Our new website is coming soon, give it a try now and let us have your feedback. Take me to the Beta



Register
Login:
Share:
Email Facebook Twitter

TSX Lithium explorer International Lithium Corp prepares to drill at Raleigh Lake Watch Now

TSX Lithium explorer International Lithium Corp prepares to drill at Raleigh Lake
Exclusive: Hardman & Co Investor Forum - Severn Trent, Calculus Capital, Volta Finance, Residential


Member Info for Love_You


Send a private message to Love_You

Member Since: Thu, 21st Feb 2019

Number of Share Chat Posts (all time): 999
Number of Share Chat Posts (last 30 days): 180

Last Posted: Wed 20:00


Post Distribution over the last 30 days




Wed 20:00

to think deeply.

Calisto, if you truly believe in Democracy then do you believe if there is one person who claims that 1,000 acres of land is theirs for some reason or other (hereditary rights could be one such reason - or because they walk around the perimeter every day at dawn could be another reason), and if 1,000 people live on an adjoining 10 acres, and if those 1,000 people vote 70:30 that everyone who votes in favour is entitled to one acre each of the 1,000 acres. Then would you say 700 individuals are entitled to an acre each of their own - the 300 who voted against must remain on the original 10 acres - and the one person who claimed that the 1,000 acres was theirs must now remain on 300 acres instead and must not interfere with the 700 newly-created one-acre plots?

Would you say the previous distribution of land, or the more recent distribution of land, was more equitable and just?
Wed 19:53

That CEO is an idiot then. As soon as UK assets were nationalised then all profits would have to come from USA. Do you expect their USA customers would willingly pay far higher prices just to maintain the overall profit level for NG's shareholders?

If UK part of company nationalised it could well spur their US customers to want to negotiate lower prices - hence it would be a double whammy. There would be no more profits from UK. And there would be reduced profits from their USA customers.
Wed 19:49

It's all about psychology then - you could have someone with $10 Billion in the bank (maybe Bill Gates does if he has sold off enough shares over the years to convert them into bank deposits/bonds/treasuries) and Enquest could be priced at 1p per share. Yet if the person with $10 Billion in the bank prefers to spend their time licking a computer then there would be more chance of them paying $2 million for a classic early 1980s Amstrad than their would be of them spending $2 million on buying Enquest shares.

They wouldn't care Enquest shares were extremely cheap at 1p per share - if they're not interested in shares or in oil companies then they probably wouldn't even know Enquest existed at all.
Wed 11:35

Fuel in the UK costs circa 1.25 per litre.

Back in 2008 when oil was trading over $100 per barrel the petrol/diesel price was about 1.25.

So now crude oil is half the price ($50 per barrel) the price of petrol at the pumps is the same as when crude oil was more than double the price (over $100 per barrel).

Ergo I can only conclude that taxes on fuel in the UK are far higher than justified by the economic fundamentals.

Ergo if UK government want to be re-elected in 2021 they would improve their chances by reducing taxes on fuel by 50%. This would lower the petrol price at the pumps to circa 90p per litre. Even that is double the price of fuel in the USA.
Wed 11:33

Fuel in the UK costs circa 1.25 per litre.

Back in 2008 when oil was trading over $100 per barrel the price at the fuel pumps was about 1.25.

So now crude oil is half the price ($50 per barrel) the price of petrol at the pumps is the same as when crude oil was more than double the price (over $100 per barrel).

Ergo I can only conclude that taxes on fuel in the UK are far higher than justified by the economic fundamentals.

Ergo if UK government want to be re-elected in 2021 they would improve their chances by reducing taxes on fuel by 50%. This would lower the petrol price at the pumps to circa 90p per litre. Even that is double the price of fuel in the USA.
Wed 11:31

Petrol is 1.21 per litre, and diesel is 1.29 per litre.

Back in 2008 when oil was trading over $100 per barrel the retail price at the pumps was about 1.25 for petrol.

So now crude oil is half the price ($50 per barrel) the price of petrol at the pumps is the same as when crude oil was more than double the price (over $100 per barrel).

Ergo I can only conclude that taxes on fuel in the UK are far higher than justified by the economic fundamentals.

Ergo if UK government want to be re-elected in 2021 they would improve their chances by reducing taxes on fuel by 50%. This would lower the petrol price at the pumps to circa 90p per litre. Even that is double the price of fuel in the USA.
Wed 11:30

Petrol is 1.21 per litre, and diesel
is 1.29 per litre.

Back in 2008 when oil was trading over $100 per barrel the retail price at the pumps was about 1.25 for petrol.

