Member Info for dan222

Probably a stupid question, but if the Falklands is part of the UK does the windfall tax apply? Or if not, could the UK govt impose it?

I wish they'd go a lot bigger on the buybacks. It would make perfect sense to borrow at 5% if necessary and buy back as much as possible while the shares are yielding more. While the dividend is a fixed amount, the yield could double if they bought back half their shares, which would cost just 1.5 billion, or they could keep the dividend per share as it is and save 50% of the dividend cost, recouping the outlay in 7 years.

Rolls Royce I think 7 bagged, 2 baggers are pretty common. Unfortunately I'm never in them - I sold 90% of my Fres at 1400. Good luck to all the big holders here.

Whenever everyone's optimistic before results, the price plunges after. I hope I'm wrong but it's happened without fail over the past approx 3 years that I've been invested here.

"The stock market is a device for transferring money from the impatient to the patient."

Yes, barring some kind of disaster specific to the company, I would say the share price is certain to hit 300p again, it's just a question of waiting, possibly for a year or two, but you get a nice dividend in the meantime. With a buy in at 212p you're doing a lot better than most, including me

A buyback of BASF's 40% would be great at these prices, I think buybacks don't have much impact at small volumes but 40% is huge, and Harbour can afford it fairly easily.

Buybacks just make sense at current dividend yield. If they could borrow to buy all of BASF's 40% (and cancel those shares), it would surely make sense. Then the dividend falls automatically by 40%, and they can spend the next few years concentrating on paying down debt.

No, the directors sell the shares on the market to you or me, so we pay the directors direct. The company doesn't have to pay anything (apart from employer taxes).

Once the shares have vested, the directors are free to do what they like with them.

I think they're just standard (senior) employee shares - it's normal to pay employees in shares which will vest in a number of years, so that they stay at the business and have a vested interest in it doing well. That will be why they're deferred - I know Linda was awarded a few million recently.

If they can buy at anywhere near current share price, then surely it's got to be the board's top priority to do so. I'd happily take a dividend cut for that (though to be honest I don't even think they would have to cut the dividend - once they've bought the BASF shares the dividend is automatically 40% cheaper)

Has Carlos Slim been buying recently?

Buying up BASFs shares would also make the dividend much more sustainable. The same dividend out per share would cost 40% less. If hbr could buy out BASF at anything close to current share price it would be a great bit of business

I think about 12 billion is future decommissioning liabilities

Small free float is surely good for the share price

I believe Exxon is holding a load of cash that offsets most of the debt (I'm no expert and happy to be corrected - I just got it off Google)

Add on net debt (Harbour $4bn, Exxon $6bn) and you can see why Harbour's valuation is so much lower than Exxon's.

I always thought a big chunk was worth more. If you have 40% you have a certain amount of control over the company which 1% doesn't give you, so it makes sense that the big holding would be worth more, in the save way that 51% is worth more than 49%

Don't think there's anything to stop them buying, it wouldn't be on the market and would probably be well above the current trading value. It's the same as if you wanted to sell me your shares for £5 each. If we both agreed it would be fine to do - obviously it would be silly of me to buy your shares for £5 when i can get them online for a lot less, but BASF are in a different position because they hold such a big chunk.