Proposed Directors of Tirupati Graphite explain why they have requisitioned an GM. 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.
If you sum the annual dividend it doesn't make up for the sp fall which is around 1/4 in the last year.
Not sure what sp would mark a theoretical floor. Maybe a PE of 1 meaning a sp of £4 or so.
Look back at my predictions on the likes of Vod and Sfor before you tell me I'm wrong.
This is being hammered again.
Cant really understand why.
"dividend not keeping up with declining sp."
What do you mean? Every time the sp falls, the dividend is, in effect, increasing?
Proactive investor article, suggested that USA, vape ban attempt will fail . Sp, has fallen today, with lowest price pivot at 2463.5, I would suggest buy, if close above 2463.5, or if near closing, the sp, is above the pivot level.
A decent price target - will they get there?
Jefferies raises British American Tobacco price target to 4,100 (4,000) pence - 'buy'
Despite the US Vuse assault !!
Hmm. Tempted to add but keeps making lower lows thus dividend not keeping up with declining sp.
Sp today same as this time in 2021.
Expecting some profit taking because overhead supply from previous trading volume is situated at 2560. Sp, may retrace to 2520-2530 price range, or at least to the nearest support level. Both Bollinger bands are separating, indicating increased volatility, whether up or down. When the top Bollinger band begins to turn down, often indicates end of the move up or down.
The previous 4 days Japanese candlesticks , can be grouped into one two day candlestick each, resulting in 2 bullish doji candlesticks. This gives great confidence that the big money is taking a bullish position in the recent price bottom .
BATS, price bullish pivot break above 2508.5, and bullish price pivot break on Tobacco sector chart. If tobacco sector chart can find support above 28000, then validation for BATS, breakout . Important that sp, today closes above 2508.50, before buying. Otherwise maybe buy near closing time if still above 2508.5.
Wow. I did not expect such a response from you, anon3.
I thought we were simply sharing opinions and ideas in a mature fashion.
I think some of my points were clearly relevant to tobacco actually, but equally interlinked to other stocks and a wider macro picture. All of which IMO should not be dismissed so easily.
I appreciate that you have chosen to flounce off now, having told me what opinions I hold on a variety of other topics too. You are right when it comes to my general thoughts on the WEF. Perhaps you should do a little research into that organisation and see if you feel similarly?
Pro Trump? Nope. I cheer lead for no politician, which should have been rather obvious by now.
Anti climate change? Nope again. I am appalled at the levels of pollution created by needless plastic; the state of our rivers and oceans and many other things related to how we treat our environment.
But I have a fairly good understanding of what meeting 'net zero' would actually mean for the UK. Even if the real global polluters were to play along (which they are not and will not). Do you?
Wrong also about my opinion on the existence of Covid, although anyone who still thinks the political decisions were proportionate since the very first six week lock down (where IMO it was more understandable at that point in time)...well, I have no answer to that.
I do not know enough about the 15 minute city initiatives to comment.
The tin hat comment is simply lazy and does you a disservice.
But I am able to tolerate different opinions and to take criticism, even when it is in the form of a personal attack, rather than contesting those opinions that people may disagree with.
So I will not respond in kind and filter you. I do not like to live in an echo chamber and I appreciate those who take the time to share their thoughts. Whether I agree or otherwise. GLA. Including you, anon3.
Ah, now I get it. You're an anti WEF, pro Trump, anti climate change , non covid believer and probably 15 minute city type.
It was all going swingingly well and sticking to Tobacco too, till now.
Forgive me if I don't wear tin hats and just politely ignore you :-)
Filtered.
All entirely valid opinions.
But I still think creating a parallel legal system, which that touted policy will essentially involve, if it comes to pass, is a real can of worms.
And as I alluded to before, where do we draw the line?
What legal measures will safeguard against future governments abusing the 'protecting young people' angle?
Have you seen the Online Safety Bill? Trojan Horse if ever there was one. IMO it will also fail to achieve what it has set out to do anyway, but the public either do not know about this imminent attack on their privacy, or are gullible enough to fall for the headline pitch.
Or perhaps one for the near future, such as restricting air travel, cos climate change?
