Member Info for casapinos

Bargain... as someone once said "the harder I practise the luckier I get...."
Falky just because I have exposed you as a fantasist and a liar.....is no reason to be bitter!!!

sometimes up.
https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/957878/rolls-royce-upgraded-by-jp-morgan-on-earnings-and-disposals-potential-957878.html
note the date , not much more than 6 months ago, maybe it's just that JPM are as anxious as some on here are about short-term SP movements. As a professed long term holder I have added this morning(despite my post yesterday suggesting that the next earnings relese will dissapoint).I hold quite a few at an average still well below the current price and am not in the least perturbed by todays downgrade.

Poker if you examine the history it's clear that the city knew a catastrophically onerous RI was in the offing. During Sep 2020 the SP fell from about 220p at the beginning to 116 on the day of the announcement and then oscillated wildly throughout oct . I spent many fruitless hours trying to explain why. In simple terms, the shares were trading with a very lucrative call option to buy three times as many at a 70% discount so any SP oscillation was magnified by a multiplier of 4. My shares held at about 220p meant that when I took up all my rights I ended up with an average in the low 70s. I repeat though, that the RI invalidates any reference back to share prices prior to 1 0ct, the company is in a new world, it has four times as many shares in issue and its market cap has already recovered from about £2.5 bill on the announcement and is now £8billion , so there is a very long way back to the heights of £30-40 bill it reached in 2013/4.

Apols for typo...... the RI was actually 10 for 3!

Engine... I know because I bought before and into the rights issue in Nov 2020, that immediately pre the RI the SP was about 220p and the RI was a 3 for 10 at 32p. What that means is that the entire SP history before that becomes irrelevant, there are now 4 times as many shares in issue and most sites will have adjusted their SP historical charts to reflect this.I use the FT website for my data.LSE (this one ) does not and that is unusual and deeply misleading. If you cannot accept my view then do a bit of background reading, here is the first relevant reference I found which sets the position out.
https://www.stockopedia.com/learn/our-data/do-you-adjust-historical-figures-for-rights-issues-stock-splits-463293/

hope that helps

Off.....That SP was pre- the Rights issue in late 2020 which effectively reduced the SP by a factor of 3.

I have made the point here on a few occasions that the single most significant set of stats pointing to RR's finances are the Heathrow passenger traffic figures. Those figures for March were published this morning,and, despite the gloss put on them by Heathrow , they are well down on the last "normal" year. that is 2019.see table below(in millions)
MAR 22 4.19
MAR 21 0.5
MAR 20 3.1
MAR 19 6.5

Year to date
2022 9.6
2019 17.8
so heathrow is running at just over half its"normal" capacity(and still seems to be chaotic!)
the net effect on this is that RR's next results are likely to show projections for civil aerospace revs at significantly below £4bill pa and total revs below £10 bill for the year. whether sensible or not, the market may well take fright (so i'll probably add!)

I have made the point here on a few occasions that the single most significant set of stats pointing to RR's finances are the Heathrow passenger traffic figures. Those figures for March were published this morning,and, despite the gloss put on them by Heathrow , they are well down on the last "normal" year. that is 2019.see table below(in millions)
MAR 22 4.19
MAR 21 0.5
MAR 20 3.1
MAR 19 6.5

Year to date
2022 9.6
2019 17.8
so heathrow is running at just over half its"normal" capacity(and still seems to be chaotic!)
the net effect on this is that RR's next results are likely to show projections for civil aerospace revs at significantly below £4bill pa and total revs below £10 bill for the year. whether sensible or not, the market may well take fright (so i'll probably add!)

skier,CSD when something is posted which is patently untrue I feel obliged to say so. I agree with the limitations of the UK market(tho' even in the Uk there are ample opportunities if you do the work) which is why a very significant part of my holdings are in the US, in ETF's and PE.

Skier .... "outdated" buybacks have already been made for $319 billion(yes that is BILLIONS) in the US this year to date, old-fashioned AMZN are buying back $10 billion,GOOGL buyback shares, MSFT are buying back a mere $60 billion. I hold all these and am delighted else I'd be stuck with a withholding tax on any divis! Oh wait most major US companies don't pay divis',what do they do to reward shareholders. Oh yes I remember they buyback!

KD thanks for the polite response to my somewhat tetchy post(deliberate, I really wanted to get the point across to lots of other posters here ).A couple of things to bear in mind, investing in banks brings with it the implication that , as a fundamental part of the UK financial infrastructure, they are always going to be subject to interference (there are other more polite words) by the BOE, FCA, as well the panoply of other regulatory bodies. The consequences of that are that banks must be seen to be ensuring their own financial stability BEFORE the wishes of their shareholders and will be penalised financially if they don't. Unsurprisingly they take the opportunity , when presented of resetting divis, and implicitly blaming the government.
The other relevant point is that those grumbling about the current SP had almost all of 2020 to buy the stock here at levels below 35p or for several months at levels in the twenties, as I did, Had they done that then the implied annual divi is not the 5% of today's SP but over 7%, the rate of return I'm getting on my holdings. Sometimes people just have to accept responsibility for their own actions (or in this case inaction)and avoid apportioning blame elsewhere.
nonetheless, I hold here for the medium to long term and tho' I never postulate SP numbers, I feel sure that my target growth of inflation plus 10% pa(from cap. app and divi) will be met. In today's climate, any share that offers a sound prospective 10% + pa return is OK for me, if it doesn't satisfy others there are almost 3000 other UK quoted stocks! and thousands of pooled investments to choose from.

