Tiggerman have you thought this through?
Say if a million people emailed Sajid Javid or Simon Clarke. How long would it take to read a million emails? It would take me a few years and by the last one I would have forgotten what most of them said.
You may think I am being facetious by using a million emails as an example. But what about 10,000 emails. It would still take most people a few weeks/perhaps months to read that volume of emails.
Then what about the people who have created 100 email accounts? Should we take each email as a separate opinion or should we try and work out who is sending us emails from 100 different accounts?
The best method would be to turn up outside the directors house in a tractor wide enough to block the whole road and to politely ask them why they are letting the markets destroy the value of your shares.
If it was a guaranteed stop loss then the company should reimburse you.
In a way they should reimburse you anyway because they may not have explained the risks to you properly.
Also the way AIM works is pretty much to defraud investors (look at Afren and Xcite Energy as two examples) .... so they should probably reimburse you because they are running a market which isn't reputable. Any market has a duty to try and screen out unsuitable companies ...personally I don't think shares in Afren or Xcite Energy should ever have been sold in London. Why would anyone buy shares ever again?
Yes I remember Cattles, a fraud perpetrated by RBS (or at least they dreampt up a company called Cattles who would loan £40,000 to anyone who was self-emplyed and claimed they could repay it whether they could or not: most of them couldn't as the word got out that they were giving £40,000 away with virtually no checks on whether the person's self-assessment of their own income was realistic or not). What a complete clusterf*ck Cattles was.
However what concerns me here are four things which is why I never invested in the shares:
(1) How will they deal with acquifers and flooding?
(2) Some huge Potash project is going ahead in Canada so there is competition from the supply side to their project. And what is the demand for polyhalite going to be in the future? Demand forecasts for other commodities have tended to be overoptimistic in the past as Africa has remained much poorer economically than was ever expected to be the case,
(3) Shareholders have the least rights and are last to get paid some there be fraud, corruption, misstating of accounts, or any other issues which result in negative cashflows in the future.
(4) The UK is not very investable as the politicians are mad enough to think spending £80 Billion on a high speed rail line is the best use of this money when £80 billion is actually £1,500 for every person in the UK. I would prefer the government just give all 65 million UK citizens £1,500 each this Christmas rather than building a new railway which will save commuters about twenty minutes per day between Birmingham and London. For one thing the number of commuters who will benefit will be in the tens of thousands (not the tens of millions). And for another thing London to Birmingham is not a long journey. If they wanted to build a railway why not build a new line from London to Hull, Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Aberdeen.
At least that new railway would connect the future of the UK economy, the finance of London, the windturbines produced in Hull, the oil industry in Aberdeen, and Sirius Minerals Potash mine on the East coast.
I think Sirius Minerals just need to raise the money and get on with the project....the government is unpopular and clueless so don't expect any help from them as they have mismanaged the UK economy for the past decade ..... what has happened to infrastructure projects to put money in people's wallets .... the roads are full of potholes, the trains are from the 1970s, the airports haven't been expanded, the steel plants have been closed down, and the economy is a pile of junk bonds and unhappy people thinking they would be better off doing almost anything other than staring at a computer for 6 hours a day.
I think I have found a better car to offer you (should I ever make a shedload from investing in PVR).
Would you prefer the Mercedes-Benz AMG G 63 5.5 5dr ? Or would you prefer the Dark Knight below?
If you need a car longwait then I'll buy you a TVR - this one to be precise (unless you'd prefer a 4x4 or a people carrier for your family/friends?) - that's if I ever make at least $500,000 from investing in PVR. If I make less money I'll buy you a cheaper car as I can't tell whether you think people who drive cars to the beach are selfish capitalists for not wanting to walk 100 miles?
Nobody on these boards knows what will happen. The same handful of people make comments. There are 6 million citizens of Ireland and 550 million citizens in Europe as a whole. All of these people need to live, to eat, to have fun, the same as me and you. Personally I wonder if governments might lose control if the citizens knew there was plenty of oil still in the ground ...only they were not going to be allowed decent food or two cars per household.
That's what I'm ashamed of ...the government not addressing fuel poverty.
Any damage inflicted by a drone could be repaired in a few days - just turn off the taps to the affected parts - then weld the damage - then turn the oil flow back on.
