Member Info for Gavster-NBC

Happy
Apple is one thing, but the history of BP's buyback proves that the buybacks have been a vast waste of money.
So please answer the question, because the figures do not stack up in your argument's favour.
How has 64 Billion Dollars (SIXTY FOUR BILLION DOLLARS) been well spent on buybacks since 2000, when the equivalent cash/business aquisitions/being debt free/extra dividends would not have compensated by multiples the dilution of 20billion to 27 billion shares.

hah, yes luddite.

in a nut shell..

The mining operation has had nightmares due to blasting permission and supervision problems with the local authorities, the happy duck brigade complaining about this little mine being a blight on the countryside despite the economic bonus to the area and not realising the best thing to fund their prospects of the site returning to beauty was to let the mine work, the funding issues and of course CV-19..
There's probably a bunch more but the bottom line is.
The potential SP could have been 200p once the mine is operational and working to proper capacity, but they just diluted us massively by selling a huge number of shares at the cheapest ever price making annoyance for long term holders, but fully funded the mining.
Now we can expect an SP maybe approaching 100p instead, but only after a load of news flow has cemented the mine being operational and producing gold at it's capacity..
Cheers and GL

Happy.
Buybacks do not add long term value, they are purely there so the BOD can get away with share bonuses.
Please explain how 64 Billion Dollars (SIXTY FOUR BILLION DOLLARS) has been well spent on buybacks since 2000, when the equivalent cash/business aquisitions/being debt free/extra dividends would not have compensated by multiples the dilution of 20billion to 27 billion shares.

Buybacks as this BP info page pretty much proves do absolutely nothing longterm for shareholder value long term, in fact the opposite.
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/investors/information-for-shareholders/shares-in-issue-and-share-buybacks.html
They do however provide enough liquidity for issued bonus shares to be comfortable sold(pat on the each others backs) and for the short termsters buysbacks should also stop shorting.
This buyback however, becasuse the dividend has not increased will simple be an anchoring force to 290p-300p

Noted. Any ideas on why ?
Hold or is this a good buying opportunity.

nightyard
An Increase in equity is far better justified through making a better business than throwing money to the public to buy your own shares. Increasing the business and lowering debt leads to longevity. It should be obvious how buybacks have failed by looking at the history going back to 2000 and asking what has been actually been achieved by throwing 64 billion into buybacks rather than investing it in business, debt or divs.

But No debt is better than any debt. Cash for buybacks should only be spare cash, when there is nothing to buy and no debt to pay off, and the shareholders do not want anymore dividends !!
So never.
64 billion dollars has been spent on buybacks by BP.
There is absolutely nobody who could justify buybacks since 2000 have been a good idea in retrospect.
64 billion dollar leaving the company to have 20 billion shares rather than 27 billion shares and keeping the cash.
BP could instead be investing in all sorts green energy projects, R&D, paying debt or raising divs instead.

Incorrect Eccles.
I'm not going through it again. Even A ten year old should be able to get it.
We have the same number of DLG shares at the start, and at the end, 4858 shares , except I made twice as much return as you by trading the ex-divs. Simple stuff.
Don't be put out or try an bamboozle with dodgy figures. Nobody will be fooled by that last attempt at a post.
I think you're just trying to wind me up, or annoyed that a trader made more than you by holding.
No idea, as anybody who reads this thread will be see clearly your hopeless attempts at trying to somehow justify making less money is actually making more. Maybe a political advisor would have been a better career for you.
Anyway. Whatever it is. No matter anymore, I'm putting you on filter.

The buyback is an anchoring to a share price of 290 to 300.
A buyback is a shocking waste of company money anyway, buying back shares from the public, issued at lower prices to staff. Basically taking money out of the business and giving it away instead of accumulating green energy companies, paying off debt, or paying more dividends etc etc.
Get rid of the buyback, put the money into the business or dividends and watch the SP rocket.

Buybacks benefit the CEO/BOD's as far as bonuses are concerned to the detriment of shareholder value. it is greed gone wrong. Bonus's based on EPS and a guarantee that there will be a buyer for any bonus shares issued, sold to shareholders on the basis that we'll benefit as well.

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/investors/information-for-shareholders/shares-in-issue-and-share-buybacks.html

Look a the total amount of money wasted on buybacks since 2000, $64.3 Billion !!
For what.. 6.7 Billion Shares.
Instead of all that money wasted on buybacks, imagine, for a moment, if they had just put that money aside instead. We'd have $64.3 billion..
What would the share price be with 27 billion shares (instead of 20 billion), No debt, a bank balance of $30 billion, dividends of 25cents higher per quarter? It would be more like 1200p, not 300p.

This is the extreme example for BP over 21 years, and obviously not realistic, but the effect is the same, and smaller for every buyback, eating away at the overall value of the business and doing nothing for shareholder value.

If we can vote against the buyback... then do so. If we can't, funny that isn't it.

Eccles. As a accountant the you should be able to count, read and add up.
As below.
My profit is from 5 trades , buy DLG, sell DLG, Buy Sabre , Sell Sabre, then buy DLG.
Where we both start and finish with the same number of DLG trades.
Total profit = £1584
Sabre trades netted £473
Total profit from the DLG dealings = £1584 - £473 = £1111, which is actually 55% more than you made given we both start and end the same.
Deary me, eccles, you just conjured up an extra 14000 capital in your answer.
You must have been one of those creative accountants, or just bad at applied maths.