While the Davos class continue to enjoy all the trappings. They do have some front and indeed a sense of humour too (see all the climate change conferences they jet around for).
Then we have the pending CBDC's to consider.
No, I am sorry, but the collateral damage that freedom of choice sometimes costs is an acceptable price to pay to avoid a de facto social credit system IMO.
Which is something that the West is already moving towards (there are many examples, not just said online safety bill).
Slowly and with stealth, but make no mistake: our politicians (all of them pretty much) look enviously to the East and how they control their population.
Hardly a unique aspiration for the ruling classes. Always the same in every civilization since the year dot. Does not mean we should meekly accept it though, IMO.
Anyway, hope you are all having a nice weekend and making the most of this weather while it lasts! GLA.
Firstly thank you all for your discussion and experiences. It is not my intention to inflame or berate people. I feel strongly that we need a better plan, even if it does appear a bit idealistic.
I recently came across a map of what are described as blue zones which are pockets of communities scattered across the world, not all particularly wealthy, where people live much longer, fitter and healthier lives without the need for the support of a massive health service. I can hear some already saying they would rather die of debauchery and lung or liver failure having lived a short and actioned packed ‘life is for living so live it ‘ kind of life. The reality is rather different as anon3 has so ably attested. My own family was almost destroyed by alcohol . I dont hold it against my dad at all particularly now I have a better understanding of what they went through in the war before PTD was recognised or admitted. I found a letter from him to his sister who died recently posted from an unidentified region in France. He wasnt even supposed to say he was in France apparently, Strangely he was literally revolted by the idea of smoking which was before the idea of its link with lung cancer.
I have no idea how accurate the figure are of revenue v health care. Whatever they are they are truly horrific and shameful. 70 years down the road from giving people the freedom of what they can do to their bodies ( and other peoples) I think it is one of the governments better plans to not ban current adults from smoking, but put in measures to try and protect the next generation. So what to we do? We let vaping slip in almost undetected with its addictive nicotine and noxious substances. Anyone care estimate the cost of care and medical research into this latest abhorrence as an excuse for giving up smoking? Tooth rot. Mouth rot, and lung rot the same as before. But people must have their freedom to decide at all cost, how ever much is spent on promotion and influence. Another product that can be produced cheaply for the masses and make fortunes for the few harmfully. Its just not logical. The mass food and drink industry is as guilty as you correctly identified LwHl. There most definitely is a better way and I am optimistic that we are finding it. We dont half make it more difficult than it need be for ourselves sometimes
"costs the NHS 2.5 billion a year"
I believe the costs overall are probably way more than that, but the numbers are hard to quantify;
https://fullfact.org/economy/does-smoking-cost-much-it-makes-treasury/
The figures are out of date, but it gives an idea of numbers depending on what you look at.
My personal history;
I started smoking about aged 9, albeit probably not even one a day. And then it increased over time, until it was maybe 20 a day when I started work, rising to nearer 30 a day. Until I got throat cancer just over 3 years ago.
I'd always said I'd stop if I had a good reason and I did. Fortunately I survived.
I clocked up pretty much 50 years of smoking and even now I still crave a cigarette, frankly because I loved it, but possibly because I'm still massively addicted now.
And as much as I do agree with freedom of choice, I think the reality is that it's in the human psyche do self destructive things.
And if a ban stops young kids from harming themselves from a risk that is very high, I'm all for it.
The crazy thing is my missus watched me suffering in bed for months yet still smokes (although she won't do it in the house out of courtesy to me even though I didn't ask her) and has quite severe COPD, which her best friend died from just a few months ago aged 59. This woman was that addicted, the doctors didn't want to give her an Oxygen bottle, because she wouldn't stop smoking and the fire risk was massive.
You really couldn't make it up.
Freedom of choice, yes, but not when this is what it does to people, imo.
Indeed. It genuinely surprises me when fully grown adults support a government - any of them, whatever the rosette they sport - cheering ever greater restrictions on their lives and their freedom of choice.
It would be understandable in a child, where a desire for guidance and clear rules is both craved and needed, but for those in adulthood? Simply baffling.
Totally agree with you LWHL.
