“Intl Personal Finance FY10 Profit Up - RTT News” plus 1 more |
| Intl Personal Finance FY10 Profit Up - RTT News Posted: (RTTNews) - International Personal Finance plc (IPF.L: News ) Wednesday reported rise in profit for the year ended 31 December 2010. The company's adjusted pre-tax profit increased by 49.3% to GBP 92.1 million due to good growth, lower impairment and tight cost control. Profit after taxation attributable to equity shareholders grew to GBP 59.2 million from GBP 32.8 million last year. Earnings per share also rose to 23.09 pence from 12.70 pence year ago. Profit after taxation from continuing operations increased to GBP 59.2 million from GBP 45.6 million a year earlier. Adjusted profit after tax was GBP 62.3 million. Earnings per share from continuing operations were 23.09 pence versus earnings of 17.67 pence per share last year. Earnings per share - pre exceptional profit improved to 24.32 pence from 17.67 pence prior year. Profit before taxation from continuing operations amounted to GBP 88.2 million compared to GBP 61.7 million year ago. Adjusted profit before taxation totaled GBP 92.1 million. Revenue increased to GBP 608.7 million from GBP 550.2 million prior year. The directors are recommending a final dividend in respect of the financial year ended 31 December 2010 of 3.74 pence per share which will amount to a dividend payment of GBP 9.5 million. If approved by the shareholders at the annual general meeting, this dividend will be paid on 20 May 2011 to shareholders who are on the register of members at 15 April 2011. The company's Chief Executive Officer, John Harnett, commented, "I am pleased to report that IPF has delivered a record profit in 2010. This reflects a continued strong recovery from the global recession and accelerated growth in the final months of the year. In 2011 we expect positive economic conditions in our markets and so aim to grow customers and credit issued at higher levels than 2010 and, therefore, expect the Group will continue to make good progress."
by RTT Staff Writer For comments and feedback: contact editorial@rttnews.com This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php | ||||
| Personal finance Q&A: Best bet still to defer taking Social Security - NorthJersey.com Posted: Q: Recent newspaper articles have reported that the Social Security trust funds will run out in 2037. This date has moved closer each time it is reported. Yet many financial advisers tell potential retirees to postpone drawing down their Social Security benefits as long as possible because they will receive more that way. Assuming Congress is unable to "fix" the deficit, in what year would it make more sense for retirees to start taking Social Security benefits as opposed to delaying and risking not receiving as much (or any) benefits? I am 50, and my plans are based on anticipating not receiving any Social Security benefits, as I really don't think Washington (or our self-absorbed public) has the stomach to fix this or many other budget problems. We are leaving a disaster for our children and grandchildren. Shame on us — our Depression-era parents and grandparents sacrificed for us to have a better future. This made them the "Greatest Generation" in more ways than one, but it seems our generation is too full of entitlement issues. — J.W., Dallas We should all be grateful to the Greatest Generation for the sacrifices they made during World War II. But not all of our problems can be heaped on the baby boomers that followed. Remember, Social Security was passed in 1935. The first boomer hadn't even been born yet. Medicare was passed in 1966, about when the oldest boomer was going to vote for the first time. Boomers didn't write the legislation that got us into this mess; the Greatest Generation did. Most people — the majority — don't have much choice about the decision to take Social Security benefits. They take them at age 62 because they don't have other income sources, or their other income sources aren't enough to pay all the bills. If you have a choice about when you take benefits, it is likely that you are still employed. It certainly means that you have savings, a pension or both. If you were age 62 today, the best decision would be to defer taking benefits. You would do this simply because the savings you spend to defer benefits could not be better invested for maximum lifetime income, as I have written many times. So the question comes down to whether you should "take the money and run" by taking lower benefits now, or bet that higher benefits will arrive as promised in the future. Sadly, you should not take comfort in the idea that the Social Security Trust fund won't be exhausted until 2037. The trust fund is not a vault filled with coins used as a swimming pool by Scrooge McDuck. It is a bunch of IOUs from the U.S. Treasury. The Treasury, in turn, gets its cash from the taxes we pay or from the money it borrows. Social Security is now paying out more in benefits than it receives in employment taxes (and taxes on benefits being paid out). The 2010 report from the Trustees of Social Security shows program costs of $714.6 billion for 2010. Actual revenue for the year was only $673.2 billion. (Note: We are talking about actual cash here, so the interest income of the trust fund isn't being counted.) As