Member Info for Kaberlaba

I also added today. Whether that was wise or not, will become apparent later. :)

Yup, maybe 275p at a stretch. Disappointing.

@Time2BuyOrSell Ed M would be a disaster for the whole country, not just O&G, imo. Britain is witnessing something akin to a coup in some banana republic. An unelected leader about to announce significant policy changes that weren't in the Labour manifesto yet no General Election in sight. Jobs for mates that helped stage the coup. At the end of the day there's currently no money to do the things Burnham is espousing. Not yet sure who's gonna get punished by tax increases ... but tax rises are coming.

While I do hope it doesn't go down too much from here, I'm certainly adding too! IMO one of the biggest risks here is that we get some low-ball offer from the US capitalising on the "unloved" nature of the UK stock exchange. Even the typical 30% takeover premium only puts us at 286p. I suffered the same fate last week with US medical supplies company HB Fuller making a low-ball offer for AMS.L; in that instance, 285p for a company that's easily worth 330+. Another great UK company lost to the USA.

I guess the change to "hold" by DB mentioned by @dartron simply reflects the (disappointing) reality that this is gonna go through at 285p so may as well hang on for that extra 5p. I agree with @Kendall12 it should be north of 320p. It's an absolute steal at 285p and HB Fuller are going to quickly reap the rewards that many of us have been patiently waiting for as newer AMS products take off.

It's sunny today, and we all have our heating off, but as of right now (live from https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ ), UK National Grid demand is 38GW, and GAS-FIRED power stations are being callled on to provide almost 13GW of the supply. If it wasn't as windy as it is today, GAS would be needed to provide an extra 8GW. So even in Miliband's Green Utopia, when we all drive electric cars, that electrical energy is going to need to come from somewhere (and it's probably gas). Given that about 40% of HBRs production is European gas, 20% international gas and 40% liquids, HBR has to be a share for the future IMO.

I've made a reasonable (but not spectacular) return on AMS in the 15+ years I've held it. I feel 285p undervalues AMS; the 35% premium (although typical) is based on a dip in the overall market and the specific issue of UK firms being unpopular/undervalued. Would have liked to have seen an offer in excess of 300p+; after all, my last disposal was at 325p way back in 2017.

I don't think Burnham will call an election. The electorate might call for it, and morally it's probably the right thing to do, but Labour would lose too many seats. There are a lot of voters who'd vote for middle-of-the-road-Labour who certainly won't vote for left-leaning Labour. So here we'll soon be - a new PM elected solely because one MP decided to vacate his own seat and become kingmaker. How democratic! I wonder how long before the vacating MP gets some plum job under Burnham?

Most of us, I sense, want to see Miliband relinquish his role as Energy secretary. Tonight there's encoraging news (he might be moved, especially after the drubbing Labour got is Scotland because of it's green/net zero/kill NS O&G policies), but there's also bad news (he's now a front runner as the new Chancellor, when Reeves gets deposed). That'd be terrible! It'll be interesting to see what 10-year gilts do over the next couple of weeks.

Agree this investment trust needs a shakeup. I always knew it was a concentrated (non-diversified) fund (" 'cos you only get rich by putting your eggs in one basket, and watching the basket") and for many years trusted in the stockpicking skills (which is essential for this type of fund to work) of Nick Train and his colleagues. Sadly they've not delivered for several years now. For more than a decade, this investment trust was a core staple of my extended family. Sad to report that in the last twelve months we've all bailed out of FGT; some with a very modest return, the others nursing losses. Very disappointing.

