2026 Q1 -tulosraportti
Vain PDF
65 päivää sitten
11,00 DKK/osake
Viimeisin osinko
2,68%Tuotto/v
Tarjoustasot
Ei dataa
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | - | - |
Huomioi, että vaikka osakkeisiin säästäminen on pitkällä aikavälillä tuottanut hyvin, tulevasta tuotosta ei ole takeita. On olemassa riski, että et saa sijoittamiasi varoja takaisin.
Välittäjätilasto
Dataa ei löytynyt
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: FactSet, Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti 13.8. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2026 Q1 -tulosraportti 7.5. | ||
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 6.2. | ||
2025 Q3 -tulosraportti 4.11.2025 | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 14.8.2025 | ||
2025 Q1 -tulosraportti 1.5.2025 |
Asiakkaat katsoivat myös
Foorumi
Liity keskusteluun Nordnet Socialissa
Kirjaudu
·16 t sitten2026 has so far been a quiet year compared to the consolidation that has been a natural part of the Danish banking market since the financial crisis 18 years ago. The number of banks – listed and unlisted – has steadily decreased. And there is a consensus that the trend will continue – even among the directors. It's just that no one sees themselves as the leader of the bank being acquired. Obviously, the likelihood of further consolidations is greatest in times of crisis, as a merger can become an urgent necessity. Despite geopolitical unrest, Danish banks are in calm waters, although I personally can be nervous about the smallest banks' inability to create better results in the current economic environment where no significant losses are realized. I would therefore be surprised (read: disappointed) if no considerations are being made in the executive and board rooms about what should happen if a larger bank comes calling. We know that some of the small banks have historically defended their independence through voting restrictions, i.e., a defensive tactic where the indirect intention is to make the bank as unattractive as possible to suitors. The disadvantage of this tactic was highlighted in connection with the saga of Nordfyns Bank, where it was established that the voting restrictions were not applicable in termination situations. We know the voting restrictions from, for example, Lollands Bank and Møns Bank. And it has worked – so far. However, it is my assessment that a more positive and offensive approach would be more obvious in keeping suitors at bay: Why not instead focus on increasing the price of an acquisition so much that no one would genuinely make advances? It is well-known – especially in non-crisis times – that a premium must be paid to convince current shareholders of a merger. If I were the CEO of one of the smaller banks, where my most distinguished task was to ensure the continued independence of the bank, I would think that the current share price should go so high that the premium (additional price) would become too high for acquiring banks to pay. I.e., a diametrically opposite direction than voting restrictions, which, all else being equal, lead to a lower share price. So, in addition to the very obvious task of ensuring the bank is run soundly financially, I would make sure to look in the toolbox for shareholder-friendly initiatives. There are actually a couple that are so obvious it almost screams to high heaven. So obvious, in fact, that even banks not "at risk" of acquisition should use them if they care about their shareholders' interests. First, the least effective: It is obvious to ensure the highest possible liquidity in the stock, so both small and large shareholders can get in and out. I myself am a shareholder in Berkshire Hathaway (primarily just to honor a great idol) and yes, there can certainly be a snob effect in a high share price. But I don't think that's a factor for a shareholder in Kreditbanken. So why not arrange a stock split when the price at the time of writing is 8.800 kr.? In my view, Kreditbanken is in every way a very, very soundly managed bank – but why not pick the low-hanging fruit on behalf of the shareholders? I hold shares in the bank worth approx. 2,5 mio. kr. But just as long as it took to get in, it will take just as long to get out if one doesn't want to shake the price. This leads me to the tool that more and more have chosen to use in recent years: Share buybacks. I admit the counter-intuitive nature that a reduction in the number of shares would make it harder for a competing bank with good or bad intentions to take over power, but the decisive factor for the acquiring bank is not the number of shares or the price – it is the product of these, i.e., the total value of the bank. So if buybacks lead to a higher total value of the bank via a higher share price, it will not only be shareholder-friendly but also leave the acquiring bank less room to offer a reasonable "premium". A large part of my investments are in banks that currently use share buybacks. I can see in my data how significant an impact it has on the share price. Therefore, the initiation of a large share buyback program is the very best buy signal. Therefore: @ Kreditbanken: You will be able to deliver a stock split and a buyback program when the annual report for 2026 is submitted (you are actually the only one on Bankdata not currently doing so) @ Jyske Bank: A stock split is also approaching for you. I think, however, that you, better than most, have understood the value of share buybacks – thank you for that. @ SJF Bank: Good to see you getting started with the share buyback. The question is, isn't there room for a larger program next year? @ Møns Bank and Lollands Bank: Voting restrictions alone will not be enough the day the economic cycle turns @ My fellow investors: Enjoy the summer
I also think there are still some cost percentages around that could be trimmed a bit - that would mean a lot.- ·6.7.Price 400 - so there are only 100 price points up to a reasonably fair value...