a consequence, Social Security now has to go, hat in hand, to the Treasury for some of its needed cash. Social Security is at the head of the begging line, of course, but it will still be hat in hand. We can only hope that China, a nation with a per capita income that is a fraction of ours, will continue to be kind and lend us the money. We have become the Blanche DuBois Nation, dependent "on the kindness of strangers." Given that reality, it is doubtful that someone 50 today will have the choices currently available to those now on the cusp of retirement. Prudence suggests that most people should try to defer taking benefits until full retirement age or a year later, age 67 or 68. Some people jump to the conclusion that Social Security will not exist at all. They forget that it has significant revenue. It will exist because it must — but we can expect major pressure on promised future benefits. The really huge pressure, however, will be on Medicare. Scott Burns is a columnist for Universal Press Syndicate. His column appears on Mondays. Q: Recent newspaper articles have reported that the Social Security trust funds will run out in 2037. This date has moved closer each time it is reported. Yet many financial advisers tell potential retirees to postpone drawing down their Social Security benefits as long as possible because they will receive more that way. Assuming Congress is unable to "fix" the deficit, in what year would it make more sense for retirees to start taking Social Security benefits as opposed to delaying and risking not receiving as much (or any) benefits? I am 50, and my plans are based on anticipating not receiving any Social Security benefits, as I really don't think Washington (or our self-absorbed public) has the stomach to fix this or many other budget problems. We are leaving a disaster for our children and grandchildren. Shame on us — our Depression-era parents and grandparents sacrificed for us to have a better future. This made them the "Greatest Generation" in more ways than one, but it seems our generation is too full of entitlement issues. — J.W., Dallas
We should all be grateful to the Greatest Generation for the sacrifices they made during World War II. But not all of our problems can be heaped on the baby boomers that followed. Remember, Social Security was passed in 1935. The first boomer hadn't even been born yet. Medicare was passed in 1966, about when the oldest boomer was going to vote for the first time. Boomers didn't write the legislation that got us into this mess; the Greatest Generation did. Most people — the majority — don't have much choice about the decision to take Social Security benefits. They take them at age 62 because they don't have other income sources, or their other income sources aren't enough to pay all the bills. If you have a choice about when you take benefits, it is likely that you are still employed. It certainly means that you have savings, a pension or both. If you were age 62 today, the best decision would be to defer taking benefits. You would do this simply because the savings you spend to defer benefits could not be better invested for maximum lifetime income, as I have written many times. So the question comes down to whether you should "take the money and run" by taking lower benefits now, or bet that higher benefits will arrive as promised in the future. Sadly, you should not take comfort in the idea that the Social Security Trust fund won't be exhausted until 2037. The trust fund is not a vault filled with coins used as a swimming pool by Scrooge McDuck. It is a bunch of IOUs from the U.S. Treasury. The Treasury, in turn, gets its cash from the taxes we pay or from the money it borrows. Social Security is now paying out more in benefits than it receives in employment taxes (and taxes on benefits being paid out). The 2010 report from the Trustees of Social Security shows program costs of $714.6 billion for 2010. Actual revenue for the year was only $673.2 billion. (Note: We are talking about actual cash here, so the interest income of the trust fund isn't being counted.) As a consequence, Social Security now has to go, hat in hand, to the Treasury for some of its needed cash. Social Security is at the head of the begging line, of course, but it will still be hat in hand. We can only hope that China, a nation with a per capita income that is a fraction of ours, will continue to be kind and lend us the money. We have become the Blanche DuBois Nation, dependent "on the kindness of strangers." Given that reality, it is doubtful that someone 50 today will have the choices currently available to those now on the cusp of retirement. Prudence suggests that most people should try to defer taking benefits until full retirement age or a year later, age 67 or 68. Some people jump to the conclusion that Social Security will not exist at all. They forget that it has significant revenue. It will exist because it must — but we can expect major pressure on promised future benefits. The really huge pressure, however, will be on Medicare. Scott Burns is a columnist for Universal Press Syndicate. His column appears on Mondays. This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Personal-Finance - Bing News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 comments:
Post a Comment