REMINDER: Our user survey closes on Friday, please submit your responses here.
The FT manifestly has not described BHP's bid as "comedy" and "insult". I just went searching, at length, for where the FT has said this, because it would be quite something if it had. There is as far as I can see nothing more than an FT article a few days ago that quotes a portfolio manager in those terms. Big difference - or not I guess, if you live in a post-truth world.
Glencore is not performing better since the BHP bid. It closed at 474.1 on 24.04, i.e. the day before the BHP bid was announced. It closed at 455 yesterday. So it has lost 4% since the BHP was announced (yes it went ex-distribution this week, that knocks off only around 1%). The FTSE is up over 2% since 24.04. Copper and other commodities have been continuing to rise. RIO is roughly flat. As far as I can see the bid has already done nothing but harm Glencore's share price, i.e. giving yet another easy excuse for the short sellers who are always circling the share to start working on yanking it down again after it has crawled of the canvass since February.
I see nothing in the two Times articles linked below or anywhere else at this stage that indicates credibly that GLEN.L or anyone else intends to bid. let alone GLEN.L being a logical frontrunner if it does. I see BHP on the one hand recognising that its offer has rightly been taken as offensive and hence now running around trying to placate people, most notably the South African government. On the other I see AAL.L management recognising the company has been run into the ground so badly that it has been left a sitting duck to a single takeover offer, priced at roughly 40% below what it shares hit in early 22. (Or if you want to discount that as a bubble moment, how about this - BHP's bid values AAL.L at more than 25% below what its shares traded for back in early 2011 FFS; cyclical industry or not that is on any measure a company that has suffered Grade A value destruction.) Hence it seems that AAL.L / its advisors / others with skin in the game have pressed the emergency button yesterday and resorted to dropping well-timed horsesh*t about others considering bidding after the air came out of the sp balloon earlier this week.
I cannot conceive how a GLEN.L bid for AAL.L would hold ANY attraction for a shareholder of either company. I would therefore be very surprised if one emerges. Judging by the vertical collapse back down in the AAL.L share price this afternoon after the spike on the GLEN.L rumour this morning so do others?
If you are an AAL.L shareholder why on earth would you swap your existing shares, at what will inevitably be lowball ratio (any bid is going to be, unfortunately), for an arguably even worse yo-yo share in GLEN.L? You will be getting low-balled by BHP as well but at least you then have a realistic prospect that the BHP share price eventually delivers the remaining upside you believe you are owed. I just don't see that happening with GLEN.L.
There is in my view - as someone who knows both shares well - no sensible prospect of meaningful further upside, ever, if you swap to GLEN.L shares. GLEN.L has only once traded above its 2011 listing price. (It currently still trades around 15% below it and that is only after a massive and unexpected upswing since February on rising copper prices.) The one rise above the listing price happened fleetingly in 2023, i.e. after 12 years, due to the Ukraine-induced bubble in coal and other commodity prices.
GLEN.L’s distribution was also destroyed in January, and it seems likely to remain so now for the foreseeable future. It has also emerged this week that its pending acquisition of Teck, which was supposedly going to serve as a catalyst for a significant upward re-rating of the share price by leading to a spin out of all its coal assets will now likely result in the company retaining both the Teck coal assets and its existing ones. I.e. likely leading to a permanent downward re-rating of the sp instead, because it hence becomes permanently uninvestible to many institutional shareholders
In short GLEN.L has repeatedly trashed the supposed upside in various acquisitions, most notably Xstrata in 2013, and Teck now looks like being the latest. It has essentially traded since it listed as a junk commodity, prone to plunge 20% and more at the drop of a hat.
If you are a GLEN.L shareholder why on earth would you trust GLEN.L management to take on AAL.L, at the same time as Teck? The most likely scenario is that they turn around and tell you shortly thereafter that - oops - they have re-assessed that many of AAL.L’s assets do not carry the value that believed them to when acquiring them. In fact, that many of them are going to be mothballed / junked / written down to zero. That is literally what happened with Xstrata.
To Jondoyogi and anyone else thinking this share looks like a top up buy at this point you must be nuts, surely? Per s.j.w's comment on this board on 29.04 this share is plainly run as a commodity by those in the know, for constant 20% swings (or often worse to the downside). Stand by now for the next dump.
The movement in the sp in the three weeks since 12 April has had the distinct feel either of repeated manipulation positioning it for such - or people inside the bubble knowing something we don’t but which also points to the same outcome pending.
