Member Info for Love_You

I've had ten years experience of the financial markets. To any newbies I would say this. Share prices are political bets. When a company is in favour with the markets then having unsustainable amounts of debt is fine and won't prevent the share price rising. As soon as a company wants to shrink and to shed staff then suddenly the media is full of stories saying how it has too much debt. If you look at it rationally these stories are just not justified. BP have over $45,000,000,000 in net debts. Royal Dutch Shell has over $78,000,000,000 in net debts. Yet if a company like RBS needs half as much in new borrowings, such as a mere $25,000,000,000, suddenly it has too much debt for the financial markets to lend to it. Anyone who understands basic maths can see this is clearly a nonsense. However, what does make sense is that it is political - if a company is in favour then growing the debt is okay - once they are out of favour politically then suddenly debt becomes a dirty word (such as being referred to as toxic). But remember when borrowings are being increased by "in favour" companies it is referred to as normal, as positive, as natural .

The whole point about a monetary system was that it was meant to remove political bias from the economy. Therefore when people took rational financial decisions it meant the economy would grow in such as a way as to provide the greatest good (given the imperfect nature of any system). However, the financial system when allowed to function without political interference will definitely serve democracy far better than the current state of affairs. The problem is when the financial system does things politicians don't like they say the "tail is wagging the dog" and they start to interfere. However, by interfering they are interfering in the best system that has ever been thought up by humans for doing the greatest economic good. After 6,000 years of thought by the best scholars and philosophers nobody has come up with a better system than an economy based on a system of payments based around tokens (yes all currencies can be described as a sort of token). The trouble is someone makes a bad decision - i.e. they regret giving so many tokens to person A in exchange for a car - and then they get a bank to lend them more money instead of trying to provide person A with something they would be willing to pay some of their tokens for. Hence in effect the number of tokens in the system keeps increasing too rapidly whilst most of the time nobody is getting what they really want. This is a ridiculous state of affairs just because it is easier for politicians to interfere and tell other people they know better than themselves what is good for the,

The other problem is the fractional reserve banking system. In effects banks can just say we are only going to lose 10% of our tokens hence we can lend out 10 times as many tokens as we have. Then next year a new CEO can come along with new assumptions.

I agree with what you say Manyana. However would you kindly answer these six questions please Manyana:

(1) We could have given PVR better advice back in 2013 about the best strategy for maximising returns to all stakeholders in the company. Yet have PVR been interested in our opinions? Have PVR offered us a reasonable remuneration for our advice?

(2) Have PVR ever shown any willingness to apologies for when they get things wrong?

(3) Is PVR going to apologise to us for ignoring sensible advice and instead pursuing a strategy that has left everybody worse off except for their board of directors?

(4) Will PVR apologise to the 5.5 million hardworking Irish people for screwing up the Irish economy by failing to monetise Barryoe whilst oil prices were much higher

(5) Does PVR care about the citizens of Ireland or the Irish economy? If so why didn't they team up with a cash rich oil company such as Exxon Mobil to develop Barryoe back in 2012?

(6) Out of the 450 million European and Irish citizens why should anyone care that PVR ignored good advice and instead lost most of their stakeholders 95%+ of the money they invested in them?

I agree that there are too few investable companies. But that is the fault of the financiers who only want to lend to people with big egos instead of more humble people....nor did they learn anything from "too big to fail in 2009. Business is all about knowing good ideas from bad ideas - but financiers seem to want to lend to bullies. Instead for society to be healthy they ought to be lending to people who come up with better ways of doing things, better services, or better products.

But whenever I approach people with my business ideas they won't lend me the necessary money. I agree that there are too few investable companies. But that is the fault of the financiers who only want to lend to the biggest companies....they didn't learn anything from "too big to fail in 2009" - they still think being big means lower risk when in reality the size of a company has nothing to do with the risk to your capital - business is all about knowing good ideas from bad ideas.

Major investors in the company, which has seen its market capitalisation fall to £192 million, include British money manager Neil Woodford, who this month suspended his flagship fund.

There is also too much fraud and corruption happening - it will make society so unstable it will fall to pieces like shaking a dried-out badly made table.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-kier-group-restructuring/kier-to-sell-housing-businesses-cut-1200-jobs-and-suspend-dividend-idUKKCN1TI0IN

Who decides that the debt levels are too high? That is the question you should be asking yourself.

If you're happy to lend my mate £2 million then why is it okay for him to have £3 million in debt and yet you tell me that my debt limit is £1 million. Everywhere I go what I say makes more sense to the majority of people than what my mate says. Why are you happy to lend him another £2 million but not myself?