So now crude oil is half the price ($50 per barrel) the price of petrol at the pumps is the same as when crude oil was more than double the price (over $100 per barrel).

Ergo I can only conclude that taxes on fuel in the UK are far higher than justified by the economic fundamentals.

Ergo if UK government want to be re-elected in 2021 they would improve their chances by reducing taxes on fuel by 50%. This would lower the petrol price at the pumps to circa 90p per litre. Even that is double the price of fuel in the USA.
Wed 11:28

Petrol is 1.21 per litre, and diesel is 1.29 per litre.

Back in 2008 when oil was trading over $100 per barrel the retail price at the pumps was about 1.25 for petrol.

So now crude oil is half the price ($50 per barrel) the price of petrol at the pumps is the same as when crude oil was more than double the price (over $100 per barrel).

Ergo I can only conclude that taxes on fuel in the UK are far higher than justified by the economic fundamentals.

Ergo if UK government want to be re-elected in 2021 they need to reduce taxes on fuel by 50%. This would lower the petrol price at the pumps to circa 90p per litre. Even that is double the price of fuel in the USA.
Wed 11:24

Hi TakingMyTime,

Well I can see your point of view. It seems to come down to trust. We can't trust the Zimbabwean clients to pay for their oil so BP will only sell it to them for money upfront.

So how come anyone trust's America then? Fed has debt of $8 Trillion and the US government debt is now $21 Trillion. People are taking an awful lot on trust when they deal with America when it has those levels of debts.

Also,

Petrol is 1.21 per litre, and diesel is 1.29 per litre.

Back in 2008 when oil was trading over $100 per barrel the retail price at the pumps was about 1.25 for petrol.

So now crude oil is half the price ($50 per barrel) the price of petrol at the pumps is the same as when crude oil was more than double the price (over $100 per barrel).

Ergo to give an example involving a smaller UK-listed company - one can see the poor performance of Enquest shares is mostly due to the UK's taxes on petrol/diesel being far too high.

Ergo to see Enquest's equity valuation increase you would really need to see the UK government reducing taxes on petrol/diesel in my opinion.
Wed 11:15

Petrol is 1.21 per litre, and diesel is 1.29 per litre.

Back in 2008 when oil was trading over $100 per barrel the retail price at the pumps was about 1.25 for petrol.

So now crude oil is half the price ($50 per barrel) the price of petrol at the pumps is the same as when crude oil was more than double the price (over $100 per barrel).

Ergo one can see the poor performance of Enquest shares is mostly due to the UK's taxes on petrol/diesel being far too high.

Ergo to see Enquest's equity valuation increase you would really need to see the UK government reducing taxes on petrol/diesel in my opinion.
Wed 11:08

Yes but it's also a market failure because people wouldn't sell their shares in 2010-2012 meaning that the equity became over-valued. Hence the people who did sell were able to achieve a much higher price than they would of been able to if other people had behaved rationally. Ergo they took more out of the market than they should of. Ergo everyone who still holds the shares has to suffer because the central bankers just see current equity holders as the easiest people to screw for money. It would be much harder for them to get money off the people who were wise enough to (A) Push up the share price too high, and then (B) offload the shares to someone else at this 'over-inflated' valuation.

However, there is an argument that those people who sold out at 'over-inflated/manipulated' market prices are the ones who perhaps should be contributing something back into the financial system now. Otherwise you end up with central banks trying to get blood out of a stone (i.e., trying to get cash out of people who only have debt). Ergo they will realise in about 6-12 months this is not possible. Ergo another financial crisis possibly?

Regarding shale oil - was always going to happen - costs in north sea had become ridiculous. Now it has swung the other way - too much unemployment abd people on benefits who can't afford to run cars/have holidays. Ergo past investment in new oil fields now appears too much. Ergo another reason to suspect another financial crisis may be coming in the next few years.

Just market swinging from one extreme to another. I suppose that is what markets do due to the typical herd behaviour of humans as a 'social species' and the way ideas spread between people (which is predictably to those with a good understanding of human behaviour and decent access to statistical models and large amounts of computing power).

Although, despite being somewhat predictable for some reason central banks still lurch from one crisis/humanitarian disaster to another - that's what I don't understand?
Wed 10:58

I ask that question because they do nothing to ensure that share prices in any way reflect the fundamental value of the company they relate to. This is a massive problem in markets as it makes share prices meaningless as a factor which directors should look at when considering take-over prices etc. The people who regulate equity markets need to seriously employ some people who can value companies using multiple techniques (including fundamentals and not just by growth metrics) and these people should be given the power to intervene in equity markets when speculators try to push share prices to ludicrous values (in the hope of taking money from people who expect markets to have a vague semblance of reasonableness or rationality about them).