Since the high of 4.86 on 12.04.24 copper has continued to rise, by around 6% even allowing for the pull back earlier this week (which has reversed substantially today). Iron ore has been rising steadily. Ditto nickel etc.. Yet GLEN.L has fallen 6.4%.
There have been multiple days when the market has risen significantly and GLEN.L has been flat or down, often amongst the worst few stocks on the index and even as other commodity stocks rose. E.g. 22.04 - FTSE up around 1.75%, GLEN.L flat. Same last Friday - FTSE up 0.75%, copper still rising, GLEN.L flat again.
Then this week it finally falls over fully. Tuesday it overreacts to the pull back in copper on the day, having not followed copper up repeatedly since 12.04. Yesterday - even allowing for the fact that it went ex-distribution (of whatever trivial remnant of one is left at this point) – it underperformed the market yet again, by over 1%. Then today, the last straw. Copper back up by 1.5%, market up 0.5% and down it goes once more, this time finally breaking through the April 5 level.
Worse, right on cue when you just cannot see what could possibly produce another such down day, we now get the AAL.L bid rumour being fully aired. (On which AAL.L rose nearly 5% this morning then collapsed vertically this afternoon.)
Add all this up and anyone betting against this falling back at least into the 420s promptly after today would have to be very brave. Hence why I am posting, which I do very infrequently.
PS - Obviously before you touch this share you now also need to factor in the other piece of choice dogsh*t that dropped this week. We now learn (what a surprise) that the supposed grand saviour of the share – spinning out the coal assets post-Teck so that that valuation millstone is lifted – is apparently now opposed by major shareholders.
So Teck in the end is apparently going to result in GLEN.L actually substantially increasing it ongoing exposure to coal! Brilliant, so it becomes permanently uninvestible for many institutional shareholders; i.e. it likely causes a permanent re-rating of the sp downwards.
The current shareholders apparently just want the company run as a cash cow, taking fat cash payouts on the coal. Err, while their capital slowly disappears, trapped in a share that no one else will touch?? And good luck with milking the cow. The distribution has just been slashed,
So I go to the trouble of posting two lengthy messages, as someone who has followed GLEN.L carefully more or less since it listed, explaining why it would be a seriously bad idea to buy it as a LONG TERM hold. Both posts were clear as a bell that that was what I was opining on. Because that is what Nosesseignotum specifically asked for views on. (As I read his original post on Friday. I don't see any other way to have read it).
To which we get someone explaining to me that "miners are cyclical" and someone else chiming in that you can make money out of GLEN.L by trading in and out of it. What a pair of geniuses.
And Nosesseignotum replies by saying effectively, "Yeah but what if all those really serious defects with GLEN.L that you sagely point out - and that have yet again destroyed the share price this year - magically disappeared? Wouldn't GLEN.L be a good long term buy then?" Yep, it would be buddy (well - if they all disappeared AND if it also wasn't a miner and hence will likely always suffer repeated cyclical convulsions in its share price anyway). My auntie would be my uncle if only she had a pair.
You obviously aint going to be told - so I really don't know why you bothered asking - so plough your money in.
F*ck me.
Nosesseignotum, I just want to make sure you understand - do not think you will EVER make money from GLEN.L long term, it just will not happen. IN fact the longer you hold the more likely you are to be left holding the baby after yet another near wip-out plunge. Over the last 3 years, commodity prices have soared into sheer dislocation levels, GLEN.L has booked three years in a row of profits far above anything it has ever achieved in its listed history and doled out phenomenal distributions off that back of that - and despite all this the share never did anything better than move up fleetingly above what it listed for in 2011! Then promptly collapse back ceaselessly by 36% and counting over 14 months. It is now back to a price below where it was at in January 2018 and I stand to be corrected but it earned then a fraction of what it just earned even in 2023 as commodity prices fell back. Look at the long term chart. The market simply does not value the company, the share price repeatedly collapses. It has taken me a long time to recognise and accept that the share is nothing more than a play thing for short term investors, with shorters constantly holding sway and seizing on any transient upwards movement to haul it down by levels no blue chip investment should ever move around by. Seriously, find some other target to put your money in if you are looking for somewhere to invest, rather than to trade in a and out.