They need to get the share price up to maintain independence. Otherwise, they will be acquired. So yes - 500 should be the minimum we need to reach for DKs best-run bank. RIBA though perhaps even a notch better? - ·3.7.Interesting upward adjustment from Kreditbanken yesterday. The justification is: "Higher interest rate level than expected, higher fee income and value adjustments slightly above the expected". With a stated estimate of 95 mio. kr. for the half-year, it doesn't take much research to figure out that the 2nd quarter will yield a profit before tax of 53 mio. kr. compared to 42 mio. kr. in the first quarter. So, this represents a significant improvement. Is the upward adjustment indicative for the entire sector? I think so. The upward adjustment is justified by factors that should apply to the entire sector. Therefore, I could also well imagine that more upward adjustments are on the way – perhaps first with the publication of the half-year reports. If I were to make a guess, I personally believe it will most likely come from SJF Bank, Skjern Bank and Djurslands Bank. Without going into long explanations, the upward adjustment does not change my Top 3 Danish banks at current prices: 1. SJF Bank (yes, despite the increases over recent weeks, it is far, far too cheap) 2. Kreditbanken 3. Jyske Bank And now for the nerdy bit: There's just something essentially beautiful about announcing an estimate for the half-year result a little over a day after the books were closed. It testifies to a bank and management that have control over the business.
And completely agree….the numbers count If we set a price of kr. 400 per Share…. Current quarterly profit is assumed along with the same amount of outstanding shares despite the fact that share buybacks of 125 million are currently taking place until February 2026. Yes, then the P/E will be 8.8…. That is cheap - a true cash cow…. I will refrain from estimating the share price, but you are welcome to contribute - there is plenty of room for speculation without being judged a fantasist. 
·18.6.Share buyback - 125 million DKK! Thanks for that!- ·30.5.Dear bank investor – I need your help. Like most other investors, I delude myself into believing that I too have a special ability to identify the next stock winner. In more humble moments, I content myself with believing that the algorithms in my database can give me a small advantage in assessing which banks will perform relatively best. I have back-tested the algorithms to assess whether the ratings they gave at a given time could actually say something about future price development – both 12, 24 and 36 months into the future. The conclusions on this are that I will continue to blindly follow the recommendations. My process is as follows: 1. Are bank stocks generally fairly valued? 2. How are the banks relatively valued based on the variables that I attribute value to? (this is the question that the algorithms answer) Re 1) The general price increase among bank stocks in recent years can, in my assessment, be explained by a completely natural (and very delayed) price adjustment following the financial crisis, where the banks (all of them) have received a significant increase in credit quality, while the capital structure is completely different and solid. Re 2) The valuation of the banks is similarly harmonized, which is a completely natural consequence in a situation where banks aim for the same capital targets and are regularly visited by the financial supervisory authority. I can also see this from my algorithms, which increasingly confirm that price targets now generally only lie around or slightly above current levels. But here arises my "problem": Neither I nor my algorithm understands the valuation of SJF Bank. Without revealing all the variables behind the algorithms, they not surprisingly contain both P/E, K/I, growth in deposits, loans and core earnings, geographical location, transparency about strategy, tradability of shares, restriction of voting rights, etc. The decisive factor is the weighting of the variables – including also the weighting of the latest quarterly results. It is difficult in this forum to discuss all the points without it becoming too long-winded and extensive, but a single illustration: If one very simply looks at the banks' results for Q1 and extrapolates it to be indicative of the next three results, then all banks (with a single exception) have a P/E of over 10. In this, I have corrected for the fact that Grønlandsbanken has a tax advantage in Q1, as the dividend payment is tax-deductible. The price adjustments have generally been negative (or less positive than normal) due to the stock market and the Iran war. SJF has, at the current price of 348, a quarterly profit of 184,507,000 kr., and 16,228,950 outstanding shares, a P/E of 7.65. Price/book value of 1.2 also seems quite reasonable. In relation to the continued consolidation in the industry – which everyone agrees on (incl. bank directors) – SJF Bank must simultaneously be the most obvious candidate. Both in terms of acquiring smaller banks – but also in terms of being acquired itself. Geographically, it is gradually located in a growth area, just like Jyske Bank, Ringkjøbing Landbobank and AL Sydbank, once they have caught their breath after the recently completed merger, will be able to expand without geographically cannibalizing current customers. Did I mention that these three banks are on the same platform. I am aware that, like most others, I suffer from "confirmation bias" when I argue. But the algorithms should, after all, be free from this. Long story short: Would you please help answer the question of why SJF Bank is not a good buy? For the record: Jyske Bank and Kreditbanken also stand out positively – though not as extremely as SJF Bank.
