact, if one may say, there was, for a long time a consistent view of the Court that the plea could only be of shield and not a sword. The judgment changed this legal position by opining that a plea to retain (supra) possession could be managed by the ripening of title by way of adverse possession. However, to constitute such adverse possession, the three classic requirements, which need to co-exist were again emphasized, nec vi, i.e., adequate in continuity, nec clam, i.e., adequate in publicity and nec precario, i.e., adverse to a competitor, in denial of title and his knowledge.Case detailsCase no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.2710 OF 2010 Case name: NARASAMMA vs. A. KRISHNAPPA (Dead)Coram: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ajay Rastogi and Aniruddha BoseClick here to Read/Download JudgmentRead JudgmentNext Story