The dividend is also destroyed not just for this year but likely for several years now, through appalling mismanagement over the last 12 months that has caused net debt to blow out just when it should have been being managed ahead of the EVR purchase. Which means the supposed windfall spin out of the coal business is now also unlikely to occur any time soon - read the results announcement from Wednesday - because the Board has resolved that that will not happen until net debt is brought down into a certain range. Which as matters stand will only be achieved now by withholding any meaningful level of distribution of profits for several years.
Nosesseignotum are you trolling with your question below? I ask because:
a. This board is attracting plenty of such d*ckwits and assorted fantasists at the moment; and
b. You would have to be an utter clown to put money into GLEN.L as a long term investment.
The share price repeatedly gets yanked down 20 - 30 %, usually precisely at a time when no sensible retail investor would see any sign of that being likely. (I dare anyone to show me a post where they predicted this share turning utterly without warning at 5.83 last January, or immediately losing another 20 % on top again this year, starting the very first day of trading and going down more or less ceaselessly since. Don't show me posts after USB let that stench out of the bag that the dividend was going to be destroyed. A monkey could see what was going to follow from that point.)
If you want to buy into a share that has now endured a pretty much ceaseless decline over 14 months of circa 36%, all whilst the company has been paying out record sums; has announced a supposedly value-transformative acquisition; and still posted its third highest EBITDA ever this week, dive right in mate. You would have to have a very optimistic view of how anything would ever drive this share up meaningfully again at this point.
If you are still tempted though, I would also just flag for you that GLEN.L has twice since it listed collapsed to near complete wipe-out prices that make what has happened since last January look like a picnic.
The fact that it suffers these violent price movements is highly abetted by repeated appalling management decisions - such as destroying the dividend this week. Because they let net debt blow out to £4.9 bn in the last year from nearly zero, wholly behind investors' backs until owning up to it this week. In large part by carrying on with more f*cking stupid share buybacks, despite being well away that commodity prices were retracing.
Worse, they have done so at a time when net debt is now going to have to increase even further to fund the EVR takeover. Which they have now revealed means the combined coal business will likely not be spun out any time foreseeably. The whole point of buying EVR i the first place! What a triumph - a "transformative" acquisition that a. has thus far destroyed the share price by roughly 20 %; b. has also now taken away any dividend incentive for investors to stay in or enter the share for the foreseeable future; and c. will unlikely lead to a coal spin now out any time soon in any event.
(Ps - I am well aware they are actually "distributions" not dividends. Let's not have any more silly posts on that please.)
Plus you may want to consider the fact that the FTSE has it seems now been reduced essentially a dogsh*t sideshow alley for short sellers. Other stock markets are roaring, the FTSE just keeps falling. Difficult to see what would change that any time soon
Ps GoroMajima - yes a company buying back its own shares and then cancelling them does seem intuitively to amount to someone buying something then throwing it straight in the bin. I spent years in law school, share buybacks never featured. So when I then first encountered them working as a lawyer that was my reaction. That is not what is happening though - it is just a company returning capital to shareholders. You give them their money back, they hand you back their share certificates (or vice versa). Once you've done that you can bin (cancel) the shares or put them in treasury, it makes no difference.
GoroMajima, for most people share buybacks are not easy to get a handle on. When a company "buys back" some of its own shares that definitely DOES affect what is in circulation. What the company is doing in effect is reducing its issued share capital - i.e. by returning some of it to the shareholders who elect to sell shares back to the company. (In the case of a listed company it buys back shares by just wading into the stock market and buying them like any other participant. )
But what you are then left with is essentially a commercial/legal nonsense - a company cannot own shares in itself.
So when a company does this it will then either cancel those shares out of existence straight away, or do what is called "putting them in treasury". Which means the shares still exist legally - but they are if you like "zombie" shares, they are not currently issued to and hence owned by anyone and the company has not taken in any capital from anyone for them.
The company could then decide to re-issue them again at some future point, at such price as it thinks fit. So increase the total shares in circulation again. Or, as GLEN.L has done recently it seems go ahead and cancel them out of existence after all.
In short, all that has happened recently is GLEN.L has done some legal housekeeping by cancelling some treasury shares that it presumably bought back some time ago, to keep the total number of treasury shares at a preferred figure.
