Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Slug you don't even have a basic understanding of economics.
Otherwise you would understand why the NHS for all it's failures is the best model in the world.
Sorry but nationalisation doesn’t work, just look at how the civil service blob is frustrating literally everything we try and do.
We must be the only nation with a “free” health service, and it’s appalling and expensive. Other models that encourage private enterprise work better elsewhere
Look at the money councils waste just because they can. If you’re unaccountable and have no reason to perform to secure funding then you get dire performance and waste
Apparently what used to be known as common sense and a basic grasp of maths and economics nowadays makes one a tin hat conspiracy theorist and a nasty gammon
You idiots can’t see you’re being used to usher in communism
Bozi, I'd get done for libel!
There are exceptions and some of them are very capable individuals.
A friend of mine from university set up the office of KKR in London and then went on co-found a hugely successful pe outfit of his own. He wanted to back my company in the purchase of a US competitor. We flew over to the East Coast and spent three days visiting their factories. We then met up at the airport to discuss his thoughts.
I've never heard such a brilliant deconstruction of a business. He took their company apart line-by-line and concluded by saying he was prepared to pay $100m. They wanted $200m, so we flew home and that was that. Six months later they sold the company for $110m. As I said, some of them are really very good, but they're in the minority.
Add - get writing that book. I'd buy it!
Spot on SM 8:42.
Not like we don't have the most expensive and least reliable services now is it...
Maybe if country's politicians aren't capable of coordinating the efficient management of these services under state operation then we should stop blowing smoke up our own backsides and acknowledge that we're a useless collective.
But know, instead we want to hide behind the pageantry and tradition of St George and the Union. King and country blah blah and blah.
Spot on 8:50, 9:09 et al as well. Maybe it's about time we British strive to do better instead of thinking we're the dogs doodahs and forever looking down on everyone else.
Q, that was my point about changing the law and appointing a receiver who acts for the State. In other words, a suspension of the normal process of receivership, whereby the assets are sold to the highest bidder and the proceeds divi'ed out secured creditors. Instead there should be no distributions and the secured creditors should lose the lot. As is normal in receiverships, the shareholders are stuffed. And you're right, it would cause an uproar, but someone in government needs to have the balls to bite the bullet.
I'm an ardent supporter of privatization, but the water industry was a step too far.
Quady, probably the most opinionated, delicate,
Professionally offended poster on here.
Just posted.
"Interesting on how much we agree on addicknt" .
Now there's a thing
I would also suspend dealing in Thames Water until the infrastructure is fixed and functioning.
RE Thames Water, I read this in the comment section of the FT on renationalising the asset:
The company throws off cash (before fines) - shareholders have failed / give it to bond holders - full debt to equity conversion (with dividend/ cash return locked) - subsequent reinvestment of cash from business into infrastructure.
Ok addicknt, but the shareholders would argue that they own the assets and any receiver surely would have to sell off the assets in order to wind up the water authorities.
I am unsure what is the best way.
Maybe a regulator with teeth.
No dividends or bonuses paid, until we sort out sewage dumping and leaks.
Trades next week ending 670
•¿•
Let's see how long you last this time skint as you've said this many times before and them find the need to mention me. I will copy and paste your post when and if you mention me again. Agreed so no need to reply.
Q, when Thames goes bust a state receiver should take charge and the normal laws suspended. By this, I mean that the financial creditors should get nothing so that the new entity is completely debt free. It's time the banks took some pain.They took the rewards, now they should absorb the risks.
I know the counter argument has always been that such an approach would mean they'd stop investing in the future, but that's utter balls. If they did that their own businesses would fail.
Let the buggers suffer for once.
Interesting on how much we agree on addicknt.
Yes water needs to be in public ownership.
However it's how we do it in a cost efficient way.
I agree with that. The problem with state ownership is there's no incentive for people to excel. Management become lazy and incompetent and employees end up not giving a toss. There's also the fact that public service is no longer regarded as being something honorable and worthwhile. We've become a nation of grifters, ill-suited and mindless of other people. ( good generalization, eh?)
Having said that, I'd re-nationalize water in an instant. What's happened there is a scandal.
Actually, when I come to think of it, I also hate big business and the third rate, brown-nosing creeps who run FTSE companies. Governments spend far too much time pandering to these t0ssers, when in fact they should be roundly ignored.
That feels better! A good old rant always works.
SharketMare although I said in my opinion.
My opinion is backed up by the facts.
Mine and addicknts points cross over.
Privatisation brings a discipline that is because the guys job at the top is all on the line.
We should have a reasonable idea of what works and what doesn't.
As I have said it should be on a case by case basis.
Lastly remember that bringing things into public ownership has a dual cost.
First you lose the tax revenue of the cooperate structure and second you always end up subsidising the operation in question.
Remember the general level of tax is too high in this country.
So even bringing water back into public ownership has a cost.
We are talking billions.
Which budgets would you cut.