SJF is cheap based on key figures, agreed I have also bought more But after having followed them for many years, I doubt that their Customer and credit quality is on par with the best banks We will, however, only see that during the next banking crisis
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Nordnet Socialin käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Uutiset
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
2026 Q1 -tulosraportti
Vain PDF
65 päivää sitten
11,00 DKK/osake
Viimeisin osinko
2,68%Tuotto/v
Uutiset
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
Foorumi
Liity keskusteluun Nordnet Socialissa
Kirjaudu
- ·16 t sitten2026 has so far been a quiet year compared to the consolidation that has been a natural part of the Danish banking market since the financial crisis 18 years ago. The number of banks – listed and unlisted – has steadily decreased. And there is a consensus that the trend will continue – even among the directors. It's just that no one sees themselves as the leader of the bank being acquired. Obviously, the likelihood of further consolidations is greatest in times of crisis, as a merger can become an urgent necessity. Despite geopolitical unrest, Danish banks are in calm waters, although I personally can be nervous about the smallest banks' inability to create better results in the current economic environment where no significant losses are realized. I would therefore be surprised (read: disappointed) if no considerations are being made in the executive and board rooms about what should happen if a larger bank comes calling. We know that some of the small banks have historically defended their independence through voting restrictions, i.e., a defensive tactic where the indirect intention is to make the bank as unattractive as possible to suitors. The disadvantage of this tactic was highlighted in connection with the saga of Nordfyns Bank, where it was established that the voting restrictions were not applicable in termination situations. We know the voting restrictions from, for example, Lollands Bank and Møns Bank. And it has worked – so far. However, it is my assessment that a more positive and offensive approach would be more obvious in keeping suitors at bay: Why not instead focus on increasing the price of an acquisition so much that no one would genuinely make advances? It is well-known – especially in non-crisis times – that a premium must be paid to convince current shareholders of a merger. If I were the CEO of one of the smaller banks, where my most distinguished task was to ensure the continued independence of the bank, I would think that the current share price should go so high that the premium (additional price) would become too high for acquiring banks to pay. I.e., a diametrically opposite direction than voting restrictions, which, all else being equal, lead to a lower share price. So, in addition to the very obvious task of ensuring the bank is run soundly financially, I would make sure to look in the toolbox for shareholder-friendly initiatives. There are actually a couple that are so obvious it almost screams to high heaven. So obvious, in fact, that even banks not "at risk" of acquisition should use them if they care about their shareholders' interests. First, the least effective: It is obvious to ensure the highest possible liquidity in the stock, so both small and large shareholders can get in and out. I myself am a shareholder in Berkshire Hathaway (primarily just to honor a great idol) and yes, there can certainly be a snob effect in a high share price. But I don't think that's a factor for a shareholder in Kreditbanken. So why not arrange a stock split when the price at the time of writing is 8.800 kr.? In my view, Kreditbanken is in every way a very, very soundly managed bank – but why not pick the low-hanging fruit on behalf of the shareholders? I hold shares in the bank worth approx. 