Taking seriously, "it's going to take six months to fix," just shows what a false world listening too much to the media can create.
This bull market started with the closing down of most of the US steel industry, the destruction in business models/valuations of Alcan and AIG. Investors in Fannie May, Freddie Mac, Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, RBS, Lloyds were wiped out in a few short weeks in 2008.
(Larger share sales of the above companies, and others, led share prices to fall to almost zero before the market's valuations from a few weeks previously could be converted into cash, bonds, or money market funds).
There was real panic back in 2008 as I recall. Many investors had no idea that unknown tech companies were planning expansions and that these would drive the future bull market (if one can call a market driven by central banks favouring just one sector a market).
Those who had invested/(or were investing) in "normal" ideas such as insurance, housebuilding, banking, (and even the Yellow Pages) suffered financial losses of over 90%.
The last ten years (2009-2019) were almost unforeseeable from the horizon of most investors, but especially citizens managing their own money.
How could citizens have imagined back in 2007/2008 that people would pay $1,000 for a phone. Everyone back then was competing to have a bigger house or a faster car and then suddenly people wanted phones??? :o) . And how could anyone have imagine Apple would produce these phones in China and pay their employees 50 cents an hour? The 40% profit margin was driven by exploiting the Chinese. How could this have been predicted?
As a cultural note, (a footnote to a lost civilisation that was thriving before tech ruined the small businesses relying on cars rather than phones)): a phone used to just be a way of speaking with one's friends and family: to arrange a meet up for example.
Ten years ago we had no clue that within a few years people would be able to use Apps to order takeaways to coincide with their arrival at an Airb'n'b. Back in 2007, I don't think Airb'n'b even existed as a concept that anyone in the mainstream investment community would of taken seriously.
Since 2007, the number of bankrupted businesses has manyfold exceeded the new businesses created. If this has been a bull market it has been a strange one because it didn't benefit the majority of the population.
But it's been a fake bull market. The DOW is not weighted by market capitalisation. Look at the stock markets of Greece, Paris, Berlin, Rome to see the huge amount of value destruction in the markets in Europe.
This bull market started with the closing down of most of the US steel industry, the destruction in business models/valuations of Alcan and AIG. Alose investors in Fannie May, Freddie Mac, Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, RBS, Lloyds were wiped out in a few short weeks in 2008. Small investors might have been able to offload their stakes but large investors unloading caused the prices of these companies to fall to almost zero before the prior market valuations could be converted into cash, bonds, or money market funds.
There was real panic back in 2008 if people remember. Many investors had no idea that there were tech companies planning expansions and that these would drive the future bull market. Almost everyone who had invested/(or were investing) in "normal" ideas such as insurance, housebuilding, banking, (and even the Yellow Pages) suffered financial losses of over 90%.
I think the last ten years (2009-2019( were almost unforeseeable for most investors. How could citizens have imagined back in 2007/2008 that people would pay $1,000 for a phone. Everyone back then was competing to have a bigger house or a faster car and then suddenly people wanted phones??? :o) . How could this have been predicted? A phone used to just be a way of arranging to meet up with one's friends and family - I'm not sure the average person had any idea that many people would be using Apps in a few years time to book hotels and order takeaways to coincide with their arrival at an Air'B'n'B.
It all depends how you define stupid.
If a CEO says I'm going to earn $4 million a year whilst the average employee earns £26,000 per year then rationally they would not find a single employee who has their self respect plus a reasonable amount of intelligence. Ergo despite earning $4 million per year a wise person could conclude the CEO is an idiot because they have constructed an irrational world purely to satisfy their own ego. They could challenge their own beliefs ...and in a rational thought world there would be no problem in doing so.
But why would one allow oneself to think rational thoughts if one has already created an egotistical thought-world that was constructed so poorly that it would fall to pieces at the simplest of challenges from rationality? This shows the importance of good parenting within a democratic society - to ensure we teach our children that financial self-interest is not the greatest good .... that perhaps there are higher values ...values more conducive to our happiness (which is in our genuine self-interest) ...and one of these higher values may be believing in the value of thinking in a rational way for its own sake ...without allowing thoughts of self-interest to interfere with the actions that an objectively rational person would take. The basis for doing so being the belief that acting rationally without spending too long regretting that the objectively best decision is not serving one's immediate goals will be better for our species as a whole and therefore will create better lives for our children....
