Israel's Bank Leumi's quarterly profit rises, to pay shareholders 40% of income
TEL AVIV, May 20 (Reuters) - Leumi (LUMI.TA), opens new tab, one of Israel's two largest banks, reported a rise in quarterly profit on Tuesday, boosted by an increase in financing income and a drop in provisions for bad debts.
Leumi earned 2.4 billion shekels ($682 million) excluding one-time items in the first quarter of 2025, up from 2.1 billion a year earlier. Its return on equity was broadly steady at 15.4%.
The bank's credit portfolio grew an annual 8%, while its loan loss expense slid 75% to 55 million shekels. Net interest income rose 6.6% to 4.02 billion shekels.
Its Tier 1 capital ratio rose to 12.15% in the quarter from 11.98% a year ago.
Leumi said it would distribute 40% of its quarterly net profit, or 961 million shekels, to shareholders - 721 million shekels as a cash dividend and the rest as a share buyback.
Banks have pushed to raise payouts to 50% of net profit but Israel's banking regulator on Monday said was still too early to do so due to ongoing economic uncertainty stemming from the war in Gaza.
Leumi's main rival Hapoalim (POLI.TA), opens new tab on Monday also reported higher profit of 2.4 billion shekels amid double-digit credit growth.
($1 = 3.5179 shekels)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
33 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
TONY HETHERINGTON: When is a bank not a bank?
Tony Hetherington is Financial Mail on Sunday's ace investigator, fighting readers corners, revealing the truth that lies behind closed doors and winning victories for those who have been left out-of-pocket. Find out how to contact him below. D.L. writes: I have an account with Suits Me, an internet bank authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority. But my account has been hacked – someone called the bank and transferred £4,200 to themselves, leaving me very little to live on and pay my bills. Tony Hetherington replies: You spent more than six hours on the phone to Suits Me, and when you finally reached the 'disputes team' you were told because you did not transfer the £4,200 the transaction required an investigation, which might take months. Suits Me said your money went to an account at Revolut, as instructed by the mystery caller. This left you with barely any money to support yourself and your 11-year-old child. You called the police, but they referred you to Action Fraud – which means it is unlikely there will be any police enquiries. I contacted Suits Me, which is based in a modernised cattle shed at a farm in Knutsford, Cheshire, and I supplied your signed authority to discuss the loss of your money. The company's boss Matthew Sanders refused to honour this. He said: 'Unfortunately, we cannot comment on individual accounts or disputes as I am sure you would expect.' He said his firm has 'rigorous' security procedures, adding: 'At Suits Me, we pride ourselves on our customer service and security.' You may disagree, of course. You assured me: 'I have two-factor authentication on my phone app and emails, and my phone has not been out of my sight.' You have not shared the account details with anyone, and they are not even written down. I tried again with Mr Sanders, but got a brief response that 'it is our strict policy not to debate individual customers' circumstances in the media'. So while every big bank is happy to respond when the customer allows it, Suits Me regards an invitation to comment as a 'debate'! But it did send you a lengthy letter. Banks operate a voluntary scam-victim refund scheme called the Contingent Reimbursement Model Code, they said – but Suits Me has not signed up to it. There is a separate scheme operated by the UK Payment Systems Regulator – but guess what, Suits Me works in partnership with a Gibraltar business so falls outside this refund programme, too. The company rejected your complaint, but offered you £35 for the time wasted on hold when you rang. It said if you were not happy, you could complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). This puzzled me because I was pretty sure that Suits Me was not covered by the FOS, so I questioned Mr Sanders and he admitted: 'The letter sent to Mr L contained an error in that it said he can raise a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman. This is not correct.' If you were unhappy, you should complain to a company called IDT Financial Services in Gibraltar. I did, and IDT explained it is a regulated issuer of Visa and Mastercard cards, and Suits Me is its distributor. You could file a complaint in Gibraltar, it said. Then two days ago, and without issuing any comment, Suits Me put the missing £4,200 back into your account. You were stunned, but delighted and relieved! The big question remains: how it is possible to operate a quasi-bank which sidesteps the ombudsman, is outside the compensation scheme and dismisses questions as a mere 'debate'. Why does the Government allow it? So what is Suits Me... and how does it work? 'Looking for a bank account? Suits Me offers personal accounts for everyone.' This is the bold statement on the company's website. But Suits Me is not a bank. Who says so? Its own boss says so. Matthew Sanders told me: 'Suits Me is not a bank. It is a distributor of e-money.' And if you search long enough on its website, it explains: 'An e-money account, like the personal account offered by Suits Me, is an account that stores money in electronic form which can be used to make payments.' Open an account and you can set up direct debits, pay bills and have a debit card. What you don't get is an overdraft or credit. And you also don't get plain speaking from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). Suits Me appears in the FCA's public register of authorised firms, with the advice that 'you may be able to complain about this firm to the Financial Ombudsman Service', and 'you may be able to claim compensation from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme'. But the FCA says bluntly that the compensation scheme 'will not be able to consider a claim against this firm if it fails'. And whether the FOS will intervene 'depends on the activity'. The FCA answers leave customers to take the risks. Who would sign up with a bank that isn't a bank? Suits Me offers accounts in three minutes, with gamblers and debtors welcome. All asylum seekers need 'is a selfie for ID and a card issued by the Home Office'. If you believe you are the victim of financial wrongdoing, write to Tony Hetherington at Financial Mail, 9 Derry Street, London W8 5HY or email Because of the high volume of enquiries, personal replies cannot be given. Please send only copies of original documents, which we regret cannot be returned.