2,5 mio. kr. But just as long as it took to get in, it will take just as long to get out if one doesn't want to shake the price. This leads me to the tool that more and more have chosen to use in recent years: Share buybacks. I admit the counter-intuitive nature that a reduction in the number of shares would make it harder for a competing bank with good or bad intentions to take over power, but the decisive factor for the acquiring bank is not the number of shares or the price – it is the product of these, i.e., the total value of the bank. So if buybacks lead to a higher total value of the bank via a higher share price, it will not only be shareholder-friendly but also leave the acquiring bank less room to offer a reasonable "premium". A large part of my investments are in banks that currently use share buybacks. I can see in my data how significant an impact it has on the share price. Therefore, the initiation of a large share buyback program is the very best buy signal. Therefore: @ Kreditbanken: You will be able to deliver a stock split and a buyback program when the annual report for 2026 is submitted (you are actually the only one on Bankdata not currently doing so) @ Jyske Bank: A stock split is also approaching for you. I think, however, that you, better than most, have understood the value of share buybacks – thank you for that. @ SJF Bank: Good to see you getting started with the share buyback. The question is, isn't there room for a larger program next year? @ Møns Bank and Lollands Bank: Voting restrictions alone will not be enough the day the economic cycle turns @ My fellow investors: Enjoy the summerI also think there are still some cost percentages around that could be trimmed a bit - that would mean a lot.
- ·6.7.Price 400 - so there are only 100 price points up to a reasonably fair value...They need to get the share price up to maintain independence. Otherwise, they will be acquired. So yes - 500 should be the minimum we need to reach for DKs best-run bank. RIBA though perhaps even a notch better?
- ·3.7.Interesting upward adjustment from Kreditbanken yesterday. The justification is: "Higher interest rate level than expected, higher fee income and value adjustments slightly above the expected". With a stated estimate of 95 mio. kr. for the half-year, it doesn't take much research to figure out that the 2nd quarter will yield a profit before tax of 53 mio. kr. compared to 42 mio. kr. in the first quarter. So, this represents a significant improvement. Is the upward adjustment indicative for the entire sector? I think so. The upward adjustment is justified by factors that should apply to the entire sector. Therefore, I could also well imagine that more upward adjustments are on the way – perhaps first with the publication of the half-year reports. If I were to make a guess, I personally believe it will most likely come from SJF Bank, Skjern Bank and Djurslands Bank. Without going into long explanations, the upward adjustment does not change my Top 3 Danish banks at current prices: 1. SJF Bank (yes, despite the increases over recent weeks, it is far, far too cheap) 2. Kreditbanken 3. Jyske Bank And now for the nerdy bit: There's just something essentially beautiful about announcing an estimate for the half-year result a little over a day after the books were closed. It testifies to a bank and management that have control over the business.And completely agree….the numbers count If we set a price of kr. 400 per Share…. Current quarterly profit is assumed along with the same amount of outstanding shares despite the fact that share buybacks of 125 million are currently taking place until February 2026. Yes, then the P/E will be 8.8…. That is cheap - a true cash cow…. I will refrain from estimating the share price, but you are welcome to contribute - there is plenty of room for speculation without being judged a fantasist.
- ·18.6.Share buyback - 125 million DKK! Thanks for that!
