Member Info for 34adsaddsa

Yes, but they wouldn't need to sell 45%. If they had to meet the ruling then they'd sell the assets with the highest emissions and do share buybacks. I saw an analyst note which estimated that 14% of their operations produce 45% of their emissions. The company would be smaller. I don't think they'd start throwing tens of billions at wind/solar.

If the other majors started being attacked in similar ways then you'd see a huge game of pass the asset to smaller companies and private equity. It would be increasingly obvious how absurd it is for a judge to try to unilaterally hem in a handful of companies.

No. Even if Shell is bound by the ruling, it's up to them to decide how to meet it. They could invest lots in O&G and then sell the assets before 2030. Of course, the "activists" could try to bring a case to get the judge to do something even more aggressive but I'm sure Shell are free to do what they like as long as they meet the 2030 date.

They're going to appeal. If the ruling isn't at least significantly watered down then I think they'll leave the Netherlands.

It's seen as having a high but shaky dividend, high debt and no growth.

The A shares currently cost 5% more than the B shares. It doesn't make sense and it's very annoying that the gap isn't closing, but in the past the share structure has been even more stupid. Behold:

"Because these losses reduced the capital base of LTCM, and its ability to maintain the magnitude of its existing portfolio, LTCM was forced to liquidate a number of its positions at a highly unfavorable moment and suffer further losses. A vivid illustration of the consequences of these forced liquidations is given by Lowenstein (2000). He reports that LTCM established an arbitrage position in the dual-listed company (or "DLC") Royal Dutch Shell in the summer of 1997, when Royal Dutch traded at an 8%–10% premium relative to Shell. In total $2.3 billion was invested, half of which was "long" in Shell and the other half was "short" in Royal Dutch.

LTCM was essentially betting that the share prices of Royal Dutch and Shell would converge because in their belief the present value of the future cashflows of the two securities should be similar. This might have happened in the long run, but due to its losses on other positions, LTCM had to unwind its position in Royal Dutch Shell. Lowenstein reports that the premium of Royal Dutch had increased to about 22%, which implies that LTCM incurred a large loss on this arbitrage strategy. LTCM lost $286 million in equity pairs trading and more than half of this loss is accounted for by the Royal Dutch Shell trade. "

I'm looking forward to the buyback hoovering up those B shares!

Pharos under 25p. Not great, is it. Hopefully the farm out at a non-terrible valuation and the prospect of things finally moving in Egypt will get people interested. This should be at least 35p.

There's nothing wrong with saying you expect the share price to remain low but saying you expect a dividend cut or rights issue is silly unless you add that you expect the oil price to collapse.

A judge in the Netherlands isn't going to dictate the global emissions of a company as large as shell. It's so obviously ludicrous that it won't stand, one way or the other.

Worst case scenario is moving the HQ somewhere else.

I don't think they want to run any risk of ever having to cut the dividend again. I think they're going to be very pro-buybacks because they're much easier to turn up and down without negative headlines and each share bought back reduces total dividend outflow.

If oil goes to $80 as some believe it will, then I can see a step change in the divided, perhaps $0.25 or something, particularly if the stock rises significantly so the yield becomes really quite low but I don't think there's any chance of a return to $0.47 for at least a decade unless oil goes absurdly high. It definitely isn't going to happen next year.

Buybacks at the current share price are far preferable to dividends IMO although a big dividend increase would probably boost the stock more.

They aren't going to do that. Why aren't you reading what the management are saying?

Shell produces 8% of the world's aviation fuel.

I don't think that's the right way of looking at it. Look at where the shares of housebuilders were in March and November 2020 vs September 2019. Development land prices aren't just about house prices, they're about the willingness and ability lock up huge amounts of capital in a non-productive asset due to the hope of sales years into the future.

I don't even own these so don't want to spend much more time on this at the moment but the alternative valuation SHOULD start increasing now. If it doesn't I'll agree it's a sham. I also don't think it'll prop up the share price that much even though I can see the Tories being very keen on this type of redevelopment.

Shell is outperforming its peers today. I expect that to continue, particularly if oil prices don't go much higher.

Well the NAV in November was 171p, that was down 8.2% from March 2020. They've said it has fallen again since but not as much as between March and November. Let's say it has fallen 4%. The NAV would be 164.16p. So at the current share price it's at just over 60% of NAV. Seem cheap. Unfortunately, NRR has lots of shopping centres and the market HATES shopping centres. Lots of people seem think they're pretty much doomed. The company says the valuations are supported by alternative uses for the land - that means housing - which I think is a real opportunity, but I can't see this getting much over 70% of NAV without some stability in shopping centre valuations.

They have lots of debt so they're very levered to really quite small valuation changes. I don't think they're selling the pubs because they really want to, I think it's a case of better safe than sorry. Having said that, I think the total return from these could still be good, but mostly due to yield rather than capital growth. These were a great covid recovery trade, but I think those looking for an easy 30% from here will be disappointed. There are certainly much less risky property companies with a fairly easy 20% in my view if you're bullish on the sector, which I think there are good reasons to be given monetary policy, covid recovery and NAV gap. NRR is a gamble on the market's view of shopping centres. BMO commercial is 33% below NAV and has much higher quality assets IMO.

I don't think there's anyway way they're getting that close to NAV any time soon. There are much higher quality property companies that are about 35% below NAV.

I take it back. It was a photo finish but by the close we had outperformed Exxon today! #shellfightback

Shell - in dollars - is up less than 5% since late November. Exxon is up 40%. We've underperformed Exxon today (again). In Jan 2020 we were at 80% of Exxon's market cap. Now we're at 57%. Something has gone very wrong with Shell, or at least with the market's assessment of it. On paper, the dividend cut should be a positive for Shell's market cap (I know the market doesn't see it that way for obvious reasons - people want their dividends and it signals weakness, shares get marked down as a result etc.) But we'll have "saved" at least $8 Billion in the last year alone.

I've bought Shell shares for the first time ever in the past week and as a result I have a huge position which I'm very bullish about. The macro winds are becoming very favourable and IMO the price is just wrong both as a standalone entity and when put up against its peers. We'll see.

On dividends: Do you guys not read what the management says?

I'll be very disappointed if this only gets to £15 by the end of the year.

And Q1 earnings will almost certainly be the lowest of the year. It's so cheap..

Putting aside the intraday moves, shell is clearly mispriced here. It reminds me of BP @ 250p in early Feb.