Yes some things need saying indeed. Which is why I'm also posting my post below.

The government wants all jobs doing for them at less than their economic cost. Sensible companies would refuse government work as it is only losing shareholder value. However, maybe if you turn down government projects which have zero profit margin then you may not get a better opportunity for a while...and what would you do with all your employees in the meantime? The problem with the UK at the moment is that nobody seems to care about shareholders losing money ...currently the number of listed companies going into administration make it far too high a risk compared to other options for your money. (Although owning shares has never been without risk....the past few years has seen a ridiculous amount of financial fraud and corruption at UK-listed companies).

BoomerBower - do you love your fellow UK citizens? Would you like it if they all disliked you?

Trees are sustainable. After you cut down one field you just replant it with new saplings. Hence with proper economic management there can't ever be a shortage of trees (and therefore never a shortage of paper).

Good. I'm glad that there is enough self-awareness to realise each individual is insignificant. However, society is a wonderful thing. Out of millions of people a lot of good things will be achieved so long as people don't give up their autonomy just because they are scared of falling foul of some regulation or other - especially when these regulations are only designed to benefit a very small percentage of society. All for one - and one for all.

If people really want to move money out of China they could stuff a rucksack with cash and drive a quadbike over a dirt trail out of the country. Alternatively they could buy a light aircraft and simply fly out of the country through mountain valleys. Another way to move money out is to buy Bitcoins as they a global currency without borders.

Let's just be honest - money is global. If someone really wants to move their money to another country then they stand a very good chance of doing so. Half the time it would not even be in the authorities own self-interest to prevent it. The other 48% of the time they would be successful in avoiding anyone who wanted to prevent it. Maybe 2% of the time it may get stopped. Hence if they are smart they would move their money in several batches so most of it will get to where they want it to go.

Objectively bad economic decisions can not be stopped because however much you warn people, "this is not in your long-term interest" they don't care if it is in their "short-term interest." Often they will become defensive and question whether your expertise is really greater than theirs. Also, politicians have zero influence on the economy - that's why they are paid less than 0.001% of what clever people like Mark Zuckerberg earn. If any politician could influence the economy then why aren't they earning $1 Billion a year like Bill Gates used to earn?

What I find amusing is that I can't change anything. When politicians make objectively bad decisions then whoever it benefits won't go on record to say that although it will benefit me personally it is objectively a bad decision for the future of society. Ergo objectively bad economic decisions can not be stopped because however much you warn people "this is not in your long-term interest" they don't care if it is their "short-term interest."

Yes but consumer spending is multiplied. i.e. if the teachers pays the hairdresser they might pay the fishmonger who might pay his electricity bill and the electricity company might may their employees and those employees might pay the butcher and the butcher might buy a new car. Hence if you add £10 at the start of this chain, and if the chain of spending works, then it would be recorded as consumer spending of £600.

Hence if PPI is £340 million per month then we have to multiply this by 60 to find out the true positive impact it generates on consumer spending.

Hence the true impact of PPI on consumer spending is £60 billion per quarter. So remove PPI and you might have an 18% decline in consumer spending as a consequence!

Why change a god thing PokerChips.

France has what I would like to see in the UK. A maximum 35 hour working week. There is not enough work - fairest way is to share it around by limiting the hours.

France has a good lifestyle: good food, good wine, plenty of holidays, good patisseries. There pilots are the highest paid in Europe because as soon as EasyJet tried to being their pay inline with the rest of Europe they went on strike (an EasyJet employee told me this firsthand).

I'm not saying the French are fair. I'm just saying what they do works - it's in their own self-interest so to speak. Why should they accept lower wages when almost every time their employees go on strike the company involved decides not to implement the proposed new policies and pay.

Of course these are sweeping generalisations - but that's the best that any one person can do when the economy comprises tens of millions of people.

However, I would like to see the UK become more like France. Support the workers. Everyone is in it together. Everyone is going to become better-off together. I hope the next UK government takes this attitude as the current government tries to pit some people in society against other groups in society. One day those groups will wake up, unite, and turn on the people who thought they could profit by causing harm to others. The way to profit is to produce something and to contribute to society. We should become more like the French - one for all and all for one. The UK is going to ensure everyone benefits - we all get more of what we want - no one should be left behind - that's what a growing economy could do with the correct attitude from the government.