- ·30.5.Dear bank investor – I need your help. Like most other investors, I delude myself into believing that I too have a special ability to identify the next stock winner. In more humble moments, I content myself with believing that the algorithms in my database can give me a small advantage in assessing which banks will perform relatively best. I have back-tested the algorithms to assess whether the ratings they gave at a given time could actually say something about future price development – both 12, 24 and 36 months into the future. The conclusions on this are that I will continue to blindly follow the recommendations. My process is as follows: 1. Are bank stocks generally fairly valued? 2. How are the banks relatively valued based on the variables that I attribute value to? (this is the question that the algorithms answer) Re 1) The general price increase among bank stocks in recent years can, in my assessment, be explained by a completely natural (and very delayed) price adjustment following the financial crisis, where the banks (all of them) have received a significant increase in credit quality, while the capital structure is completely different and solid. Re 2) The valuation of the banks is similarly harmonized, which is a completely natural consequence in a situation where banks aim for the same capital targets and are regularly visited by the financial supervisory authority. I can also see this from my algorithms, which increasingly confirm that price targets now generally only lie around or slightly above current levels. But here arises my "problem": Neither I nor my algorithm understands the valuation of SJF Bank. Without revealing all the variables behind the algorithms, they not surprisingly contain both P/E, K/I, growth in deposits, loans and core earnings, geographical location, transparency about strategy, tradability of shares, restriction of voting rights, etc. The decisive factor is the weighting of the variables – including also the weighting of the latest quarterly results. It is difficult in this forum to discuss all the points without it becoming too long-winded and extensive, but a single illustration: If one very simply looks at the banks' results for Q1 and extrapolates it to be indicative of the next three results, then all banks (with a single exception) have a P/E of over 10. In this, I have corrected for the fact that Grønlandsbanken has a tax advantage in Q1, as the dividend payment is tax-deductible. The price adjustments have generally been negative (or less positive than normal) due to the stock market and the Iran war. SJF has, at the current price of 348, a quarterly profit of 184,507,000 kr., and 16,228,950 outstanding shares, a P/E of 7.65. Price/book value of 1.2 also seems quite reasonable. In relation to the continued consolidation in the industry – which everyone agrees on (incl. bank directors) – SJF Bank must simultaneously be the most obvious candidate. Both in terms of acquiring smaller banks – but also in terms of being acquired itself. Geographically, it is gradually located in a growth area, just like Jyske Bank, Ringkjøbing Landbobank and AL Sydbank, once they have caught their breath after the recently completed merger, will be able to expand without geographically cannibalizing current customers. Did I mention that these three banks are on the same platform. I am aware that, like most others, I suffer from "confirmation bias" when I argue. But the algorithms should, after all, be free from this. Long story short: Would you please help answer the question of why SJF Bank is not a good buy? For the record: Jyske Bank and Kreditbanken also stand out positively – though not as extremely as SJF Bank.SJF is cheap based on key figures, agreed I have also bought more But after having followed them for many years, I doubt that their Customer and credit quality is on par with the best banks We will, however, only see that during the next banking crisis
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Nordnet Socialin käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Tarjoustasot
Ei dataa
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | - | - |
Huomioi, että vaikka osakkeisiin säästäminen on pitkällä aikavälillä tuottanut hyvin, tulevasta tuotosta ei ole takeita. On olemassa riski, että et saa sijoittamiasi varoja takaisin.
Välittäjätilasto
Dataa ei löytynyt
Asiakkaat katsoivat myös
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: FactSet, Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti 13.8. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2026 Q1 -tulosraportti 7.5. | ||
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 6.2. | ||
2025 Q3 -tulosraportti 4.11.2025 | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 14.8.2025 | ||
2025 Q1 -tulosraportti 1.5.2025 |
2026 Q1 -tulosraportti
Vain PDF
65 päivää sitten
Uutiset
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: FactSet, Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti 13.8. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2026 Q1 -tulosraportti 7.5. | ||
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 6.2. | ||
2025 Q3 -tulosraportti 4.11.2025 | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 14.8.2025 | ||
2025 Q1 -tulosraportti 1.5.2025 |
11,00 DKK/osake
Viimeisin osinko
2,68%Tuotto/v
Foorumi
Liity keskusteluun Nordnet Socialissa
Kirjaudu
