Member Info for Guitarsolo

TFE: "The civil service, infested with left-wing agitators"

72% of top civil service officials came from affluent backgrounds, and 25% attended private schools (against a national average of 7%). Source, the Sutton Trust and Social Mobility Commission report 2021.
Aflluent backgrounds and private education are the hallmarks of left wing agitators aren't they!

Chippy, but how do you make a payment to them? We can't. That's why I wonder about a split of entities and transfering Russian assets into one for the MOEX s/h.....if even that is allowed!

Thank you FP.
It strikes me that one of the problems POLY has is the split between LSE and MOEX, with the latter being c.22% of shares issued (please correct me if I am wrong). It can only pay a dividend if it pays it to all shareholders, and sanctions will prevent payment of a divi to MOEX shareholders as it stands.
The Russian assets account for c55% of profits (again, please correct me), so if there was a way to transfer the Russian assets to an entity owned by the MOEX shareholders, and the LSE shareholders owned the Kaz assets (now distributed between 78% of the issued shares) then you would effectively be giving the Russian assets away for 40% of their value (22/55). Something, but not enough.
If a disproportionate amount of the total debt could be loaded onto the MOEX entity, you could increase that 40% to ??%. Get that figure high enough and it could be an option.
The Russian entity can own all the Russian assets and do business with non-sanctioning countries.
POLY owns the Kaz assets with little/no debt (perhaps even a + cash balance) and can buy other assets outside Russia.
What makes me think of this is because if we end up with 22% of POLY shares issued on MOEX after any split, we will still have the problem of paying dividends to those shareholders, won't we?
Guitarsolo

We've had this issue before with the KIDs and VSL seemed to get it sorted. Whilst I have always said that you need to be careful with VSL because of who the ultimate borrowers are (i.e. sub-prime) you're putting your faith in the company and its structures of not being the first loser etc. It's a good investment for a part of your portfolio I would say (especially at this share price), but it is ridiculous that you can be put through the ringer to buy this as a private investor but there's nothing to stop you investing in say Barclays with its investment banking division, proprietory desks and unknown exposrures all over the place! If that is what is behind the present share price malaise I would say take advantage of it. (I won't as I have as much as my own rules allow for)

So you're suggesting that the police didn't pursue it because of their "connection" with Starmer when he headed the CPS?

Well the Met's investigation was overseen by Bas Javid, brother of Sajid Javid! Blood is thicker than water and all that.

Come on Skier (Sir Kier?!), you're better than that. It's the sort of rubbish Long Time comes out with and he's a complete ****head!

The fun with this sea of green is wondering whether Plato is off on one again, or if Long Time is frothing at the mouth and spitting out Sterodent! My guess is on the latter! He's just so angry!
Love you Long Time.

It's a simple test (for the police) of reasonableness. The laws basically said that there was an offence committed if "without reasonable excuse a person contravenes the restrictions".
Keir Starmer stopped for a drink and something to eat on a campaign evening. Boris attended a birthday party and (amongst others) a bring your own booze party at No.10. It is reasonable to expect someone to have to eat if working until 10pm. It is not reasonable (or necessary) to have a birthday party or a BYOB party during lockdowns. Simple really.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the Daily Mail at this difficult time.

Well rnbal, that's an interesting point and got me searching a few long-term charts. There's always a danger with selecting data from any period but I tried to (i) try to align to election periods, (ii) take as long a period as possible of the successive governments, but (iii) omit the two major events (financial crisis of 2008/9 and pandemic of 2020-22) because they distort the analysis too much:

Labour government:
5th May 1997: share price = 403p
21st May 2007 = 374p
(-7%)

Conservative government (incl. Con-led):
7th May 2010 = 55
20th May 2019 = 58
(+5%)

This doesn't capture dividends etc. But I would say overall that it doesn't seem to matter to Lloyd's which colour government is in power.....Its share price performance is underwhelming and driven by other events.

My apologies gentlemen, I thought I'd logged onto a Lloyds Share Chat line, but it appears I have stumbled onto a mix of Prince Andrew confessions and old men's dreams.

Interesting but irrelevant

The supporters of (i) pro-life (anti-abortion), and (ii) lax guns laws and mass gun ownership, do seem to share one thing in common (RWMS)! As for nicotine/ vaping, that seems to irk the "left-wing" more (they're not really left wing).

I'll leave you to ponder Bumble. But in the past few days I've read multiple r@cist remarks, calls for people to be hung etc. As I've said, you can tell a lot about a subject by the people who are on the same side of the argument as you.

Gary, just catching up on some of these posts and thought I would try to add with the benefit of being in the industry (albeit not the investment side). For starters, you are correct about the issue of time lag between premiums being collected and claims paid. You could almost answer some of the ACII (Associate Chartered Institite of Insurers) professional exams with that answer. Indeed, back in the 1990s, many insurers operated claims ratios exceeding 100% purely because the investment income brought them back into profit. However, throw in a financial crisis or two, and we now have ultra-regulation of the industry because there have been too many failures or forced mergers as a result of this approach. After all, no one really wants to fear an insurance company can't afford to pay claims, do they? But regulation severely restricst what insurers can invest in such that much of the money has to be in very secure bonds (e.g. gilts or Tier 1 corporate bonds). Gone were the days of being able to lodge it with the BoE at 5%! Or perhaps not!
But equities are not going to count amongs these assets that can be held to cover claims. They are simply too unpredictable. As Trotsky points out, where equities are held it is as Assets Under Management in pensions/ customer investments - but these are not Aviva's shares. They're nominee holdings only, hence they aren't on Aviva's balance sheet. If Aviva does have any equiities of its own (proprietrary trading) it is minimal.
Guitarsolo (ACII)

Careful Skier, Bumble1968 will be on your case. Unless of course he only complains about non-far-right comments!
There are some pretty distasteful people around.

"We get constant condemnation from a certain section here about the folly of Brexit and the government's Rwanda policy for illegals."

And yet, I don't recall a single mention of a specific incident involing migrants. Can you cite one please? And yet, you use an example of a tradegy in Melilla to make some political point? Perhaps you feel self-conscious because the policy of the government you support is bad? As Machiismo points out, the Rwanda policy was all about the government "activating" people like TFE via the Daily Mail or Daily Express.

Likewise, Machiismo points out that it doesn't matter what part of the political spectrum you are from, almost everyone acknowledges that there is an immigration problem. The disagreement is about the response. The Tories want to become people-traffickers and send people to Rwanda for "processing", without acknowledging that they don't even have a legal way to apply for asylum in the first place (whether it is granted or not).

There are answers out there, but they are not within the spectrum of the Conservative Party or its UKIP manifesto.

It's funny how you think that "do-gooders" should be an insult! I think people who do good are, err, good!
But the Daily Mail has told you what to say!
(BTW, centrist, not leftist for what it matters)

Far Right, well it wasn't thanks to me that we had Tommy Robinson campaigning ourside our Parliament. That one is on YOU!
And who it TR, oh yeah, the EDL.
You can tell a lot from the people that form up on your side of the argument. Take a long hard look boyos.

That's only in your view Far Right!
But Brexiteers are going to be held to account for what they've done and if that is uncomfortable for you, tough.
Whilst LTI and I might share different views (as are our rights) have you noted how nothing I've put is ever disproved. The best you have is a different opinion, never evidence.

And how is that control over immigration going for you LTI? Oh, it's worse.

It's never long before you have to call me names! Such anger!