It all depends how you define stupid.
If a CEO says I'm going to earn $4 million a year whilst the average employee earns £26,000 per year then rationally they would not find a single employee who has their self respect plus a reasonable amount of intelligence. Ergo despite earning $4 million per year a wise person could conclude the CEO is an idiot because they have constructed an irrational world purely to satisfy their own ego. They could challenge their own beliefs ...and in a rational thought world there would be no problem in doing so .... but how can you think rational thoughts when you have created a world that would fall to pieces at the simplest of challenges from rationality?
It all depends how you define stupid.
If a CEO says I'm going to earn $4 million a year whilst the average employee earns £26,000 per year then rationally he would not find a single employee who has their self respect plus a reasonable amount of intelligence. Ergo despite earning $4 million per year a wise person could conclude the CEO is an idiot because they have constructed an irrational world purely to satisfy their own ego. They could challenge their own beliefs ...and in a rational thought bubble there is no problem in doing so .... but how can you think rational thoughts when you have created something merely to serve your own ego?
My focus is on growing the UK economy - more organic meat production, more fishing in the Atlantic, more oil and gas production (fortunately there is still plenty of oil offshore Angola, Mexico, Falklands etc) to be shipped to UK, and a more inclusive economy whereby the standard of living rises for everyone who contributes productively to energy production, food production, travel, music, fun times etc. If everyone contributed 3 days a week to the core of a good life - energy production, food production, researching happiness, healthcare and healthy living - then everyone could spend three days indulging in their own specific hobbies. The society our children will live in will be the one shaped by how we have spent our time .... that doesn't mean working super hard as then they might think hard work is a good role model ...personally i think working smart with good values is a more sensible approach....that's what I would want for the next generation.
But that's just my opinion and this is a democracy.
The people are in charge of the country. This is a democracy. If the majority want to drive cars to the beach/supermarket/weekends away, have foreign holidays, eat local organic meat and fresh fish, then that's the will of the majority.
Specul8 - I thought about that years ago. One could just assume the markets are full of lies as it is not in any company's self-interest to tell anyone else when they have found a massive new seam of gold, copper, or a large oil accumulation.
However, given that the markets are regulated, I'm just assuming the rules of the game guarantee fair play. Also in a civilised society it probably is in company's self-interest to tell the truth about the natural resources they have discovered. For example if I find a large seam of gold and I only tell a few people then one person could try and claim it all for themselves. But if I tell the regulators and the civil authorities that my company has found a large deposit of gold then it cements my company's claim to it and to get a share of the benefits from mining it.
I guess it's bound up with civil society and why civil society developed instead of humans just remaining as tribes of hunter gatherers. Dealing honestly with one another had so many benefits that I guess evolution selected those people as "fitter" and gradually they prospered whilst less honest people couldn't build up such a wealthy society and the stronger/more honest members of their tribes would have been assimilated into the more honest tribes ... and the people who were overly greedy/selfish would of died out due to not being able to build such large, powerful and wealthy tribes (which eventually evolved into massive groups of mutually cooeprative networks - or what we know of as our current civilisation of which but we as individuals are just like grains of sand which together make up a beautiful beach).
Don't people talk about other than trying to halt projects these days. What about halting the revamp of the House of Parliament? What about halting the progress of civilisation? What about halting the use of warships and planes unless there is actually a war? What about halting poverty? Why is everyone trying to halt drilling a few wells at Barryoe. What harm does would developing the oil at Barryoe do? It will put fuel in people's cars and the lorries that deliver food and medicines. Plants recycle carbon dioxide and turn it back into oxygen. Hence Barryoe would only do good - good for the economy and it would be climate neutral. Why isn't there more support to go ahead with it?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49654281 - Retailers shut 2,870 stores in first half of 2019 - About 16 shops are closing every day as retailers restructure their businesses and more shopping moves online.
Can't see the Conservatives winning a general election. It's an easy decision for Corbyn if he wants to be the next PM - just vote for a general election.