How can you say those comments. You're a disgrace. Personally I hate to see anyone lose money. Everyone has their reasons why they think the price should be cheaper or more expensive. If they get it wrong it could be because based upon the facts they had available (different to your perhaps), or due to their education (different to yours), or due to bad advice from financial professionals. Everyone has their own belief system - all your comments tell me is that you are possibly
(a) Trying to wind others up - which is a stupid thing to do when you are one just one person out of all of society.
(b) You perhaps really believe you ought to justifiably have a big ego this morning just because you made money on this occasion.
(c) You genuinely mean what you say in which case good luck with finding any true friends in life. People who like you because you can afford to pay for everything are not actually true friends who will be there in the bad times as well as the good.
(d) You really don't even understand that it is not exactly smart to believe your belief system is the only one which is "correct." How would you then discover if there are other belief systems which better fit the beautiful nature of the world we live in. Or don't you think people who choose to go and meditate on a hill all day are just as beautiful as those who choose to try and help the economy by adjusting the prices of financial instruments to create a better economy?

I just think when the US has over 8,000 nuclear warheads, and better guidance technology than any other country, then it can pretty much do what it likes. Would you like to see Ireland obliterated? Ultimately you have to decide how much of what you read elsewhere is fantasy and how much is actually real but irreconcilable with the world you have created from your own beliefs. In theory I hope it is possible to create a world with zero inconsistencies - but the more people are involved the harder that becomes to do. There, that's something for you to mull over with a good irish whiskey or pint of Guinness.

Surely it's time for the UK to get young people involved in producing cheese, home-made pickles, ale, grouse shooting, Jaguar restoration etc. rather than wandering the streets looking to massage their own egos by swearing at people who built all the roads, hospitals, schools, libraries etc. All the infrastructure has been provided - truly the younger generation of this age is the most blessed of any generation in their youth. All the infrastructure for an amazing quality of life is already in place - all the young people have to do is to produce the goods and services they want, and to keep the economy ticking over at a decent click. Ultimately the government can't be responsible for everything - that line of thinking was always a fallacy - so it's time for entrepreneurs to step up and to make the UK great again in the words of BJ.

Would you rather be invested in a natural resource company paying a dividend of 12p per year with less than $200,000,000 of debt (Genel Energy) or a natural resource company paying a dividend of 7.5p per year with more than $2,000,000,000 of debt? (Kaz Minerals). Also, the market capitalisations (the current market valuation of all the shares issued by the companies) are for Kaz Minerals: £1,860,000,000,000 versus for Genel Energy: £515,000,000.

Hence you've got to pay over three times as much to own the same percentage of shares in Kaz Minerals compared to Genel Energy - yet you would receive only 0.6 as much in dividends in absolute terms per year (i.e. £6 instead of £10 as a concrete example). Also, you would have the problem of having to try and refinance over 10 times as much debt unless Kaz Minerals would go insolvent in the future. If you still had your shares if that happened they would become worthless. It is obviously easier to finance less debt than more debt. Hence Kaz Minerals is far riskier than Genel Energy on that basis.

However, the redeeming feature about Kaz Minerals would be if the view is takes that newly mined copper is going to fetch a far higher price premium (over the cost of production) compared to oil over the next decade. Myself, I don't think oil will be dead by 2030 - it is simply too much fun to drive sports cars - you just can't get that lovely sound and smell in an electric car. I know which I think is by far the more enjoyable driving experience. Would anyone here genuinely prefer a Tesla compared to a Ferrari SuperAmerica (that is the convertible version of the Ferrari 575 Maranello).

I won't even get started here on how the banks are completely miss-valuing companies. However, if they include the current market share prices are realistic valuations of some of the assets they either own (or are counter-party to either directly or through financial products) then truly I don't think anyone knows whether the banks are solvent or not. They may be solvent ...but only if they manipulate prices is an unfair way, i.e. further distort valuations away from "straight thinking one" and therefore further annoy the percentage of the population who expect a reasonable semblance of rationality from financial markets in terms of their valuations.

Would you rather be invested in a natural resource company paying a dividend of 12p per year with less than $200,000,000 of debt (Genel Energy) or a natural resource company paying a dividend of 7.5p per year with more than $2,000,000,000 of debt? (Kaz Minerals). Also, the market capitalisations (the current market valuation of all the shares issued by the companies) are for Kaz Minerals: £1860,000,000,000 versus for Genel Energy: £515,000,000.

Hence you've got to pay over three times as much to own the same percentage of shares in Kaz Minerals compared to Genel Energy - yet you would receive only 0.6 as much in dividends per year, and you would have the problem of having to try and refinance over ten times as much debt unless the company would go insolvent in the future and if you still had your shares if that happened they would become worthless. It is obviously easier to finance less debt than more debt. Hence Kaz Minerals is far riskier than Genel Energy on that basis.

How else could the economy thrive if people didn't invest? I don't see why people are being punished for buying shares - especially not bank shares. How could an economy function without banks?