I cannot see how anyone could think that would have any bearing on the company's share price. (Nor should buying back shares in the first price frankly if the company has paid fair market value for them. The theory that GLEN.L management seems to want to try to fool investors with by engaging in share buy backs is to say, "Look at us, we are buying our own shares back, so a. aren't we sh*t hot at managing our company, we don't need as much capital any more but we can still make the same profits; and b. if we are buying back shares now we are doing so because we think they are an under-valued bargain". As far as I can see neither has ever fooled anyone into bidding the price of GLEN.L shares up in response. )
Shares sitting in treasury therefore should not factor into the price at which shares in the company trade. A company can in theory hold a board meeting any time it likes and resolve to create a trillion treasury shares if it wants to. Until it actually issues those shares for a price they should have no bearing on the market price at which the company's shares trade.
Part 2/2. The last words were cut off in my previous post. People will get the draft - cancelling treasury shares should have no impact on share price.
As evidenced by this share resuming its bullsh*t yo-yo trajectory again over the last three days, as it continues the slide that started three weeks ago now, after any positive effect from the Teck announcement last precisely two days.
On which, can I just say finally that one of the responses to my recent posts was to claim that I think this share should perform as a “capital growth” share. I trust it will be evident by now that I am not a moron. My whole point of coming on here is, on the contrary, to warn people that this share has had over a decade now just to establish itself as capable of trading in a fair price range reflecting sensible valuation metrics. (I understand obviously that any such range will be wider than most shares given it is a commodity share.) It never has, other than getting close fleetingly last year/Jan this year.
On the contrary it has twice fallen to near-death levels. A FTSE 100 share losing 90 % of its value, despite still being a plainly viable and ultimately profitable ongoing concern, is not “volatility that comes with the territory for a commodity share” as some idiots on this forum seem to think. It is an horrendous episode of grotesque failure of corporate governance that will have ruined many investors’ lives.
My point coming back aagin recently was to say that if Teck did not provide a basis for a meaningful re-rting of this share at last, which it has not done, then I am lost now as to what ever will. ‘Cos I have been hearing for years now that coal was the millstone around the share price’s neck. GLEN.L management has tried ever rabbit. None has ever worked. And now ditto Teck.
I was not planning to put my head up here to have it shot off again with abuse etc. this soon but may I just answer GoroMajima please about the treasury share cancellations, and say something broader about share buybacks.
First, let me make a disclosure that may make people a bit less inclined to question whether I know what I am talking about or have some agenda. I am a retired City solicitor (Magic Circle). I left my work there very early in life following a serious medical episode and hence have had to self-fund my life ever since. As part of that story self-evidently I have strong views about GLEN.L.
As a lawyer I used to advise companies of the same ilk as Glencore about corporate governance issues. On that basis my informed view is that in most cases - other than e.g. a genuine decapitalisation of a business as part of a major change of direction or the like - share buybacks are sheer bullsh*t. In this company’s case they are never-ending and they have as far as I can see never achieved anything positive for the share price. In 2015 the company’s irresponsible practice of engaging in them - apparently to try to pump the share price so as to try to con people into thinking the listing had not been an utter failure after years of the shares failing to get back to anywhere near the listing price - left the company vulnerable to near collapse when shorters induced panic by claiming the company did not have adequate capital to weather a transient commodity price crash.
So what happened next? Ivan Glasenburg then issued himself nearly 10% of new shares in the company at an outrageously low price (£1.25 as I recall), without making any offer to market. Then in no time the company, outrageously, resumed and has continued ever since with buying back shares.
If the company thinks it has surplus capital it should pay all of it, to all shareholders equally, as capital distribution.
Separately, people have argued with me before on this forum about treasury shares. Shares held in treasury are - in my informed view as a former corporate lawyer - a complete “nothing” for share price purposes. They are simply shares that the company has bought back but not formally cancelled fully out of existence. (Or shares created potentially for issue but never actually issued). I have heard people argue on this forum that therefore they remain part of the company’s overall share capital and hence the share price will reflect them. The former is technically correct; the latter is in my view just nonsense. The share price should only reflect the total shares on issue. (If the company were wound up would it owe any return of capital to anyone on the treasury shares? Obviously not. So why would they factor in the value at which shares in the company trade.) Cancellation of treasury shares is simply corporate governance “housekeeping” to wipe them fully out of existence. That should have no impact whatsoever on th
Final points before I disappear again for a few years. Obviously I don't see anything positive about this share being at around 450. So what if that is a significant improvement on the 170 it was seemingly at when I last posted, presumably during the Covid crash. 170 (let alone the 50 pence or so it fell to in 2015 as I recall) constitutes an utterly catastrophic loss of fair shareholder value, life-destroying for many. So plainly that is not any sort of yardstick to expect someone to base comment against. The yardstick is this:
a. This is a publicly listed company, trading on the FTSE 100. So investors are entitled to expect sound share price performance. Not repeated episodes of near complete capital wipe out, which this company has twice delivered now;
b. The share listed, over a decade ago now, for 533.
