Member Info for Guitarsolo

Then you don't understand. It is not my job to educate the uneduactable.

Deliver what was promised.

The Daily Express is not a credible source.
Try again.

Theosus: " Its simply gone from this economy...".
You've never heard of soft power then?

Actually Mvarawa, you are poorer.
We all are from a simple standpoint only, the GBP has fallen. Therefore, your spending power around the world is less. And even if you stay in the UK, anything you buy that is imported is more expensive (and we all but something that is imported).
Then there is reduced GDP, which in turn leads to higher taxes on the economy to raise the required amount of tax. So we are all paying some more tax because of Brexit, whether you can measure it accurately or not.
Then there is the increased administration that UK firms are now facing because of the increased admin of being a 3rd country. Those costs are passed onto all of us.
And this is just on a very general level, without getting into specifics of the 2/3 of SMEs that used to trade with the EU but have now given up because it is uneconomic.
So when you say "I am not poorer and I have not met anyone who is poorer through leaving the EU" I would contend that you are quite wrong, even if you don't feel it.

Beza, to be precise it benefits British shareholders. IMB will earn/ account for most of its worldwide earnings in USD. Those dollars will now buy you more GBP (but you'll then find your GBP doesn't go so far in the world!). But, yes, dollar strength helps those companies that earn their money in dollars basically.

You ask what Russian money being laundered through London/BVI etc has to do with France buying Russian gas? I simply tried to show some balance. You wanted to make an anti-EU point (valid because the EU have made themselves far too reliant on Russian energy), but you need to also see that the UK has contributed to the problem. Perhaps your political leanings prevent you from being able to do that? Then you raise the Economic Crime Act and think we should all applaud it when experts in the field can tell you it is limp. The one thing I can assure you of is that it will not be transparent and it will have little effect but the spin on it is "hey aren't we doing well, now applaud us"!

Visionary? No.
But I am a fraud and anti-money laundering investigator, with a particular focus on the Caribbean and Latin America, and qualified expert witness.
Are you a visionary to know that the Economic Crime Act has been passed "to deal with this" as you say? Remeber, it has been written and passed by a government that has taken Russian donations, whose own co-Chairman facilitated all manner of oligarchs to quintessentially do what the hell they liked in London, a government who has refused to publish a report about interference, who have been in power for 12 years when untold Russian money has been laundered, a party whose own MPs have been named in the Panama Papers etc......With all of that (and more) do you think that the Economic Crime Act would have been written to be as tough as hell or......limp?
GS

Cookoo, what's worse; buying Russian oil and gas during a war they started, or laundering their money for them?
TBH, I don't think either is better than the other. Neither should have or be happening, but is.

The Economic Crime Act is limp. Billions have already been laundered by Russians through London with the help of Brits. Tory members like Ben Elliott literally helped them!
And as for the tax havens, the ECA won't apply. And the wealth hidden there is astronomical.
I'm not political really, but your comment was. So I feel it necessary to show some balance.

Does your independent, principled stand also turn its attention to how the UK effectively launders that Russian money through the UK and its tax havens?

Green Lantern (and others). Firstly, I should say that I am no longer a chemistry academic! I sold my soul to financial services and investigating fraud! As such, I would defer to a more current or qualified chemical engineer.

But on the subject of recycling, Lithium being such a small atom (the third smallest possible in the universe!) means it will have properties to signficantly differentiate it from other metals (usually much "heavier"). More importantly though, the gigafactories designing and building the batteries for the OEMs are under strict instructions to design them so that they CAN be easily recycled. It's a very high priority for the OEMs so it will happen.

As for other forms of batteries, for sure there are alternatives to Lithium (Sodium - Na - being one of them). However, there would have to be an obvious advantage and until then, Li (along with Nickel and Cobalt) is likely to be king. However, I revert to previous comment that there is plenty of Lithium in the ground and at some point there will be enough extracted, especially if recycling rates are high.

With any mining operation, timing is key. You need to be producing at the max. rate when your commodity is at its highest price. Imagine if the first 10 years of your mine's lifetime were when prices were low and then it increased x10 when your production waned! That's why, if/when/once the EIA has given the green light, DA needs to get his/our ducks lined up to start producing spodumene when prices are high!

One quick point about hydrogen cells, a big issue is the energy that is required to electrolyse water to release the H2. Because of the relative strength of hydrogen bonding it takes a hell of a lot of energy.....that's why H2O with a molecular mass of just 18 boils at 100 degrees but ethanol (C2H5OH) with a molecular mass of 46 boils at 78 degrees.....it's the energy required to break the bonds that matters.

Last point, yes Lithium is highly flammable. But so is petrol, LPG, hydrogen, ethanol and other fuels! There seems to be a connection!