- ·16 t sitten2026 has so far been a quiet year compared to the consolidation that has been a natural part of the Danish banking market since the financial crisis 18 years ago. The number of banks – listed and unlisted – has steadily decreased. And there is a consensus that the trend will continue – even among the directors. It's just that no one sees themselves as the leader of the bank being acquired. Obviously, the likelihood of further consolidations is greatest in times of crisis, as a merger can become an urgent necessity. Despite geopolitical unrest, Danish banks are in calm waters, although I personally can be nervous about the smallest banks' inability to create better results in the current economic environment where no significant losses are realized. I would therefore be surprised (read: disappointed) if no considerations are being made in the executive and board rooms about what should happen if a larger bank comes calling. We know that some of the small banks have historically defended their independence through voting restrictions, i.e., a defensive tactic where the indirect intention is to make the bank as unattractive as possible to suitors. The disadvantage of this tactic was highlighted in connection with the saga of Nordfyns Bank, where it was established that the voting restrictions were not applicable in termination situations. We know the voting restrictions from, for example, Lollands Bank and Møns Bank. And it has worked – so far. However, it is my assessment that a more positive and offensive approach would be more obvious in keeping suitors at bay: Why not instead focus on increasing the price of an acquisition so much that no one would genuinely make advances? It is well-known – especially in non-crisis times – that a premium must be paid to convince current shareholders of a merger. If I were the CEO of one of the smaller banks, where my most distinguished task was to ensure the continued independence of the bank, I would think that the current share price should go so high that the premium (additional price) would become too high for acquiring banks to pay. I.e., a diametrically opposite direction than voting restrictions, which, all else being equal, lead to a lower share price. So, in addition to the very obvious task of ensuring the bank is run soundly financially, I would make sure to look in the toolbox for shareholder-friendly initiatives. There are actually a couple that are so obvious it almost screams to high heaven. So obvious, in fact, that even banks not "at risk" of acquisition should use them if they care about their shareholders' interests. First, the least effective: It is obvious to ensure the highest possible liquidity in the stock, so both small and large shareholders can get in and out. I myself am a shareholder in Berkshire Hathaway (primarily just to honor a great idol) and yes, there can certainly be a snob effect in a high share price. But I don't think that's a factor for a shareholder in Kreditbanken. So why not arrange a stock split when the price at the time of writing is 8.800 kr.? In my view, Kreditbanken is in every way a very, very soundly managed bank – but why not pick the low-hanging fruit on behalf of the shareholders? I hold shares in the bank worth approx. 2,5 mio. kr. But just as long as it took to get in, it will take just as long to get out if one doesn't want to shake the price. This leads me to the tool that more and more have chosen to use in recent years: Share buybacks. I admit the counter-intuitive nature that a reduction in the number of shares would make it harder for a competing bank with good or bad intentions to take over power, but the decisive factor for the acquiring bank is not the number of shares or the price – it is the product of these, i.e., the total value of the bank. So if buybacks lead to a higher total value of the bank via a higher share price, it will not only be shareholder-friendly but also leave the acquiring bank less room to offer a reasonable "premium". A large part of my investments are in banks that currently use share buybacks. I can see in my data how significant an impact it has on the share price. Therefore, the initiation of a large share buyback program is the very best buy signal. Therefore: @ Kreditbanken: You will be able to deliver a stock split and a buyback program when the annual report for 2026 is submitted (you are actually the only one on Bankdata not currently doing so) @ Jyske Bank: A stock split is also approaching for you. I think, however, that you, better than most, have understood the value of share buybacks – thank you for that. @ SJF Bank: Good to see you getting started with the share buyback. The question is, isn't there room for a larger program next year? @ Møns Bank and Lollands Bank: Voting restrictions alone will not be enough the day the economic cycle turns @ My fellow investors: Enjoy the summerI also think there are still some cost percentages around that could be trimmed a bit - that would mean a lot.
- ·6.7.Price 400 - so there are only 100 price points up to a reasonably fair value...They need to get the share price up to maintain independence. Otherwise, they will be acquired. So yes - 500 should be the minimum we need to reach for DKs best-run bank. RIBA though perhaps even a notch better?
- ·3.7.Interesting upward adjustment from Kreditbanken yesterday. The justification is: "Higher interest rate level than expected, higher fee income and value adjustments slightly above the expected". With a stated estimate of 95 mio. kr. for the half-year, it doesn't take much research to figure out that the 2nd quarter will yield a profit before tax of 53 mio. kr. compared to 42 mio. kr. in the first quarter. So, this represents a significant improvement. Is the upward adjustment indicative for the entire sector? I think so. The upward adjustment is justified by factors that should apply to the entire sector. Therefore, I could also well imagine that more upward adjustments are on the way – perhaps first with the publication of the half-year reports. If I were to make a guess, I personally believe it will most likely come from SJF Bank, Skjern Bank and Djurslands Bank. Without going into long explanations, the upward adjustment does not change my Top 3 Danish banks at current prices: 1. SJF Bank (yes, despite the increases over recent weeks, it is far, far too cheap) 2. Kreditbanken 3. Jyske Bank And now for the nerdy bit: There's just something essentially beautiful about announcing an estimate for the half-year result a little over a day after the books were closed. It testifies to a bank and management that have control over the business.And completely agree….the numbers count If we set a price of kr. 400 per Share…. Current quarterly profit is assumed along with the same amount of outstanding shares despite the fact that share buybacks of 125 million are currently taking place until February 2026. Yes, then the P/E will be 8.8…. That is cheap - a true cash cow…. I will refrain from estimating the share price, but you are welcome to contribute - there is plenty of room for speculation without being judged a fantasist.
