Member Info for Colbee

Ojogger - Boo is (I assume) doing a pastiche of Dan's regular¨common sense¨ musings.

Dan is demonstrating that LTI was wrong to call him a ¨dumbass¨ by talking out of it.

Thanks, Boo, for the survey.

Being childish, and hey it's the weekend, I asked Grok what is tastier, hamster or gerbil. It tended towards hamster, admitted it didn't know for sure, and suggested I have chicken nuggets instead for a similar taste profile to small rodents. Hope that doesn't spoil anyone's dinner.

Well done Izstar, and let's hope for a better week ahead.

Ach, Dan, I'm just trying to make Boo's next AI research even funnier. Have a good day yourself.

I can't see this being over soon. If Iran collapses, as it well might, without external boots on the ground the Straits will be too risky to operate. And we've not even seen anything from the Kurds in the north yet, who will likely start to destabilise adjoining areas. Maybe the plan is to have neighbouring states put in ground forces to reconstruct, but there's no sign of that yet.

What are these Iranian nuclear weapons you're hypothesising about, Stanley? We were told that program had been ¨obliterated¨ last year. Was that an untruth?

I think we're entitled to be sceptical that the current warfare is going to make for a better world, or at least take some time to see how it develops before getting involved. After all, that's what the US did in WW1 and WW2.

I'm happy to move on too, Dan.

Most folk here probably realise anyway, from past discussions, but if it helps any newbies the errors in the Hamstermuncher's post are

1. Buybacks mean each share is worth more - No, buybacks cost the company money, so it averages out, the effect is neutral;

2. If the share price rises after a purchase, the cost of buying back the shares has fallen (common sense says no, it was just a good decision to buy);

3. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Dan - You're clearly out your depth here, give it a rest. Vod isn't buying shares to make money, as you suggested, it's buying them to reduce share count. Vod currently has nearly 1,750 million shares in Treasury. Their current value - nil. If the share price doubles, they're still worth nil, it's basic arithmetic.

Actually, Dan, it looks better to the market, and is therefore better for us shareholders, if Vod eats the hamster (i.e. cancels the shares).

Jeez, Dan, you do make an effort to display your ignorance. As LTI has just explained, yet again, buybacks work for Vod when it buys the shares. What happens to the share price later is irrelevant for Vod. The hamster has been eaten.

Sorry, Dan, you're talking absolute nonsense. Vod buying back shares has zero immediate effect on the share price, Vod just parts with cash to some departing shareholders. We remainers end up with bigger shares in a smaller business and profit a bit more if the business grows.

We know you ate Guttersnipe's hamster. Suppose you buy another for a tenner, and eat that too. If the next week the price of a hamster is 15 quid, How much money have you made?

FFS Dan, when will you understand the basics of buybacks? Vod does NOT buy its shares to make money, it buys them because it thinks at a point in time they are the most efficient way to use spare cash. What happens to the share price after that is irrelevant to Vod, if it cancels the shares. As LTI has told you several times, buybacks always deliver what they are done to do, reduce share count in circulation. The future share price is only relevant as to whether the board could have done it better or worse.

So yes, Vod buying its shares is just like you or me buying them, except Vod buys them for a different reason and does something different with them.

Reminds me of the time a BBC reporter said, before the previous Gulf War, that the ongoing diplomacy was like a dangerous game of bluff, ¨except it's not a game and nobody is bluffing¨.

Spot in, Harmonica ! If history really did teach us that all dictatorial tyrants come to a sticky end, why would Trump want to unseat one, he could just wait a bit longer. But Stalin and the Ayatollah Khomeini both did OK at surviving. And, like Hitler, both were Time Magazine men of the year at one point in their lives - or two points in Stalin's case. Facts are complicated.

LTI - ¨stop digging - you are embarrassing yourself¨. Sound advice to Dan, mate. But some people prefer to buy a JCB. Dan likely buys shares in the company that makes them as well.

Booboobooboo - ¨The gain is, each share owns a higher proportion of vod as there will be less shares in circulation, but this is cancelled out by the cost of buying those shares. Buy backs are an alternative to paying off debt´

Exactly, treasury shares reduce the company's issued share capital. They turn issued capital into unissued capital. If the shares are bought cheap, that's good for remaining shareholders. But, as LTI has explained to the idiot repeatedly, what happens to the share price after the repurchase is only relevant to whether the purchase was good for shareholders or not, it doesn't affect the asset value of the company.

Dan. Why do you think I need an excuse? I'm just explaining the basics of buybacks. One of us understands the financial arithmetic. It ain't you.

Dan - As LTI is explaining, a bought back share has no value in Vod's Treasury. Nada, nothing. And the value of Friday's multimillion buyback multiplied by nothing is..., surely you can do the arithmetic yourself?

LTI - Dan thinks VOD makes money by buying back its own shares. He really doesn't understand how it works, despite you and others having explained it many times.

Thanks, Charlie. I'd forgotten the March 2025 issue to employees.

Meoryou - The buyback intention was stated as ¨It is the company’s current intention that of any shares repurchased under this authority, sufficient shares will be held in treasury to meet the company’s requirements, including for its share incentive arrangements, with the remainder being cancelled. However, the directors will reassess at the time of each repurchase programme whether to hold the shares in treasury or cancel them, depending on the circumstances at the time¨.

in 2024 over 1.2 billion shares were cancelled, hopefully something will be announced soon. If not, I can't see what the need to continue holding them is, the employee obligations must be well below what the company has.

Meoryou - The large release of Treasury shares to employee schemes happens roughly annually, and this year's figure is well down on the previous year (which was 232,600,002 shares). Now that's out the way, it would be good in my opinion if BP cancels some of the Treasury shares it has bought back. I can't see why it needs them all.