I don't believe that Government should be banning adults from cigarettes. They should keep out of people's business. I am already frustrated by the sugar tax and minimum alcohol unit pricing that the nanny Scottish Government has imposed.
Just to add: what else would you ban? Booze? Not everyone can control their liquor. A far greater cost to the NHS and wider society. Cars? Aeroplanes? Restrictions on social media usage?
Perhaps it is my age, but I simply do not trust any government to regulate anything consistently or proportionately. Therefore IMO the solution to all problems is less government, not more government :)
I never said smoking was 'good' for people. But let us take your numbers: 2.5 billion quid a year NHS costs. Remind me how much tax revenue tobacco generates?
Then you have the 'savings' from not needing to treat the many non smokers who cost the NHS billions each year for a variety of conditions that pretty much nobody can avoid when they become aged. However well they have looked after themselves throughout their lives.
Like I said before: individual responsibility. Individual discipline. Individual choice.
By the way, show me a listed company that is not nasty and ruthless in business. You might struggle to find one that is successful, especially if they do not have the soft support of national governments. Even if they do.
Smoking is a choice. Like any other manner of hobbies.
What restricts the progress of humanity is a lack of freedom.
But if you want to buy into a narrative that poorer countries alone are somehow hostages to the nasty ruthless companies, then go ahead. Perhaps if you had spent some time in some of these types of countries...perhaps if you had met some of the decision-makers of some of these countries, you might feel differently. At the very least, it might give you pause for thought.
Or maybe not, who knows?
We have the luxury of being able to debate such things from the comfort of our homes, and can afford such principles and sentiments. Maybe we should revisit the concept of exploitation another time.
I have a nice glass of red that needs topping up and I really fancy popping to the shops now to support my holding here :) GLA.
Lwhl. It is reckoned that smoking causes at least 50 different health issues, 1 in 5 cancer diagnosis, 1 in 4 deaths and costs the NHS 2.5 billion a year. Freedom of choice? Really! In a media driven world of fantasy and deceit. We have had that for 70 odd years. Should have been banned years ago, and yes the food industry has a lot to answer for too. These are nasty ruthless companies that now exploit the less regulated poorer countries. a total slur on humanity imo.
BATS, reaction today. If sp, closes below price pivot of 2463.5, that would create a bearish pivot, to imply further downside. The tobacco sector chart is below price support, so overall bearish background. Surprisingly IMB, rallied today, but that qualifies as a bear rally , until last price peak is exceeded.
Your first points I agree with. The cost/benefit analysis, as such, is not beyond doubt at all however.
In pure monetary terms, IMO it is likely to be the opposite of what you claim.
And regardless of that debate, freedom of choice is something that I strongly support, even though it demands discipline and self-control from the individual. See also sugar products and alcohol products etc.
The application of discipline, self-control and doing one's own research when needed, to make an informed choice on all manner of things, also takes the lobbying and marketing element largely out of the equation.
Even for children, perhaps especially for children, these same soft skills need to be taught early on.
It would make for a far better society too.
Priceless. Pretty much the argument Iain Macleod used in his short term as health minister for A Tory government. ‘We couldnt afford the loss of tax revenue from banning smoking’, just before he died from a fatal heart attack at the age of 57.
The really sad thing is that investigations of a link between lung cancer and smoking were initiated back in 1954. It was also suggested at that time that young people should be warned of the harmful effect of smoking.
The argument that a culling of the population by letting them continue smoking would deprive them of becoming ill from another illness later in life is an interesting one. The reality is that the cost to the NHS from respiratory illness and other diseases related to smoking far outweigh any other cost to the NHS. Apart from that the ideas and pr put into smoking by the tobacco industry is gross. The lies, cover ups and intimidation to protect their enormous wealth and power are obscene.
Part apart from that who doenst enjoy the occasional ciggie
How does it boost the economy? By reducing tax revenues? I guess the argument is it reduces the burden on the NHS, but if it means people live longer - they'll just have to be treated for other ailments.
Hi Shaun_LSE, Barclays opine that the Govt won't get this legislation through the two Houses given how fractured the Conservatives currently are and given that an Election is looming next year.... 14 year olds and younger can always get someone older to purchase the ciggies for them so I'm not sure how effective any legislation would be anyway.