Member Info for fromage

And that just once immediately below the price info at the top, and once again after 4 chat entries. Hardly noticeable.

I could say "what adds?" All I see is a thin message sometimes in the page saying "sponsored content" and I am content with that.

BP being specifically unappealing is true. I added BP and ENI to my watchlist when I erroneously decided to enter the sector at 6 May 24 by buying ENI. Since then ENI has fallen 7% and BP 26%. BP is a disaster.

I would have a buy order if I had any money :(

My average price is below this current one, and with the regular decent dividend this is a good hold for me.

This is a really pathetic dividend and certainly not worth buying the share for on its own, but I hold because I expect share price to increase significantly in the next 6 months as coal prices and demand rise.

I will be voting against these (see RNS) and fail to see how such things can benefit the company - or shareholders.

@Alas : I don't see why you should change strategy at retirement. Growth in share price is equally as valid as dividend income. Total return is what counts, and if all you have at any point is growth with no income, and you need some, you just sell some shares. At age 75 I look forward to more of the same. "Life-time strategy" is just a gimmick to line the pockets of fund managers.

My only change at this point in my life is to abandon AIM. Mainstream shares held in variety will not all collapse to zero value.

@y11-shx Any experienced investor will tell you that while "may be" can apply to anything, probability and duration say the opposite. Since I started 12 years ago I have (overall, including some disastrous choices) beaten RPI (just). Your savings accounts come nowhere near.

Excellent news. I believe in the future of coal, and had this been split off I would have had the worry of deciding what to sell in order to buy it. Not a good time to sell anything.

Step change and inflection point seem contradictory descriptions. Perhaps they teach geometry differently in a country where everything is always upside down.

Just shows how easy it is to get it wrong. The previous comment was made as the company gasped its last. I cut my losses shortly after that misjudgement, and I sold out. No doubt it is a bargain at the current price, but someone else's bargain.

Terry : yes, I must admit I did, and I also agree, GLEN being my second biggest holding. But I also have enough (or rather no more money to invest.)

Don't read anything into this : the telling bit comes at the end : "I do hold mining shares, but would not sell them to buy Glencore"

... and of course earnings per share goes up, probably to give director bonuses, but as earnings have not gone up, EPS is meaningless. In fact the impact of all these extra bonuses takes money OUT of the company, so my contention is that if anything, that is also detrimental to the shareholder in a small way. But of course nothing like the impact of the loss of a potential dividend they could have given rather than the buyback.

If anyone is wondering, I am not a friend of the buyback.

A 5% yield is definitely a great return for losing 10% of your money.

> I thought that the buyback would increase the value of the shares!?

Assume a company has a fairly valued share price, so the market cap represents 100% of the worth of the company. It decides to buy back and cancel shares worth 10% of the company. To do that it spends money to reduce the total worth of the company by 10%, so it is now worth 90% of what it was, but the number of shares have also gone down to 90%. One share of those remaining is worth exactly the same as it used to be.

The share price does not change, as a result. Earnings do not change. It does not generate new money. What does change is return on capital (goes up), which is an arbitrary figure (other than a possible means of increasing directors' pay). This has no bearing on the return of a new investor deciding to buy shares will get.

If they then "raise dividends by 2%" it will be equivalent to a 2% dividend increase.

Ade : tell me again why you think the company buying back shares and reducing the value of the company, rather than giving that same money to you as a dividend, is good for the company? And how is it good for you, individually? It does not benefit you in any way, to the contrary, nor does it raise the share price. It may be beneficial to directors who have remuneration based partially on earnings per share, but not to you or me.

Pokerchips : "..any tax increases would be met with efficiency changes and cost savings... I suspect .." Oh yes? You are overly suspicious. I would think any increases efficiency and cost savings lying around waiting to be picked up would have long gone.

Tambo is right, robleo, I do not think the majority of the UK have money held in share ISAs. By Starmer's definitition, a shareholder is not a "working person", therefore needs to be taxed beyond the hilt.