Member Info for jmak1912

@Markgo

Appreciate your contrarian view, but I think you need to give it at least 18months and not provide a daily snippet of frustrations.

I think Looney has already shown some good strategic vision with the green pivot - the best judge of this seeing rivals taking the same path.

Patience should be measured in years not days.

@Sigma1 - surely BB's just set the floor...

Based on the announcement to date if the SP was to increase with the BB i.e assuming the market cap remains the same from today, total return to 2025 (incl. div) would be 50% minimum from todays SP.

To be clear this is based on their clear commitments, which i may add, appear very conservative! seeing as the have increase div 4% in a single Q (rather than new target 4% per year) and exceed BB's by 40% in this quarter)

Overall a cautious approach but as always its better to over deliver on a clear strategy than to pander to market zeitgeist.

One silver lining to all this is the potential % increase to the buy back - I even like to see BP be more aggressive in the BB given the SP rather than attempting to reduce debt further

Despite peoples somewhat disbelief at the SP, there is one tangible benefit to it and that is the increase in the number of shares that can be bought back. Previously it was estimated "a further $1.5-2 billion in buybacks is possible this year," (Bernstein analysts).

Considering the PoO has only increased then we could breach the upper estimate easily.

Taking some peoples views (and the lower side of analysts ranges) that the SP could/should be a modest 350p - 360p, BP effectively would be able to purchase a larger no. of shares (+20%) than if we were at a fair SP price. This is my opinion is a great way to utlised the FCF rather than raising the dividend for the sake of driving up the SP (which people assume would happen - I have reservations on how effective this would be) this would also be counter productive to buy-backs.

I am happy to see this BB strategy until 2025 especially if BP is undervalued. if PoO stays at this level we could be talking a large share reduction...this would also allow a divi increase without increasing the dividend allocation as a total $ value

I think during the current times of illogical SP pricing (relative even to analysist ratings) this strategy is effective and bold in the sense of ignoring the noise and staying the course - like most great managers do.

"What the hell is going on. oil up almost 2% and oil companies share price barely moved!"

The day of the week ends in 'y'

@smithy I was speaking purely from a revenue / profit growth perspective. Stagnate is generous looking back from now to 2012. Not to say their fortunes cannot change...

@MarkGo

I disagree with the summary provided, in reality the share price would now be 50% less if there was twice as many shares and considering your request that the buyback money was historically spent on additional dividends. I.e. 64.5b worth of value based on share price.

Now more importantly if you were paying the same dividend today per share without buy backs that would be an additional cost of 5.8b per year going forward. This in theory is only compounding if the dividend continues to increase.

In reality I don't believe the dividend would be at current levels without buybacks due to the increased cost per annum.

Buybacks and dividend mix is my preference as a LTH. It provides upward pressure in terms of stock price relative to EPS and allows the company to increase dividends whilst offsetting the overall cost of dividends.

If a company stagnates such as IBM is currently doing, it's difficult to increase the divided.

Historically my biggest annoyance with Buybacks is timing...BP in this case are doing it at a time when the SP is undervalued IMO. Cannot say the same for IBM as I've not looked at the details.

To reiterate I'm talking holders for 10years + receive the best benefit to buybacks, so can understand frustrations of those holding for 2/3 years