Add, fair points. I work with several today (they are retained clients) and have witnessed much of what you describe first hand. My point really is that ownership - whether state, public or private doesn't automatically lead to a good or bad outcome. All can be done well with the right people and right ambition.
SM, having spent a considerable part of my career working with private equity firms, I'm afraid I don't share your enthusiasm. The good ones are as rare as hens teeth.
In the early days of their existence in this country they tended to be run by entrepreneurial mavericks who were happy to take real risks and understood the need to stand back and let the management teams they'backed get on with it. Sure, if things went wrong they'd get involved, but it took a lot for them to boot the management out.
Over time these people were replaced by tedious accountants/ management consultants, most of whom were barely out of nappies. They were/are, arrogant and ignorant and have very little understanding of the businesses they own. When things go right they love taking the credit, if it goes wrong it's never their fault.
I could write a book about this part of the financial services sector and it wouldn't be favorable.
Get a life tiny, stop taking the juicy bait I keep throwing you and enjoy the holidays from school.🤣🤣🤣
For the record I have absolutely no shares, savings or friends and family and am skint but I am very comfortable in the knowledge that I definitely have more than you in real life value.
Anyway looking forward to Tuesday as we continue on our march towards 55p!!!
At this time or new beginnings and rebirth its time you turned a new leaf and ignored me please I have absolutely no interest in you, so please stop posting and trolling me for no reason... deal ?
Just because - in your opinion - rail services run better privately than they did before, that does not mean that in the future they can be run even better back under state control.
People act as it's literally impossible for a state run service to better than a privately run service. This is nothing but ideological nonsense. Of course it can be done.
Good morning SharketMare.
Please don't make the same mistake as Slug.
Remember all these services were once state run.
Unions and work practices made them unworkable and took costly to run.
Each should be looked at on a separate basis.
Electricity and gas has been a huge success and we have a decent regulator.
Water however has been a disaster and I personally believe because of the costs involved in supplying clean safe water and dealing with sewage in a safe controlled manner that the cost should be bourne centrally, so yes bring water back in public ownership.
Rail services run much better privately.
I was born in Neasden and would visit my Aunts in Feltham.
Some days we couldn't get there and some days we couldn't get back.
I remember one occasion when zero trains were running and they were not on strike.
Just no track maintenance or train maintenance.
Unions destroyed the railways.
So it's a case of what works best.
What we definitely require is a reconnected society in which a larger proportion of the profit is given to the workforce and less taken by the people at the top
Otherwise we get rising crime, as when people are isolated and are so poor that they have nothing to lose, then they don't obey the law.
When people are engaged in society and have a stake in life, then that is something to hang onto and not lose, so they will be more law abiding.
Starmer is in such a strong position that we could quite feasibly start thinking about some of the serious overhaul this country needs - renationalisation of our infrastructure instead of selling more of it off to Middle Eastern SWFs, a tax on wealth (not income) to help address ballooning inequality, planning reform to facilitate house building and other key parts of infra (e.g. data centres), a clampdown on immigration so we can properly control the numbers of people who come in and out of this country (as countless states the world over do, yet never seem to be called r*cist for doing so).
Instead he has watered down or backed away from virtually every pledge he made to win the leadership. It's funny, I never hear the people who claim the Leave campaigned won on a pack of lies level the same criticism at Keir Starmer. I wonder why?
"How bad would the country be if the state ran water, power, rail, comms? Do you even recall British rail?"
And herein lies the biggest logical fallacy of them all.
The state of these services are so poor, and they are so expensive compared to our peers on the continent that many are asking just how much worse they can be?
The idea that state ownership of these vital parts of our infrastructure means they don't work well is total nonsense. It's just as ridiculous as those who claim that private equity ownership of formerly listed businesses automatically sets them up for overly levered balance sheets and a reduction in quality of products and services. There are countless examples of private equity being excellent stewards of companies, we just don't hear about them.
Similarly, there are state owned railways the world over that operate to a higher standard than those in the UK. And at a fraction of the price.
As Bozi rightly points out, when competition exists at the government/enterprise level and not with the end customer, privatisation does not work, and we all get shafted.
I see 1984 is posting hateful tinfoil hat nonsense again. Not what I come heee to read. The ranting of a pure gammon
Get on the filtered list you loon. I don’t have time of rthe politics of hate and a fictitious Old England
Slug when you argue about capitalism and socialism, you do so as a child.
I doubt you have read much on either system.
Both have things to support them and they also have their bad sides .
No one in their right mind can argue about social capital, as to do so shows you have no idea on how to address poverty.
Much the same as you require a model that encourages work and stops a few people becoming very rich off the backs of others.
Remember the NHS is a socialist idea and probably the one institution that everyone apart from a few idiots wants to see thrive.
However costs have to be addressed and the technology to do that is coming along in a multi faceted way.
When we talk about the workplace then the John Lewis model is the closest we get to a socialist ideal of social capital.