How could anyone conceivably think a share price of 450 merits positive comment in that context? Or given that it was at 583 in January - i.e. finally approaching what I would consider a fair bail-out price for anyone who has endured holding it long term. Upon which it turned viciously and collapsed again by 30%.
Why would I feel any impetus to post something positive when it finally went over 500 last year for the first time since listing. Wow, what a f*cking achievement - it was finally edging close to returning investors their capital after over a decade.
Daytradenovice I don't want to engage in petty point scoring. Just to be clear though when I posted yesterday the share was trading at 447. and had been at 445. an hour or so earlier. That is plainly "mid 440s". It bounced slightly late yesterday though as is almost always the case with GLEN.L some of that was then dumped out in the last 90 minutes of trading - another persistent problem with the share. And obviously it is gone again today.
I have no agenda. As I say I come on this board very periodically for a sounding and to hopefully to impart some knowledge as someone who has known the share well now for over a decade. If I had an agenda I would be pushing it in a far more effective way than coming on an archaic and as far as I can see now very lightly populated corner of the online world once in a blue moon.
My view is that the listing of this company has been an utter failure from the get go and management has been engaged ever since in an endless attempt to pump value which institutional investors simply do not buy. If I were a conspiracy theorist another view would be that the whole thing has been a knowing scam by insiders from the off. That they listed the company for a multi billion pound pay day and have been stuck ever since in having to play at managing a publicly listed company to deliver fair shareholder value. And failing hopelessly. The company came perilously close to complete wipe out in 2015 FFS. That was an utterly shockng failure for a publicly listed company that would have ruined many investors lives. The Xstrata acquisition - also touted as transformational, yet GLEN.L management then almost immediately wrote virtually all of Xtrata's brownfield assets down to zero. Sorry, if that becomes your view of those assets that quickly then plainly you should never have paid what you did in the first place. Etc.. Going a step further you might think that actually what this company is all about is running it as a yo-yo share for people in the know to trade for profit as it constantly lurches up and down by absurd amounts for a supposedly blue-chip asset. (Or by issuing yourself a fresh 9.9% in the company, to the exclusion of anyone else, when the share price collapses to under a pound.)
My take on Teck now is that it is just another case of pumping bullsh*t. Something that sounds great at first blush then ... . Then it transpires the acquisition won't even close until Q3 2024. Then the spin off may not happen until late 2026. Etc..
Finally be careful about thinking Thungela is evidence of a windfall waiting to come here. TGA.L listed for a derisory price and settled there for long enough that most retail investors would have concluded that AAL.L had thrown away those assets for next to nothing and dumped the shares. They then skyrocketed on a once in a lifetime price bubble in thermal coal provoked by the Ukraine conflict and have since fallen back around 65%.
My previous post should refer to the "last Wednesday" intra day high, not "last Thursday". As all will appreciate the share peaked last Wednesday and has slide Thursday onwards, save for a bounce last Friday that then immediately unravelled.
Replying to Daytradenovice.
1. Why is it some sort of problem for me to have a consistent perspective and come on this board very occasionally, when I see a fresh and serious problem consistent with that perspective - i.e. that NOTHING positive EVER causes the market to re-rate this share properly? It trades at a truly laughable earnings multiple - something like 3 x.
2. It is not a "very small retrace" since the Teck announcement, nor quite obviously is the share now in the mid 450s as you state. It is mid 440s and sliding again today. So it has dropped 5 of 6 days since last Thursday and is off now approaching 6% from the Thursday intra day high of circa 473.75.
3. What is the disaster with it trading at 447 you ask?. Err that is the whole point of my having posted again. The disaster is a. that the share is 23% down for the year (it was down over 30% at the nadir) and b. the WHOLE point of my post is that what was announced last Wednesday should have been taken by the market as utterly value-transformational. It should have invoked a really serious unwinding of the YTD drop, especially with copper recovering as it has in recent weeks.