- ·18.6.Share buyback - 125 million DKK! Thanks for that!
- ·30.5.Dear bank investor – I need your help. Like most other investors, I delude myself into believing that I too have a special ability to identify the next stock winner. In more humble moments, I content myself with believing that the algorithms in my database can give me a small advantage in assessing which banks will perform relatively best. I have back-tested the algorithms to assess whether the ratings they gave at a given time could actually say something about future price development – both 12, 24 and 36 months into the future. The conclusions on this are that I will continue to blindly follow the recommendations. My process is as follows: 1. Are bank stocks generally fairly valued? 2. How are the banks relatively valued based on the variables that I attribute value to? (this is the question that the algorithms answer) Re 1) The general price increase among bank stocks in recent years can, in my assessment, be explained by a completely natural (and very delayed) price adjustment following the financial crisis, where the banks (all of them) have received a significant increase in credit quality, while the capital structure is completely different and solid. Re 2) The valuation of the banks is similarly harmonized, which is a completely natural consequence in a situation where banks aim for the same capital targets and are regularly visited by the financial supervisory authority. I can also see this from my algorithms, which increasingly confirm that price targets now generally only lie around or slightly above current levels. But here arises my "problem": Neither I nor my algorithm understands the valuation of SJF Bank. Without revealing all the variables behind the algorithms, they not surprisingly contain both P/E, K/I, growth in deposits, loans and core earnings, geographical location, transparency about strategy, tradability of shares, restriction of voting rights, etc. The decisive factor is the weighting of the variables – including also the weighting of the latest quarterly results. It is difficult in this forum to discuss all the points without it becoming too long-winded and extensive, but a single illustration: If one very simply looks at the banks' results for Q1 and extrapolates it to be indicative of the next three results, then all banks (with a single exception) have a P/E of over 10. In this, I have corrected for the fact that Grønlandsbanken has a tax advantage in Q1, as the dividend payment is tax-deductible. The price adjustments have generally been negative (or less positive than normal) due to the stock market and the Iran war. SJF has, at the current price of 348, a quarterly profit of 184,507,000 kr., and 16,228,950 outstanding shares, a P/E of 7.65. Price/book value of 1.2 also seems quite reasonable. In relation to the continued consolidation in the industry – which everyone agrees on (incl. bank directors) – SJF Bank must simultaneously be the most obvious candidate. Both in terms of acquiring smaller banks – but also in terms of being acquired itself. Geographically, it is gradually located in a growth area, just like Jyske Bank, Ringkjøbing Landbobank and AL Sydbank, once they have caught their breath after the recently completed merger, will be able to expand without geographically cannibalizing current customers. Did I mention that these three banks are on the same platform. I am aware that, like most others, I suffer from "confirmation bias" when I argue. But the algorithms should, after all, be free from this. Long story short: Would you please help answer the question of why SJF Bank is not a good buy? For the record: Jyske Bank and Kreditbanken also stand out positively – though not as extremely as SJF Bank.SJF is cheap based on key figures, agreed I have also bought more But after having followed them for many years, I doubt that their Customer and credit quality is on par with the best banks We will, however, only see that during the next banking crisis
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Nordnet Socialin käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Tarjoustasot
Ei dataa
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | - | - |
Huomioi, että vaikka osakkeisiin säästäminen on pitkällä aikavälillä tuottanut hyvin, tulevasta tuotosta ei ole takeita. On olemassa riski, että et saa sijoittamiasi varoja takaisin.
Välittäjätilasto
Dataa ei löytynyt