VikingRa.
Of course. That's part of what helps create the trading opportunity in the first place.
Read back below to understand.

Eccles.
Incorrect. If Only looking at DLG, I profited twice. First by selling day before ex-div at a higher price than buying, then
again by buying back the DLG shares at a lower price. I made more than a 40% than your dividend. But it was even better.
The two trades were linked because both were part of the same plan. To trade the two shares on their ex-div's within a month.
There was nothing fortuitous about it. It was planned.
A profit is a profit as they say.
Not sure what you problem with is with a plan that makes a larger return than the dividend.

Hi Morbox.
With DLG I sold the morning of the day before ex-div but missed out on around 2p which it hit late afternoon.
With Sabre, I kept an eye on the live chart and sold at the top, 3pm day before ex-div.
It's bound to be different with every share depending on market forces, but I would look to trade the day before ex-div.

Looking good but they'll need much much more volume than for those 20p II's to make their quick profits.
This should get back to 50p to 60p (Soon to be 25p to 30p) range as that's what it was before the "Smash & Grab".

Dogger Bank will be great ! Just it's going to be a few years before it pays dividends.

Hi Selecta, can you share the research that relates to BP's buyback, that shows the management/BOD would benefit more than receiving higher dividends.
Foxbat.. With the bitcoin craze receding, and seeing the opportunity of a low BP SP, expect many more ramptastic posts by people proclaiming they have 1500 a point (but still wash the Range Rover themselves), analysing that big trade at the end of the day and MMs keeping the price down, this will explode soon etc etc etc
Good Guardian article today for Shell/BP.

To add to this. IMO A main problem with steel production is historically all steel production has needed to burn coal to produce it.
Evraz, like some other steel companies, may be looking to shift their methods away from coal with new technologies, but in the meantime buy it as a necessary raw material rather than in their inventory, as you know.

It is surely inevitable at some point.

https://www.greenbiz.com/article/it-possible-make-steel-without-fossil-fuels

"Globally, steel is responsible for 7-9 percent of all direct emissions from fossil fuels. Most of those emissions come from the burning of coal, which makes up 89 percent of the energy input for blast furnace-basic oxygen furnace (BF-BOF) and 11 percent of the energy input of electric arc furnaces (EAF). Of those two types of steel production, BF-BOF is far more common, making up 75 percent of steel that is produced compared to 25 percent from EAF. "

A major challenge for the steel industry in the modern era has been reducing its carbon emissions. Unfortunately, energy constitutes between 20 and 40 percent of the cost of steel production, so the reality for most major producers is that "green steel" is simply not affordable. But that could soon change, with the rapid advancements in hydrogen energy.

On Aug. 31, Swedish company HYBRIT officially began a pilot program for a "fossil-free" steel making plant. Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven was there to open the plant, alongside the minister for environment and climate, the deputy prime minister, the president and CEO of SSAB, the president and CEO of LKAB and the president and CEO of Vattenfall.

This groundbreaking program aims to bring fossil free steel to the market by 2026. It aims to replace coking coal with electricity from renewable energy sources and hydrogen in a process that will produce steel and water as opposed to steel and carbon dioxide.

But there is no certainty here for HYBRIT, with an early study suggesting that fossil-free steel at current electricity prices would be 20 to 30 percent more expensive than steel made with the current process. A recent report from McKinsey went even further: "Surging carbon dioxide prices and decreasing hydrogen prices are crucial to ensuring the economic viability (according to cash cost) of pure hydrogen-based steel production."

Hi Eccles.
OK Let me break it down.
Lets you and I both start with the same investment of 4858 shares, and focus on the SP at 307p, the day I bought in. Let's say we both have £15000 worth of shares.

YOU : £15,000 at 307= 4858 shares. Take the dividends (14.7p a share)-
You end up with the 4858 shares and a cash profit of £714.13

ME : £15000 at 307= 4858 shares, sold before ex div £15,572.97- reinvested £14000 in Sabre, 5388 shares then sold before ex-div. £14,473.03, my total cash is now £16046 - I buy back the 4858 shares of DLG at 299 = £14462.
We both end up with 4858 shares in DLG, but my cash profit is £1584.

I did this because I have noticed that most share prices drift after ex-div. including DLG. Admittedly I had to oversee and research the strategy but as you can see, it has worked out in my favour this time. As I said, the worst that could have happened was that there was no great rise towards ex-div and I would have been stayed invested in DLG with a yield of 7%.

(My actual money is currently now in two other shares awaiting rises to Ex-Div, but I may well get back into DLG some point later)

Cheers and GL.

Hi TakingMyTime. Good to see you're still around.
If you've no reason that prompts hovering above the sell button, then IMO keep holding.
There's plenty left in the tank and my situation proves that the market can work against you at the drop of a hat without rhyme or reason.

I know... Kicking myself. Mistake I wrote about in previous posts below.
In 2020, I chose a moment around ISA transfer with EVR to sell, then buyback my holding about 6% larger.
With the ISA transfers this year, when the chart paused recently around 578 it looked like a turn, so I sold intending to do the transfer and also buy back at a lower price. The market totally went against me this, but fortunately I still have a good holding and a very low risk investment.