Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
We already have a system in place to tax profits - it's called Corporation Tax. Notwithstanding Bumble's excellent points around tax avoidance and loopholes, which successive governments have been abysmal at addressing.
Lokiloo, with respect I couldn't agree less. There are numerous reasons why a windfall tax is fundamentally unwise and unfair and those arguments have been rehearsed and covered off so many times that I won't rehash them here.
What I object to most in terms of the concept of a windfall tax is the government's willingness and ability to change the terms of engagement with complete impunity. Why should corporate entities and their millions of shareholders suddenly be subject to the whim of a windfall tax? We are all encouraged, in fact under auto-enrolment pretty much obliged, to make provision for our pensions (in part because the government knows that there will be nothing for my generation and beyond in terms of state pension). How can I make informed and responsible decisions about where I might invest my pension if the government has the ability to simply impose an additional tax on any company or sector it chooses and in doing so affect the value of my pension and the pensions of millions of others?
Your post appears to be party-political motivated and I personally don't think this board is a space for party politics.
Hi patrick, similar to you I started buying here in 2020 and have averaged down recently but still looking at average of 3p for my holding. I'm pretty relaxed about that for now as I tend to take a 5-10 year view on micro-cap growth stocks and I still feel confident in where this company is headed within a high-growth sector. So yes, if the question was addressed to me, my intention is to be a long-term holder, which is not the same thing as blindly following it over a cliff (just in case that's what you mean by 'seeing it through')! I was pleased to hear the CEO say recently that they were looking for a majority investor in the Athlos part of the business rather than looking at another fundraise, which I think could have proven deadly in terms of investor confidence.
Moneysponge, I like your bullishness on this and I am pretty long on GFIN, but there will be investors on 50-100+ message boards who believe their investment is like printing money and 80-90% of them will probably be wrong.
Johnnyy, as I understand it they made a very conscious decision to come out of Defence and focus on Automotive, for reasons around pace and reliability of customers. Automotive isn't exactly pacey, but Defence is positively glacial...
Put it this way, I'd rather take the kids to the cinema than the football or horse-riding. or to a funfair!
Whilst I share the sentiment that the industry will take a critical (possibly even fatal) blow from streaming services, I actually think it's pretty hard to argue that they are extortionately priced. Compared to other leisure activities on a per hour cost, the cinema is very reasonable. It only really racks up if you choose to eat and drink there, which is entirely a matter of choice.
Also an excellent note published by Hardman & Co
I particularly like the line 'Many years’ building a huge “economic moat” in an explosive growth market'
One of the great things about SCE is the sheer visibility of everything, including risk.
oldblue, not sure if you are either ill-informed or have chosen not to do any research around this. I would estimate that Celtic will earn a minimum of c.£30m from participation in this year's CL based on disappointing performances and early elimination.
- Each team receives EUR 15.64M for participation in the group stage
- Celtic would receive EUR 4.6M based on one win and two draws in the group stage. Any improvement on this would add at EUR 2.8M per win or EUR 930K per draw. Advancement beyond the group stage would see a minimum additional EUR 9.6M. But let's stick with the EUR 4.6M assumption.
- I believe there are seven teams in the group stage with a lower co-efficient, which means that Celtic receive 8 x EUR 1.137M = EUR 9.1M
- The market pool share is harder to calculate but EUR 5M is a conservative assumption.
15.64 + 4.6 + 9.1 + 5 = EUR 34.34M
Current exchange rate of £0.86 to the Euro = £29.53M
With a fair wind, I'd say popes11's £40M is likely to be closer than your £15-20M.
Of course the same is now also true for Rangers, albeit the co-efficient payment will be c.EUR 7M lower and the market pool share fractionally lower. Therefore, based on the same assumption re actual performance, your £20M assertion is actually likely to be true for Rangers.
Homework beats partisan detraction.
I've said before (so forgive me) but I'll say again (so forgive me even more!)... No amount of contract news appears to shift this (macro headwinds notwithstanding) and I can only think that confirmation of profitability and the associated successful delivery at scale, plus then factoring in a strong sales book/pipeline, will be what gets this moving and back up to 60-70p+, where I believe it should easily be.
Good man/woman! Party invitation on its way.
Righto, thanks for popping in then. Do you get invited to many parties?
Was excited to see an RNS with the term LOI in it this morning - bit of a muted market reaction but then the timing isn't great with general market sentiment and the natural disasters facing ****stan at the moment. Hopefully it will gain some attention and traction through the day and into tomorrow.
One question I have which others may be able to answer is has the confirmation come from the central government via the Sindh government or has it come directly from the Sindh government? If the latter, it feels a little like getting a Valentine's card from your mum! Also, if that's the case, why is the LOI for Thar VI required from central government? What's the difference? Is it simply that Thar is part of CPEC and Green Hydrogen isn't?
Each to their own RS2002 but I am completely mystified as to why the RNS specifically should have changed anything SP-wise... on the basis that it really confirms that it changes nothing! Of course they wouldn't have sold the 275m shares - without them they wouldn't be major shareholders and therefore have any say in the future of the business.