The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
agreed. This morning also news that Tesla will not be able to make electric cars as cost effective as petrol for at least three more years. Ive read somewhere that battery technology improvements have now much less room to manoeuvre. In other words unless some totally revolutionary technical improvement comes out of a lab electric cars are going to remain twice as costly to build as a petrol engine for at least another 5 ... if they even do manage.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-shell-costs-exclusive/exclusive-shell-launches-major-cost-cutting-drive-to-prepare-for-energy-transition-idUSKCN26C0GI
Wood Group is down too almost same. I think this news spooked the market and BPs ventures into wind farms. Perhaps the markets see the green revolution coming on much quicker. I am probably wrong but I dont think the west is keen on China taking the edge on energy. Its probably the last thing we need so I personally do not see this happening so fast.
When you sell short you cannot sell your position unless you increase your short position in which case you are selling more shares you do not own hence why its also a form of borrowing. So are you saying shorters are increasing their short position or buying their short position thus cutting loose their commitment?
I gave this another punt and once again I feel like I been a sucker. Those who went in before the news broke did well but now I am thinking the price is being fixed at half of equity and that makes sense. I calculate 0.41 p/s if the company was a normal business but this is not a normal business its an airline. Sir Branson once said to become a millionaire first become a billionaire then buy an airline.
Should have remembered that one before I bought in especially knowing hes doing the bidding. Thats my 2p worth btw. GLA.
Agreed. If the company goes into receivership then its an auction which means prospective buyers could end up paying more ... or so me thinks
Lost money on this one but I think we have a winner now:
Equity 93 million
Share issue: 216.66
Thats 0.43 per share.
It all depends of course on how many actually bidding for the company. Should they all leave the negotiating table and wait for it to go under then we would be holding onto nothing better than fire starters :)
Here's a lesson I learnt at my expense. In 2016 I bought Games Workshop at 5.12 in Dec 2016 they went up to 6.12 and figured these people cant be selling ugly little plastic toys forever so I cashed in. Within a few months they hit 0 and by the end of the year they hit 20 with a PE ratio of 30.
When I was telling my eldest who is all into this fantasy games she could not stop calling me crazy for selling :)
So the moral of the story is if you want to know something about a company go with what customers tell you about it
A Bashtard with 4 children with a mother each and you have cash to spare? You're either a miracle or have your priorities all wrong. Entertaining sex workers would have been cheaper I'm going back to burning 5 grand on an italian holiday :) Hope you all had a good w/e and gla.
You are right I should have toned down a bit as it was not my intention to be offensive. I was actually being concerned at how some people throw money at a share they think they know cause they use it every day.
I love it when people not involved in tech talk like they understand the company. You have to have spent 30 odd years working in the field to understand. Its your answer why so many people jump onto the tech bandwagon in their millions. First off we have never been told by Netflix how many of those subscribers deactivate their accounts because they took advantage of that 1 month no obligation before signing up. Still I would say they are able to fudge those numbers by some 5 to 10% Then comes the issue of the infrastructure. If you ever dealt with video streaming your head would start spinning at the massive infrastructure this company must be building and needing to maintain. Its gotta be beyond any cloud infrastructure any other company has. Are people really willing to pay for this eventually? I think the real price for netflix from what I have seen so far is 3 times their current price because you need to keep refreshing your technology. Its like building a new subdivision but once complete you start knocking down the first houses and rebuilding all over again. Moreover they are at the mercy of the middleman i.e. the actual internet service provider How much is an individual willing to pay for what they have to offer? Thats very questionable. As an idea take youtube which has a larger viewership but its free. Youtube makes money off advertising pretty much the same model as you have for TV but their revenue is all meshed up with google revenue. Besides youtube videos are short relative to Netflix which means there are much less overlaps in demands than netflix requiring less capacity. They are technically very different and will not go into it here. As well another problem netflix faces is the more countries they expand the higher their costs in what is known as internationalisation something which if you were in IT you would instantly know about. You have cultural sensitivities that require special experts to manage, language and translation ... its a nightmare ITV would have none of that because its mono cultural. You only watch it if you like