Also, see below for some relevant info linking policy to banking.

Britain's banks and building societies will have to charge the same amount for all overdrafts from April 2020, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said on Friday, in a radical change that will raise questions about the future of free in-credit banking.

The watchdog has already capped interest rates for payday loans and prices of rent-to-own goods after pressure from lawmakers to tackle the high cost of credit for vulnerable consumers.

It said the changes would make overdrafts simpler, fairer and easier to manage, protecting the millions of consumers, and particularly the more vulnerable ones, who use overdrafts.

"The overdraft market is dysfunctional, causing significant consumer harm," FCA Chief Executive Andrew Bailey said in a statement.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/1-uk-watchdog-shakes-dysfunctional-063804490.html
Wed 10:53

Britain's banks and building societies will have to charge the same amount for all overdrafts from April 2020, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said on Friday, in a radical change that will raise questions about the future of free in-credit banking.

The watchdog has already capped interest rates for payday loans and prices of rent-to-own goods after pressure from lawmakers to tackle the high cost of credit for vulnerable consumers.

It said the changes would make overdrafts simpler, fairer and easier to manage, protecting the millions of consumers, and particularly the more vulnerable ones, who use overdrafts.

"The overdraft market is dysfunctional, causing significant consumer harm," FCA Chief Executive Andrew Bailey said in a statement.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/1-uk-watchdog-shakes-dysfunctional-063804490.html
Wed 10:29

I thought the dividend had been cut and instead the money was being spend on the buyback?

I agree it's completely unfair to the people who invested in Lloyds for income.

Who's to say a few institutional investors won't use the buyback as a chance to sell out their entire holdings. Then perhaps it would be in their own self-interest to undermine Lloyds and argue that Lloyds do not have enough capital to pay a dividend for the next 5-10 years.

In short I have seen a similar thing happen before at another company. Lots of people just believe that company is not in perilous position because it's not in the BOD's self-interest to tell the truth. However a few American institutional investors have a much better idea of how perilous the company's position really is. Ergo they convince the BOD to do a share buyback and use this to sell down their holding completely. Then once they have sold out they start talking the company down and point out how little capital they really have and how they need to raise more - people at BoE only look at capital levels and not good at spotting market manipulation. Ergo enough people agree that more capital needs to be raised and the company then sees more sellers and the share price falls. Ergo they issue more shares to raise capital at a much lower share price - maybe as much as 80% lower. Then the American institutional investors use the money they received from selling their shares into the earlier buyback to take up the new shares at the much lower price. Ergo long-term holders massively diluted and American Institutional Investors now have far larger stake despite not having to come up with a penny of new cash to invest in the business.

I suppose to be fair the only thing you can't argue with is that the other shareholders should have taken more notice of who was selling into the buyback and given the perilous position of that company's finances they should of also started selling their shares themselves.
Wed 10:13

Why would anyone volunteer for anything when we have all seen that you should expect to be paid millions for failure as the Directors of UK companies have taught us.

Surely they have responsibility to shareholders as well as to customers and bankers?

They have completely failed to grow returns to shareholders - ergo they have failed to protect the interests of at least one of the three groups they are paid to serve.

Ergo they should be receiving pay cuts, not pay rises. Or else they should resign and allow someone else to come in and see if they can grow the returns for shareholders as well as serving the interests of customers and staff.
Tue 15:39

All you needed to have done was go short anywhere between 12 and 16. Tullow was way over-valued on fundamentals - oil was high and had been too high in price for consumers for years.

America had financed Petrobras in 2010 with $100 billion in dollars at only a few percent interest to boost Brazilian oil production.

Hence there was not going to be people willing to pay $15 Billion for Tullow's equity when there was no real shortage of oil. However, maybe there was a blinkered perception in a few corners of the market that there was a shortage of oil - but to think these belief would be strong enough to cause a larger company to overpay for Tullow's equity by a factor of five-fold was rather naive to say the least.

Even China weren't stupid enough to fall for the City of London's spivs trying to palm this company off on them for $13 Billion plus Tullow's existing billions in debts.

Why would you waste that amount of dollars on buying Tullow when you had already seen the FED in 2008-2010 giving unlimited dollar liquidity to Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Iraq to increase oil production to the absolute max. asap - this was what QE1, QE2 and QE3 was really about - the banking system could only be bailed-out by a massive investment in new oil production around the globe (which is what happened and makes the politicians look completely stupid when they talk about global warming and going green).