Instead the net gain from the Tech announcement has now whittled to under 4% - the closing price last Tuesday pre the announcement was 430.45. Over the same span AAL.L - a company that has really serious problems - is up over 10%. If you cannot see that the way the share has traded since Thursday - on top of its collapse since January, a drop that would psychologically destroy most retail investors - does not signal a very serious problem for GLEN.L as a place to invest your money hoping for capital accretion, when that announcement should have been taken by the market as pretty much the ultimate value transformational re-positioning of the company ... well I can't assist you any further.
Daytradenovice do you think I am wrong in some way? I come on this board periodically both for a sounding and hopefully to impart some useful perspective to others. I have posted again now - I think it is probably a couple of years since I last did so - because I am dismayed by what has transpired since the Teck announcement last week. I.e. I am back on here after such a gap because I see a real issue worth flagging. Which is a. that there was only a trivial gain if any versus peers on the announcement last Wednesday and Thursday, then worse b. there has been a 5.5% drop this week from the Thursday pm high for no obvious reason whatsoever. 5.5% is serious money, not something that should just drop off a share without apparent reason over 3 days - especially following what should have been a value-transformative announcement but which added precious little in the first place.
So my perspective to people who may be new to the share - because the people on this board tend to turn over - is be very cautious if you think there is some easy windfall capital appreciation to be had. It listed over a decade ago now for 5.33 as best I recall. It has never since gone above that (except I think maybe fleetingly last year a couple of times ) until Jan this year. Whereupon it promptly collapsed 30% from 5.83 to around 4.10. During that span investors had to live through a near full capital wipe-out in 2015. On any view that is a company that has manifestly failed to deliver as an investment proposition. There will be plenty who have had a field day in it over those years trading in and out of it. (That is in my view one of the problems with the share - because there is no stamp duty payable on it it constantly gets the f*ck traded out of it.) Be in it for that game if you think you know what you are doing, by all means. Be in to collect the [currently circa 9%] yield if that is your game. Otherwise be very cautious.
Dr Patience, you just confirm my point. WTF - seriously WTF - would EVER now cause this share to re-rate to a proper valuation if all that you mention, plus the fact that it has just announced a complete de-coupling from coal - after being hounded down for years by activist shorters over its coal business - barely moves the needle versus its peers over the course of two days last week, then it leaches back down 5.5% over subsequent days. Despite all macro factors being broadly favourable over those days and its peers being steady. It went down on Monday FFS despite copper being up over 2% on the day. Previously you could at least rely on it serving as something of a proxy for positive news in the copper price. Sorry, it is a completely mis-priced piece of sh*t. My view is the whole enterprise is a scam on retail investors. Look at 2015. The share price collapsed to near death levels, so what happened next? Glasenburg issued himself a fresh 9.9% in the company at those absurd low prices - carefully avoiding having to offer shares to anyone else - touting himself as some sort of saviour. "Thief" would seem a more apt description to me. You got in at somewhere down at those levels, good luck to you. I am also well above water. But my point stands. It is a fundamentally mis-priced asset and I see no sign of that ever unwinding after it has collapsed again over 30% this year from its January high and shown itself now to be barely capable of crawling off that bottom.
Now down 5.5% since the intra-day peak last Thursday. AAL.L broadly steady over that time. Copper up substantially. But this piece of sh*t keeps leaching down. After an announcement last Wednesday that should have triggered the most transformational re-rating in its entire history as a listed company. Instead it barely moved the share vs its peers - they all soared on inflation data, AAL.L went up more than GLEN.L on the day. It is a completely mis-priced asset (yield = approx. 9%) and I cannot see what now will ever cause it to re-price correctly. It still trades below what it listed for FFS. It went to near £6 in January - finally approaching something like a fair price after over 10 years as a listed entity. But that was underpinned it now seems purely by the price bubble in thermal coal - it then promptly collapsed 30%. The Xstrata acquisition was supposed to transformative. Instead the company sank to near collapse in 2015. Then came (and still come) the ENDLESS bullsh*t share buy backs, that never move the needle. Now it announces a complete decoupling from coal and this is brushed off by the market as effectively worthless. Yep, it is a dog.
Wayzgoose, I hope you realise you paid 487, 450, 442, not 287 etc.! 287 is the good 'ol days (i.e. last summer) when, according to the market, that (i.e. probably about 2 x earnings) was a fair price for this piece of d*g****. The current prices are nosebleed stuff relative to its overall history - I mean how dare a share get back even to near its listing price again after 11 years, let alone break green! Obviously the fact that it poked its head above the listing price twice last week and the week before was enough to send it into complete meltdown.