Daily Mail
33 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
HAMISH MCRAE: Do markets accept ongoing conflict now as a fact of life?
What is happening in the Middle East is so terrible in human terms that it seems wrong to be discussing the implications for investment. But that is what markets have to do. However horrible things are, and however huge the uncertainties, the plain fact is that the markets have to try to work out what might happen to the economies of different countries, to the price of the various types of assets, to interest rates, inflation, and so on – and all amid the fog of war. While we cannot know what will happen in the coming months, there will clearly be a period of extended conflict. This isn't just about the immediate consequences of last week's Israeli strike. The practical question facing us all is how best to invest in an increasingly dangerous world. Some short-term reactions have already become evident, but they have been strangely muted. The gold price has jumped, though it's still a little below its all-time peak in April. Oil prices climbed too, but at $75 a barrel on the Brent measure, they are down on where they were at the start of this year. As for shares, naturally they too took a hit, but the FTSE 100 index is still close to the all-time high it reached on Thursday. It is almost as if the markets are accepting continuing conflict as a fact of life, just another of the string of things they have learnt to cope with. Can that be right? There are two responses to that. One is to say the world economy is huge and regional tensions will always burst out, as we have seen in the past three years. What happened last week was part of that pattern. But because the global economy is so big, the ability of these conflicts to inflict damage beyond the countries and people affected is limited. To put the point harshly, the argument is that while this is horrible for the people caught up in the conflict, it is manageable as far as the wider economy goes. The other response is to say this is far too complacent. Quite aside from its human toll, war destroys wealth. Resources have to go into reconstruction and additional defence spending afterwards. Money that goes into military hardware and armed service salaries is money not available for education, health and all the other things that government supports. Though these conflicts are regional, and we hope against hope they will remain so, it would be naive to suppose we will not feel the effects across the developed world. That leads to practical implications for us all. Disruption is never good. It puts up the cost of everything. It leads to higher government borrowing – yes, even higher – for we are already in a mess across the developed world on that score. That inevitably puts up interest rates to higher levels than they would otherwise have been. And since the central banks will probably not put up rates by enough, I'm afraid the outcome must be higher-than-expected inflation. So what should we do? I take comfort in looking at what happened after the Second World War, which saw the destruction of life and wealth far beyond anything on the distant horizon now. Industry and commerce recovered quite swiftly and, after a lag, share prices reflected that. House prices took a while to steady, before starting their long, if uneven, march upwards. Inflation was suppressed at first but eventually burst out even more viciously than we have seen in the past five years. And anyone who held cash or bought government securities lost their shirts. So we should go on saving and investing. We should hold as little cash as practicable, and I personally hate the idea of holding gilts – UK Government bonds – even at their apparently decent yields. Property may not be a great buy at the moment, with stamp duty changes, non-doms pulling out, landlords selling up and punitive council tax rises. But we all have to live somewhere, and a mortgage is a form of forced saving. On a long view, owning one's home must make sense. And then there are equities, and note this. If, after everything that has been thrown at big British companies, the FTSE 100 index is hovering around its all-time high, what on earth would it do if the clouds lift a little?
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Iran says production at world's largest gas field partly suspended after Israeli attack
June 14 (Reuters) - Iran has partially suspended gas production at the world's biggest gas field after an Israeli strike caused a fire there on Saturday, the semi-official Tasnim news agency reported, in what would be the first Israeli strike on Iran's oil and gas sector. Iran shares the South Pars gas field with Qatar. Striking it would mark a major escalation in the conflict, which had already pushed oil prices up 9% on Friday even though Israel spared Iran's oil and gas on the first day of its attacks. Israel launched an air offensive against Iran on Friday, killing commanders and scientists and bombing nuclear sites in a stated bid to stop Tehran building an atomic weapon. The South Pars field is located offshore in Iran's southern Bushehr province and is responsible for the lion's share of gas production in Iran, the world's third largest gas producer after the United States and Russia. The strike caused a fire, which has been extinguished, the Iranian oil ministry said. The fire broke out in one of the four units of Phase 14 of South Pars, halting production of 12 million cubic metres of gas, Tasnim said. Iran produces around 275 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas per year or some 6.5% of global gas output, and consumes it domestically as it cannot export gas due to sanctions. Iran shares the field with Qatar, which calls the field North Field. Qatar produces 77 million tonnes of liquefied gas from the field with the help of global majors such as Exxon and Shell and supplies the gas to Europe and Asia.