@Property1 asked slow rise or jump? IMO Both, slow then jump. For mathematicians this is a classic "catastrophe theory" problem. Continuous inputs (various rising pressures) suddenly cause discontinuous outputs (a jump in price). (There's a classic paper on "The Unstable Nature of Stock Exchanges" which launched catastrophe theory to the mainstream). Governments around the world are trying to give the impression of stability/normality, but under the surface, reserves are being run down at a great rate. Notionally, the UK should have 90 days supply, but I believe the actual levels are now much lower. That drip feeding of reserves is a continuous input to the "system" at the moment, but it's going to snap because IMO the reserves will be run down before this conflict is ended (and more importantly, long before "normal service" of supply is resumed, which could take years). The next card played will be to present normality by not replenishing the reserves, but that's taking a huge risk. If nothing happens, it will go unseen by the public, but if another crisis/conflict/situation erupts, there'll be a big problem.

@maninbag using the 350 list is smart. I always did it the long-handed way, looking at the (bottom of the) FTSE100 list and comparing with the (top of the) FTSE250 list, but now I know better! Looking at those lists, it's an interesting (worrying?) observation that the UK Government (i.e. the taxpayer) is spliffing £102.7bn on HS2, which would buy up outright the 5th largest company in the FTSE100 (British American Tobacco), or almost half of the two largest (HSBC and AstraZeneca)! Any of those three would have been a better investment for the taxpayer!

@laidback I concur your assessment. This morning we have the news "No Deal", and that was only to agree a "Memorandum of Understanding", i.e., an agreement to work towards a deal to end the conflict. This end of this conflict appears as far away as ever. Many producers are practicing capital discipline and are reluctant to increase oil production due to price uncertainty (although in the USA more rigs are being activated, production in bpd is barely changed). And demand outstrips supply. So despite the hefty fall in oil prices last week, my feeling is that it will rise back above $100. The winners will be the companies that can get their oil to market. I'd like to think HBR is well placed to capitalise on this, given the geographic locations far from SoH.

89 ships (not all tankers, I assume) isn't a lot when inventories/reserves are plummeting at the current rate. Need a sustained 30 tankers a day through SoH to meet demand. Our "friends" at GS spent last week talking oil down, today they are hyping it up https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Goldman-Sachs-Sounds-Fresh-Alarm-on-Global-Oil-Stockpiles.html .

@Property1 That list does indeed list the most valuable companies BUT i think it ignores WHERE they are listed. So ARM Holdings is 4th in that list, BUT it's listed on the NASDAQ, and hence ineligible for inclusion in the FTSE 100. There are a few others, so we are higher in the FTSE listings than might appear from this list.

@Property1 The LSE lists to compare are here: https://www.londonstockexchange.com/indices/ftse-250/constituents/table and here: https://www.londonstockexchange.com/indices/ftse-100/constituents/table . Updated at the end of each trading day.

As of last night HBR is marginally above ITH and sitting at the top of the FTSE 250. Valuations on these two are so close these places can, and do swap around at the whim of the daily share prices. HBR at 4.752bn puts us just below KGF who are currently 81th in FTSE 100. So HBR is currently 82nd, and @Sekforde is correct.

@Nacho99 that's the kind of t/o premium I'd be looking for ... i.e. north of 410p for HBR. I'm prepared to wait it out.

@MiHK Has any Labour government ever "face[d] economic reality"? There seems to be two strategies: "Tax the Rich/Billionaires" and "Tax Business, especially those that are price-gouging 'hard-working families' ". A thirty-second, back-of-envelope calculation would reveal that "Tax the Rich" will never provide much towards the £1.2 TRILLION (IFS data, soon to be £1.4 TRILLION according to OBR) that Govt spends each year. So that only leaves UK business to take the hit. And when Labour makes a hard left turn, it'll just get worse.

Is it at all conceivable that the companies with big HBR holdings might change their strategy and decide to keep their holdings? Or are they committed to offloading their holdings? A lot has changed in the world in the last few weeks...

@clued Unfortunately oil companies ARE cast as the villains as @Sekforde suggests. It's "convenient" for politicians and activists. This today on BBC: "Once again, fossil fuel giants are pocketing monstrous profits while drivers are being squeezed at the petrol pump and households are set to pay higher energy bills. The answer is clear: strengthen the windfall tax on these indefensible profits" when it could/should read "Once again, the UK treasury is pocketing monstrous taxes".