Yes it is, it would be higher than this year and although it may cost LLOY less(and hence make the retained profit greater) that would be because of the investment in buying back shares. That is the reason that LLOY describe both buybacks and dividends as "A return to shareholders...."
The interminable debate on this board about the benefits or drawbacks of buybacks is sadly ill-informed and ultimately pointless, as no one here has the ability to change it, live with it or find an alternative investment! but please stop moaning! Apart from its sheer waste of time it obscures the very occasional, useful discussions.

Mini-rant over.

Plato I suspect whether you like the book or the concept you would approve of Ms Keltons approach , a good part of the book (and I suspect the reason she developed the theory ) is about the failure of the US to provide an adequate set of provisions for health, housing, social care etc etc and she posits that the usual excuse - " We can't afford it "is flawed because money, which is nowadays fundamentally a concept rather than a set of pieces of paper in a wallet could be "magicked up" to pay for everything ....

Plato I have read a good deal about MMT and for me, the best description is still Stephanie Kelton's book "The deficit myth". a paperback copy will cost you £8.57 at a well known online retailer, or you may find one second - hand for less(but they are not common). If you want a very potted summary it is this:
"Countries which have the right to issue their own currency can do so in unlimited amounts and can never go broke"
Though essentially she sees those countries as, in practical terms, limited to the US, UK , China, Norway..and a few others, ie those countries whose credit is sufficient that they can always honour their debts(even if that is in a severely depreciated currency!)
She cites the last decade or more of " quantitative easing" as evidence that her thesis works, in that those countries, particularly the US, UK and the EU(tho' she sees the EU as a special case )have effectively done just as she describes, "printing " vast sums of money, with which they have bought up huge tranches of debt, with no significant adverse reactions, such as a "run" on the currency or a mega devaluation.
As is always the case, there is much more in a book of several hundred pages than a post of a few hundred words but, in truth, the principal argument is as I have summarised above. If you wish for more I can bore everyone else inordinately with a further series of posts on this subject!!!

While as ever SHEL's earnings RNS's are lengthy and complex, my first two points to note from today's are these.
The exit from Russia will cost SHEL between $4and $5 billion- that's the bad news, the good news is that the refining margin has gone up by over 50% to over $10 per barrel(or if my analysis is correct $16mill per day!)ie almost $6bill for a year. As a holder I would expect that to be positive for the SP today and the near future but, as we all know, today's markets are more unpredictable than ever !

Why .. I respect your grievance but it is to a degree, misplaced. It is commonplace for senior managers of companies to receive some of their remuneration as shares (it worked for me!).the reasons are these.
First, it means that they understand that their income is closely tied to the success and hence rising SP of the company and will hopefully, work hard to ensure that happens.
Second, it is tax-efficient for them, they can hold the shares and (perhaps) sell them after retirement when their income is lower, it is a means of deferring tax.
Third, it (marginally ) reduces the company's wage bill, which is a cost which drops straight through to the bottom line.
Fourth, it means that when they do a buyback it should, in theory, increase the value of the remaining shares ( a point which LTI has laboured at inordinate length)which benefits large holders (ie the board and senior management ) disproportionately .
Fifth and finally it is a widespread practice, engaged in by almost all FTSE 100 companies and if you don't like it your only option is not to invest.

Numpty .. if you don't need the cash the most efficient use of it is divi reinvestment, my lot (II) charge me 99p execution each time and it avoids having to withdraw from the ISA if you are still in ISA addition mode.

Dunc .. all the evidence over decades suggests that the sooner you invest in an ISA the better, the old adage "it's time in the market not timing the market that makes profits" is oft-repeated 'cos its true. the latest I have seen came from Ian Cowie in Sunday's times where AJ bell's research shows that since 1999, £1000 invested at the start of the ISA year would have produced £3000 more than £1000 on the last day of the ISA year. So while there is never a guarantee, if you believe your investment will rise, the longer you give it the more it rises!

Asp. its also worth noting the expenditure on retiring high cost debt, about $2bill in recent months and just as useful, if not more, than the share buyback, as the debt cancellation drops through directly to the bottom line while the share buyback, has a proportionate , but not absolute, relation to future shareholders benefit.

Falky did you manage to read your reference down to this bit
"The ORB poll estimate has come under criticism in a peer reviewed paper entitled "Conflict Deaths in Iraq: A Methodological Critique of the ORB Survey Estimate", published in the journal Survey Research Methods. This paper "describes in detail how the ORB poll is riddled with critical inconsistencies and methodological shortcomings", and concludes that the ORB poll is "too flawed, exaggerated and ill-founded to contribute to discussion of the human costs of the Iraq war".
Or this
The Iraq Body Count project also rejected what they called the "hugely exaggerated death toll figures" of ORB, citing the Survey Research Methods paper, which Josh Dougherty of IBC co-wrote.[9] IBC concluded that, "The pressing need is for more truth rooted in real experience, not the manipulation of numbers disconnected from reality."

I thought not !