British culture or familiar with it hence much more simplified. Another last point. Good you mention Hulu and Amazon. Amazon provides way more services that are complementary and increase revenue. Im not sure you know they are very big in the cloud space. For Amazon the same infrastructure is supporting their cloud business, the video business and their online shopping business. Not same for netflix. Hulu on the other hand The Walt Disney Company (through Disney Direct-to-Consumer and International) (30%), 21st Century Fox (30%), Comcast (through NBCUniversal) (30%), They have traditional ad based service as well as payed commercial free service and they are very cheap. Obviously all shareholders have their own revenues and Hulu is just a foot in the tech dor for them. So what do you think is going to happen in case of a price war? Who do you think has the least leverage
@marineville. I appreciate the way you think. Very logical and you build your argument. Thats in your first half. For some reason you skidded a bit in your second with 2 statements: "i appr eciate they now are rolling in cash but, beyond that..." isn't that the whole of point of a business? Cash=Growth=guaranteed dividend=increase in sp and why would it take years for a world wide subscription? Well for starters the likes of netflix are just disappointing and contrary to ITV not really making cash so thats probably why, yet its sp keeps on going up to crazy numbers all based on FUTURE earnings. How much more fudgy and flimsy is that? Here's the thing. Logic is something alien for any stock market
Apologies but totally unimpressed by your assessment. Facebook never really made money until recently and its monetization following the recent scandal could be at risk. Like Google Facebook depends almost entirely on advertising for revenue. While they both hold dominance within their field all it takes is a technological revolution and these ships will sink faster than the titanic. Indeed they are already facing 2 threats, privacy protection and being too big for their own good. As for Apple, just look up Nokia
I believe that like all technology over timewill be taken for granted and re-evaluated for what it really is. One thing for sure the backlash from the facebook scandal is not over. I read of more strict legislation is on its way in Europe. I think ultimately even in the US politicians are going to start getting edgy if their main trade of vote catching becomes a commodity. No politician is going to like competing with the knowledge that his/her competitors can buy their same tools.
https://www.economist.com/business/2018/05/26/who-will-be-the-main-loser-from-europes-new-data-privacy-law Worth reading up on. I always found that targeted online advertising is way over rated but to be fair never really took up the challenge to research properly.
Who were you referring to? If its Netflix yes, investors are crazy to be piling cash into a company that has not made a penny in the hope of future growth. its one of those US companies thats burning a billion a year or close. Like Tesla. Its gambling. Better chance than the lottery but still a gamble
Well yes of course they are burning billions but to me they're going head to head with holywood and bolywood not TV channels. Sure they are eating away from the TV series sector but those are lower budget and much cheaper to make no matter what. That sector throwing money wont make people want to watch it. Its more getting the right script/plot/idea TV channels historically supported cinemas and had an alliance of sorts that gelled. My point is its not going to be in the streaming business interest to see TV channels going out of business either.
@Wigan Yes I have mulled over this dilemma quite a bit before loading myself up to a large decent size. Your points are valid. However the way I see it is that there is a huge gamble the likes of netflix is playing with investors money. The problem with streaming videos is they do not have the capacity to create celebrities and its celebrities that attract viewers. You can get Jason Finilickwick who kills an entire Jakuza clan with a pencil and viewers will switch off half way trough with a groan but if Jasan Sthatham kills an entire Mafia gang with a butter knife viewer ship sky-rockets and you're looking at your butter knife with more respect. And it is live TV that can strengthen profiles. It is TV series and the followup talk shows and news exposures small appearances on other programs etc that build an actors following. I dont see how thats going to happen with live streaming except to replace DVD rentals. I have netflix and I love it but I dont go trawling to see a new actor. Rather I go trawling to see an actor I recognise. Its the convenience it gives me. They're burning billions and this reminds me of when Sony decided to go into the movie making business which complemented their DVD player and disc distribution business. I see this as being the exact same. Eventually Sony learned its lessons but not after coming close to the brink of ditching everything. Then again Sony makes electronics and can actually do that but whats netflix going to do except keep gambling? ITV has TV and TV is what netflix is missing. TV is cheap to setup and get working. PC and laptops or gimmicks are just a pain to setup. If I have a TV set and I get cable as well why not keep ITV and netflix? Oh well my 2 cents anyways