GS.

I remember doing my Chemistry GCSE some 30-odd years ago and specifically a project regarding the energy efficiency of hydrogen as a fuel compared to small-chain fossil fuels (ethane, propane etc). Then, doing my Chemistry degree at King's College London, every day I walked passed the original Daniell Cell built in 1836 (often considered to be the first real battery since it made enourmous strides forward from the previous technology). It's the size of a nest of tables.
These days, I spend time investing in parts of the automotive supply chain and one immutable fact is that, once the auto industry goes down one particular route, it will be 20-30 years before it changes. The development costs are simply too high. It is quite clear that every car auto manufacturer (OEM) has gone down the battery route. I can't see them returning to an ICE engine anytime soon (incl hydrogen). I would concede it is more feasible for HGVs and aviation, but for cars I think that ship has sailed (to mix metaphors).
So I don't fear that EIA/SAV's delays will cause it to miss the Li-boat (acknowledging Chameleon Man was not being serious). However, my main concern is this; Lithium is third on the periodic table behind Hydrogen and Helium. It will naturally occur in abundance and there will be multiple places where it is in sufficient concentration, purity and accessibility to extract it. It is also relatively easy to recycle. With Li needed for the EV chain, OEMs are going to grab it from anywhere they can. And if the EIA/SAV can't get a move on other places (even within Europe) will overtake it and supply the market.
It's a political waiting game, but Jeez we've been waiting!
Guitarsolo

And the excitement builds before the Q3 dividend announcement.......

I wish there wasn't! I am still trying to accumulate! But this is still great value under 60p as we move towards the second half of the transformative year for SCE.

I'd agree Kentio. Given HFEL has maintained and modestly increased the dividend during a pandemic, I can't see them cutting the dividend immediately after a 14% increase in underlying dividend income for H122.

I think they'll increase it (again) and the question is, by how much? The Q3 increase is always an indication of what the managers think of the situation and the future. My guess is that they will want to keep their powder dry for more stable times ahead. If so, the Q3 dividend will probably increase from 5.9p to 6.0p. Anything more than that and Mike Kerley and Sat Duhra must be positive that the dividend earnings are strong.

I appreciate the capital loss (including mine!) over the years but the 290-300p appears to be the baseline and an 8%+ income is very good at these levels (imo).

Guitarsolo

OK, so the March NAV increased 1.7% to EUR 15.26, thereby arresting four months of decline at least. I guess we've grown used to a rising NAV over the last 2 years, but I'm pleased to see the increase and hope it continues, not least because the December NAV sets the dividend for the following year. PEY used to give itself some leeway around this (with a plan to pay out between 5-8% of the NAV but usually towards the lower end). But now it's quite clearly stated as 5% of the December NAV so it's all important.
Guitasolo - slightly happier!

Thanks dmore.
The article (July 2021) presumably pre-dates the cigar business sale, or are there still cigar brands within IMB?
The article summarises many of the reasons I continue to have a decent holding in IMB, which I have owned for a decade or more. I discard most of the ESG issues as I can't believe there are any smokers out there unaware of the risks any more, although I am disappointed quite how much this depresses the share price by blocking many institutional investors from buying shares.
The only thing I think the article was lacking was a discussion about debt. The previous management (Alison Cooper et al) let debt run up terribly to over £12bn I recall. It's coming down now (perhaps around £9bn - please correct me someone) and I think that the c£600m of savings from the divi cut in May 2020 are earmarked for reducing this further. Personally, I would like to see it down to just a few £bn (or even nothing!) as it will allow for the dividend to increase nicely again, which in turn supports a share price, and also makes the company a more attractive acquisition (in my view).
But anyway, nice to see that others think IMB is a buy (or continue to hold if you've already got a few).
Guitarsolo

Thanks for sharing Rivaldo.
There's much to like about SCE and I am in accumulation mode (albeit with spare cash rather than selling something to buy - for that reason it will be hard to get beyond a moderate shareholding).
I have no idea about DCF models when a company is this "young", but on a 5 year+ horizon things look good and who knows, in 10 years+ it could be a mini-Brembo!

Where do people see the risks here? A few obvious ones that come to mind:
- Personnel (if SCE lost or something happened to key individuals how much could that de-rail things?)
- Product (so far the product appears to be excellent but what would happen if (just for example) they started catching fire!?)
- Extraordinary costs (e.g. energy is hedged for a while, but what if it goes higher for longer?)
- Contracts (I don't know much about the details of the OEM contracts as to how much they are tilted in the OEM's favour)

Guitarsolo

Bed and ISA of a few shares completed at basically neutral cost after today's 20p+ drop! Still a few more to go but now the latest batch are in their final destination these shares can remain there forever!