At the end of the day if the high street keeps disappearing voters will become more and more unhappy. The problem with online is that it is just not an enjoyable experience like going to town for a mooch around, having a coffee, and doing some shopping. I bought some clothes recently online and a pair of shorts ripped the first time I worse them, and most of the other things weren't as described (the material was cheap and horrible) and they had to be sent back for a refund.
If the government thinks forcing people to shop online by closing down the high street (due to ludicrously high business rates and allowing landlords too much protection from the law meaning cartels can be easily formed in certain towns allowing rents to increase every year despite an economy going downhill) then I think the government is wrong.
I think voters do want the high street to thrive and prosper. The government need to start cutting taxes and business rates. Otherwise I think it is going to get a large share of the blame for the shop closures and the replacement of quality shops with betting shops, kebab shops and charity shops.
Just a smokescreen to obfuscate how bad the UK has become as a country for the vast majority of its citizens and the government still takes no responsibility for robbing people's pensions, for allowing the financial markets to fleece people with impunity, and for spreading a load of bull about climate change being a worse threat to people's quality of life than economic poverty.
The trouble is the market has sold a lot of companies down the toilet over the past decade: patisserie valerie, debenhams, carillion, rbs, lloyds, barclays, afren, thomas cook, xcite energy, etc. to name just a small percentage of the shareholders which have lost 90% plus (mostly been financially wiped out completely).
I don't think anyone could trust the city of London anymore, and the government wants to know why the UK's reputation is in tatters - it's because the directors don't seem to think they owe any duty to ensure the market does not manipulate their share price miles away from fair value. To my mind capitalism works best when people don't get rich from manipulating prices to silly places. Unfortunately the city manipulates everything it can to make a quick buck - but I doubt anyone in the global economy could say London was a reliable place to do business. I hope the politicians get angry with the city again like they did in 2008 - capitalism can't continue if the city keeps behaving like this .....
Glad to get that off my chest. I wouldn't know about the directors lifestyles ....however they must have very strange mindsets to think they needed to get the Chinese involved when their are tens of thousands of people in Ireland who would love a well-paid job helping to extract the oil from Barryoe.
Best wishes ranger4.
Levis I would agree it's hardly the banks fault if someone takes out a loan and then makes a bad decision. I would even agree that this could be summed up as a snowflake society. However, I slightly disagree about the solar power market and how it has been structured. This market was structured so as to hugely financially reward the early adopters and to enable them to generate 300-400% financial returns from installing solar panels. I think was rather unfair personally because a lot of people would not have wanted to risk borrowing £12,000 to install solar panels on their roofs. And hence it tended to benefit the wealthy who could afford to spend £12,000 from their savings on installing solar panels. Solar panel schemes were by-and-large a massively over-generous subsidy for the already quite wealthy within society. I would say the policy was a complete failure really as the amount of homes with solar panels appears to currently be less than 0.5%. However those that did install solar panels from 2012-2014 made out like bandits making risk-free profits of over 15k if they had the 12k to invest initially (this is a profit of 125% from their investment as the initial 12k they would also get back as well). I feel sorry for the shareholders in the utility companies such as Centrica - those shareholders have in effect subsidised the already affluent eco-warriors within UK society. And one can't really say that if you'd held Centrica shares from 2002 then you'd of done okay because many people might of bought the shares in 2010 thinking the Conservatives were not really a party out to destroy the privatised energy sector within the UK. Of course with the benefit of hindsight it seems the Conservatives have sought to destroy investors/shareholders wealth whilst finding ways to funnel this money to the old boys network and to already wealthy landowners and special interest group connected through the old boys network. I'm absolutely shocked with hindsight at what has gone on in the UK since 2009. The Conservatives had me fooled in 2010 when they talked of family values, a more responsible society, smaller government, a stronger economy. The UK looks like it is doing economically far worse now than it was before they came into office - the number of boarded up shops, closed pubs, and small business closures has been truly heartbreaking for thousands of communities across this country. Personally I feel if Corbyn doesn't say much and tries to say he will undo the damage the Conservatives have done then he will win by a landslide at the next election. I really feel a significant proportion of the UK will feel the Conservatives have made the UK economically poorer not better off. Living standards have fallen as far as I can tell. Yet the opposite should of been fairly easy to achieve ....incompetence or what?