I always thought the market was mad and the share price of Tullow back in 2010-2012 proves it beyond reasonable doubt.

The only annoying this is that politicians actually think the market is some sort of wise guru which sets prices in some sort of rational or evidence-based manner and hence it can't be argued with in public.

Overall, I conclude that Jeremy Corbyn has all the ammunition he needs to prove to anybody capable of rational thought that the market's prices do nothing to aid a country's path to economic prosperity and inclusive growth.
Tue 15:35

All you needed to have done was go short anywhere between 12 and 16. Tullow was way over-valued on fundamentals - oil was high and had been too high in price for consumers for years.

America had financed Petrobras in 2010 with $100 billion in dollars at only a few percent interest to boost Brazilian oil production.

Hence there was not going to be people willing to pay $15 Billion for Tullow's equity when there was no real shortage of oil. However, maybe there was a blinkered perception in a few corners of the market that there was a shortage of oil - but to think these belief would be strong enough to cause a larger company to overpay for Tullow's equity by a factor of four fold was rather naive to say the least.

Even China weren't stupid enough to fall for the City of London's spivs trying to palm this company off on them for $13 Billion plus.

Why would you waste that amount of dollars on buying Tullow when you had already seen the FED in 2008-2010 giving unlimited dollar liquidity to Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Iraq to increase oil production to the absolute max. asap - this was what QE1, QE1 and QE3 was really about - the banking system could only be bailed out by a massive investment in new oil production globally.

I always thought the market was mad and the share price of Tullow back in 2010-2012 proves it beyond reasonable doubt.

The only annoying this is that politicians actually think the market is some sort of wise guru which sets prices in some sort of rational or evidence-based manner and hence it can't be argued with in public.

Overall, I conclude that Jeremy Corbyn has all the ammunition he needs to prove to anybody capable of rational thought that the market's prices do nothing to aid a country's path to economic prosperity and inclusive growth.
Tue 15:30

All you needed to have done was go short anywhere between 12 and 16. Tullow was way over-valued on fundamentals - oil was high and had been too high in price for consumers for years - America has financed Petrobras with $100 billion in dollars at only a few percent interest to boost Brazilian oil production. Clearly there was not going to be people willing to pay $15 Billion for Tullow's equity when there was no real shortage of oil - and a blinkered perception in a few corners of the market that there was a shortage of oil. Even China weren't stupid enough to fall for the City of London spiv's trying to palm this company off on them for $13 Billion plus. Why would you waste that amount of dollars on buying Tullow when you had seen the FED giving unlimited dollar liquidity to Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Iraq to increase oil production to the absolute max. asap.

Sorry but I always thought the market was mad and the share price of Tullow back in 2010-2012 proves it beyond reasonable doubt. The only annoying this is that politicians actually think the market is some sort of wise guru whom sets prices in some sort of rational or evidence-based manner and can't be argued with. I think Jeremy Corbyn has all the ammunition he needs to prove to anybody capable of rational thought that the market's prices do nothing to aid a country's/economy's path to prosperity and inclusive growth.
Tue 15:23

It makes no sense how you could have Carillion and Interserve go bankrupt and yet Kier still can not seem to lower costs - or else with all these 'unemployed contractors' around perhaps Kier can lower costs and in a few years investors will look back and say well we could/should/did fill our boots at 1.60 a share and now they are worth 10 per share.

Clearly we don't live in a free-market economy.
Tue 15:16

All I'm saying is that yanks have this idea that you need to approach every situation armed to the hilt. They spend $750 Billion per year on their military (from the Treasury website). Yes that is 750 billion (each billion is one thousand lots of one million).

To finance all of this military spending they have artificially lowered the price of oil in my opinion. A fair price for oil would be about $95 per barrel and there would be no reduction in oil demand if dollar liquidity was maintained or increased and banks were allowed to offer new debt to existing clients as well as people looking to set up their own businesses as well as to entrepreneurs.

Just my view. Lots of people probably disagree.


Sign up for Live Prices
Top Recommended
Hot Chat Topics
Top recommended posters in the last 30 days
Pdub2,529
Alfacomp2,092
Wassatt1,542
langtro1,345
kenny1001,254
Troajan1,054
BoomerBower932
BigBiteNow892





Member Login

Forgotten your password?
Email:

Password:


Don't have an account? Click here to Register Free!




Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look. While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.